Seaeagle

Yeah I know - I just cringe when I see "Tor" and "Tunguska" mentioned in relation to ship's ADs - these are the names of particular ground AD vehicles and shouldn't be referenced just because the ship systems use the same basic missiles. LOL I know the feeling.

Heh no. You could do both for consistency - for entries with unrestricted numbers it could be e.g. "1135M (Krivak II)" and for "singletons" you could add in the name of the ship like e.g. "1144.2 Pyotr Velikiy (Kirov)". Well the project number is fine, but considering that you can add multiple ships of this class to a mission, it would be better to leave out a particular vessel name......and instead add the NATO reporting name as suggested above. Well I am not sure there would be room for such a long label :D . But anyway, IMHO the Russian designation should be first(since its the actual one) with the NATO one added for "clarification" :) .

No death threats(because it isn't your fault), but the proper names for the naval AD systems are: - SA-N-11 / M87 "Kortik" (9M311) - SA-N-9 / 3K95 "Kinzhal" (9M330) - SA-N-4 / 4K33 "Osa-M" (9M33M) - SA-N-6 / S-300F "Fort" (5V55) - Slava class - SA-N-20 / S-300FM "Fort M" (48N6 and 48N6E2) - Kirov class(Pyotr Velikiy only) So I wish ED would change those idiotic missile labels in the sim and delete the references to ground based launch systems from them - i.e. just leaving "9M311", "9M330" etc. Its even more stupid with the "Moskit" missile, which is labelled as an airlaunched variant although it only exists as an SSM in the sim - following the above naming convention it should be: SS-N-22 / P-270 "Moskit" (3M80E)....or simply "3M80E". To get a better idea of relative launch ranges for the different missile systems, you should probably change the target altitude - a higher altitude will provide more realistic engagement ranges for the long range systems(unless you just used the Hornet at that altitude to replicate an ASM?). The Kuznetsov actually has 22 "gatlings" - 2x Gsh-6-30K for each Kortik combat module(16 in total) and 6x AK-630 mounts.

How so? - the FC3 aircraft only got their PFM within the last couple of years, which completely replaced the old SFMs.

Well the missile as such is in DCS, but I guess it only exists as the air-launched variant(Kh-35), so I don't know if its possible to get it to launch from a ship.....visually it also lacks the booster section of the SSM variant.

Nice! Wrong missile type - those are Uran launchers.

Thats funny - I seem to remember another sim concerning the Il-2, which apparently did rather well. Less sense than it was to make the P-51 and throw it into modern jet sim.... in a Caucasus map?

Ok fair enough, but the Syrian map FAQs you quoted was posted by Wags. Sorry but thats just nonsense - you only need to read the Russian section of this forum to realise that. Besides, as others have mentioned, we are talking about a map.......no one is asking ED to make a campaign replicating particular events and supporting particular views on it. Personally I think its just down to ED not wanting to deal with any political BS that might appear on the forums in connection with it - which is understandable. But the "government" bogey-man as an argument for all sorts of decisions regarding Russian contents in the sim is starting to become silly. What has that got to do with game maps and politics?. If ED cannot build modern Russian aircraft modules due to military secrecy, its because they cannot obtain the necessary level of documentation for the purpose. Russia is not the only country being tied-lipped about this sort of thing.

Because it was designed for a different mission - air superiority versus point defence.

Yes thats true, but it became a necessity in order to expand the map further east into the Caucasus, the reason for which was because it seemed a more realistic area for combat scenarios than Crimea. ...so Syria by contrast isn't a politically "sensible" region? :) . I am sure you are right about ED's considerations, but the fact remains that for a map to have a realistic combat potential, it must necessarily have contested areas, which in turn inevitably comes with some degree of "political sensitivity"......just picking one that is sufficiently far from your own backyard isn't really a good argument.

Yes but AFAIK the Block 25 didn't have AIM-7 compatibility to begin with either. IIRC it came as part of a BVR upgrade performed in the late eighties in preparation for the AMRAAM.

But TotenDead the whole idea behind suggesting earlier variants of the "Bluefor" jets, is the ability to build realistic historical scenarios for the 80'ies and 90'ies. Northstar98's suggestion for the Blk 40 provides for the latter - i.e. being introduced in the late 80'ies, it would be usable for missions throughout the 90'ies. But for the same to be the case for the 80'ies, the "latest" useful variant would be the Blk 15 from around 1982, which didn't have AIM-7 compatibility - this only came with the ADF upgrade in 1989.

Ok thanks. I looked around a bit and found some other export examples - including the F-16A ADF and some later C blocks with AIM-7 compatibility(I guess because the operators culdn't get AMRAAMs for them). But all of them dates to the mid 90'ies at the earliest.

If I recall correctly, the Crimean contents was actually removed in favour of the Caucasus further east exactly because it didn't have "a political problem" - i.e. deemed less suitable for a realistic combat scenario. Thats the thing about prospective warfare maps - they tend to be contested areas.

Ok thats news to me - could you list some of them(apart from ROCAF and Egypt)? But anyway, I was refering specifically to the Block 15 in the 80'ies, since this was the rationale behind wanting this variant in DCS(for 80'ies scenarios). My understanding is that the Blk 15 ADF was the first F-16A variant that got AIM-7 compatibility......and that was in 1989(so kind of defeats the purpose of a dedicated 80'ies entry).

I was replying to Hammer-1 about what I thought your considerations were for the Blk 40, but you beat me to it

I think his point was in connection with historical mission potential. Edit: sniped

The exports weren't AIM-7 compatible either. AFAIK the only execption involved exactly the F-16A ADF - i.e. ex. US ANG airframes offered for export(to Egypt IIRC).

The real MiG-29 uses an artificial "feel" system, which is dependant on flight regime. So e.g. during landing, the flight controls are lighter and I suspect that its this replication that makes it seem overly sensitive in the sim.

Better to remove ECM as such until ED can come up with a more realistic implementation for all.

Yes I see that now - looks like TS-1 then. But as a nitpick, I don't think its the "operational available capacity", but rather the nominal capacity of the tanks.....not that it matters in this connection though. Yes I believe Yoyo mentioned this at one point.

The exact amount in kilograms depends on the fuel density - which fuel type and at what temperature. I don't know which BBCRF used for his 0.82, but IIRC for; F34/JP8 its ~ 0.8 at 15 deg. (6680L = 5344 kg) TS-1 its 0.78 at 20 deg. (6680L = 5210 kg)

No its closer to the 5220 kg you mentioned. Edit: sniped :)

Exactly.

Yeah thats my understanding as well. Ok I understand what you are saying, but I would say there it would be a very slim chance(risk) of that, since the missile doesn't even have an INS to steer it to last known intercept point - just flying straight. The question is also whether the warhead is armed/proximity fuze activated in connection with the command to activate the terminal ARH mode on the real missile. I doubt it - not the R-27R/ER anyway. The only other SARH version of the R-27 would be the R-27EM, but development was abandonned decades ago and very little is known about.