Seaeagle

But the AIM-54 seeker uses active radar for terminal homing, which is not dependant on the launching radar and perfectly capable of chasing down a manouverable target. You are probably thinking of the proposed R-27AE, but this had an ARH seeker.

I know - what I meant was that with other SARH systems, the radar separates its emission between own target tracking and target illumination for the missile seeker or use an alternate waveform(CW) for the purpose.

Well if thats how it works - I just got the impression that the initial AIM-54 didn't have datalink. I also don't quite understand how the seeker can pick its own target in SARH without the launching radar providing any other target illumination than regular TWS operation.

Actually henshao may have a point. The F-14/AIM-54 is something of a special case and I am still a little baffled about how exactly it works. But as far as I can gather, at least the initial version of the AIM-54 used semi-active radar for midcourse guidance(not INS/datalink). So I guess it employs a combined SARH/ARH seekerhead for the purpose, where the radar injects alternate target illumination(not sure whether PD or CW) for selected targets in TWS in order to guide the AIM-54 into target proximity after which ARH seeker mode is activated for terminal homing. So I guess there could be a case for thinking that an RWR could detect this(midcourse guidance).

My point is that there is very little technical documentation(only very general stuff) on the Sukhoi site itself. Whether they managed to get it through contacts with Sukhoi I obviously don't know....but I have my doubts.

Well I hope they got more than that - not exactly usefull sources for PFM development......but maybe it could explain the idiotic comparison with the MiG-29K in the DCS Su-33 manual :D

Agree :)

Cannot help you with the deficiencies of the DCS manual. But here are a few figures I remember having seen in RL charts concerning Su-33 maximum take-off weights; - at windspeed of 0 m/s(corresponding to no wind and stationary aircraft carrier); short take-off run: not permitted long take-off run: 27,5 tons - at windspeed of 15 m/s(corresponding to no wind but aircraft carrier moving at full flank - 29 knots); short take-off run: 30 tons long take-off run: 33 tons(max TOW) Not exactly exhaustive, but the above would constitute worst and best conditions, so I guess you could use those as pointers and adjust your payload for conditions that fall between them.

Correct. IOC stands for "Initial Operational Capability", which actually means that development has only reached the bare minimum of requirements as opposed to FOC("Full Operational Capability"). Whether something has the status of "in service" is an administrative decision that can occur(often does) while a platform type is still only in IOC and it has nothing to do with the amount that has been built.

Yes and minor cockpit modifications(the ALE-39 is probably the biggest issue). I doubt it would be much of a problem to do the AAS-38A pod on the basis of the ATFLIR. For external target designation it would need the separate ASQ-173 laser spot tracking pod though. Indeed - aside from the above, its mostly a question of removing stuff and restricting payload options for a "mirror" F/A-18C entry.....which, come to think of it, is already there(the old AI one). But I think we are getting too off-topic now(even more so than with the MiG-29K/M)

Agreed - early 90s versions of the Viper and Hornet would be very doable on the basis of the current mid-2000s ones. For the Hornet, you could do a Lot 16(from 1993) and practically retain all main features; same external model same NVG compatible cockpit(introduced from Lot 12) - except MPCD(instead of AMPCD), ALE-39 panel(instead of ALE-47) and no HMD controls. same Sju-17 ejection seat and OBOGS(from Lot 13) same F404-GE-402EPE engines(from Lot 15) same APG-73 radar(from Lot 16) ....while still being fully compatible with scenarios throughout the 90'ies. Would need the ALE-39 CM system to be modelled and an AN/AAS-38A Nitehawk pod instead of the ATFLIR, but otherwise we already have era compatible armament.

I have no idea, but I doubt it - I guess this is down to improved deck logic coded for the new Kuznetsov entry.

This is highly dependant on the chosen mode - If you are using the HPRF scan mode("encunter"), then thats what you should expect, but Interleaved("automatic") or MPRF("pursuit") and especially close combat mode should work. Btw also check antenna elevation.

Launch positions 1 & 2 are for light loads(up to normal take-off weight), while for heavy loads(up to max TOW) position 3 must be chosen. But the speed of the aircraft carrier and travel direction(against the wind) are important factors, so you could try adjusting these to give the AI Su-33s better launch conditions.

+ 1000 It was a *lot* more modern - most of the features associated with the new MiG-29K(9.41) already existed with the old 1990 9.31 version.

Yes "ILV"(for "Interleaved") also known as "Automatic" is a search mode that alternates between HPRF and MPRF and as such is attributed with a lower head-on detection range as compared with the pure HPRF "Encounter" search mode. In the MiG-29, the "scope" is scaled to a max range of 150 km in "Encounter", while its 100 km in "Automatic".

Exactly. The switch is in question(on the MiG-29 radar panel) is labeled "АП"(up position), "ОТКЛЛ"(center) and "АПК"(down position). I must admit I haven't tried to find out what the abbrivations stand for, but I once found a description of what they do - basically as you said, the switch is for setting how the radar handles ECM, but as far as I can remember it specifically mentioned SNP submode. Well thats what I was referring to earlier about the accuracy of the mode setup in DCS. I.e. that rather than SNP being a completely separate radar routine(like in DCS), In the real aircraft it is included as a submode under main search mode with automatic transition between each step of the entire targeting sequence(search, tactical analisys/target priorisation, single target track and attack). But as I believe we have discussed at an earlier point, there is apparently a manual option to remove SNP functionality from the targeting sequence by the SNP/PPS - ZPS switch.

As far as I can gather both the MiG-29 and Su-27 should not necessarily be forced out of SNP due to ECM. There is a three-way switch on the radar panel for the purpose - IIRC something like; "off" - default position, one position for "normal tracking" only (ignoring jamming contacts) and one for jamming contacts only(ignoring anything else). So it looks like in the off position, the radar attempts to resolve any contact on the scope and as such may be highly suceptible to ECM, while in the other positons it either filters out contacts that cannot be resolved due to interference or concentrates on those exclusively and attempts to track them by their strobes.

That sounds odd - it should be the other way around. The longest detection range should be obtained in "Encounter"(HPRF) search mode, while TWS(SNP) involves tracking which is less than detection range - IIRC this is set to some 80% of detection range in DCS. Hmm - the radar cannot scan the full azimuth range, but needs to "slice" it up into zones(left, center, right), which is set manually and AFAIK this also applies to TWS - i.e. the radar scans the same volume of space in TWS as in search. As mentioned above, I don't think thats the case. It just precludes the use of TWS(which btw probably shouldn't be the case IRL) and denies range information in search modes. It probably should, but then the question is whether the mode setup is correct in DCS. Yes radar settings that are set by knobs on the radar panel in the RL aircraft should stay, but then I guess that also requires the whole radar functionality to be overhauled.

Well thats how it was described for the N010 and, from the corners of my mind, also for the N011 - the antenna design looked identical as well. But I wonder whether it was purely mechnical in azimuth though - the azimuth skew limits were stated as being +/- 85 deg and up to +/- 90 deg. "in some modes"(probably close combat), which seems hard to achieve with purely mechanical scanning(room for the antenna inside the radome). So I could imagine that it could be a case of a "more normal" mechanical antenna deflection of e.g. +/- 65 and 70 deg respectively with a further 20 degree electronic beam deflection relative to the antenna. Yeah but the Su-57 HUD footage does look quite different to your Su-30 shot though and I am still not quite sure how to interpret it.....nor about the accuracy of DCS's SNP2 mode representation for that matter. But anyway, I looked around for information on the N011M "Bars" and noticed that the specs currently stated for it(by NiiP), differ from their previously published ones - e.g. the max number of simultaneously tracked and engaged targets have increased to 25 and 6 respectively, and apparently it has undergone an upgrade since its first introduction with the Su-30MKI for India. My impression is that the "Bars" has been a sort of long term WIP project, where it initially was all about the PESA antenna itself(just fitting it on the N011 block) and then gradually improve on the complex as such to take full advantage of its potential. The new N035 Irbis is also heavily based on the Bars and several of its features were first tested on an experimental version of this - e.g. such as fitting two separate high output emitters(with a combined peak of some 20 Kw).

Yes I guess that could work, but I still think also alternating the frequencywould make more sense. Why is it odd to mention a feature that doesn't exist for the aircraft the manual is teaching the pilot to operate?.....and couldn't get unless the entire radar complex is replaced? Yes fair enough, but I think this needs to be investigated a little further. Ok yes that sounds plausible.

I kind of doubt that the R-27 was developed for a radar design that didn't exist at the time. Its possible that the initial ambition was to have a PESA for the Su-27, but the hybrid design you mention was the very N011, which was introduced with the Su-27M(Su-35) in the late eighties(and in turn is the basis for the N011M "Bars"). A similar design(N010 "Zhuk") was developed by NiiR for the MiG-29M(and -K). Sounds a little theoretical. But anyway, what I wrote earlier: [quote]Besides, I am sceptical whether this should be the case for any Su-30 version including those that have an actual phased array radar(N011M Bars). As far as I can gather, the more modern Russian radars have the RVV-AE missile as the primary AA weapon with the operation modes "built around" it, while support for the earlier R-27R/ER missiles is provided as a back-up feature by including a separate deployment mode/routine imported directly from the previous generation of radars - i.e. sort of the reversed of how the RVV-AE was back-fitted to those. [/quote] ..was exactly based on what I have read about the N010 and N011 radars. Since the "Bars" is based on the latter(mounting a PESA directly on its hydro-mechanical drive) and otherwise doesn't seem to have undergone much re-development for the purpose(unlike with the newer Irbis) - e.g. retained the max number of simultaneously tracked and engaged targets of 12 and 4 respectively, I got the impression that the control system was pretty much retained from the N011. Wrong address mate.

Yes I have read this before in advertising material for the R-27 missiles, but you must admit that it sounds odd to mention such a potential use in the MiG-29 manual and then immedeatly after acknowledge that the SUV in question(which the missile was designed for) "currently" doesn't support it. Not least when indications are, that the basic radar design is poorly suited even for "dual engagement" with the R-77/RVV-AE. I will maintain that the actual reason for this dual channel setup in the SUV-29 and -27, is for controlling two missiles against the same target. The whole thing is time multiplexed - the radar also needs to "time share" its emission between "own" target tracking and missile support(radio correction and target illumination), since there is only the same PD emitter for the purpose. So of course this must also be the case for the two M-link channels. But I don't see how the in-flight missile could know which "time slot" it is "reading" unless they are separated by transmission frequency. Interesting find - not sure what exactly to make of the symbology, but I will admit that does indeed look like two targets being displayed. How would that work though?

Yes it is. No its limited to engaging a single target in STT mode with one or two missiles. No. Any N001 radar can track up to 10 targets at a time in TWS mode and engage a single one of in STT. What the N001V provided, was a separate TWS mode specifically for the RVV-AE misssile, where missile engagement can be performed directly from this(without transition to STT). Interestingly it turns out that the "default" setup of this mode only supports engagement of a single target at a time, but can be expanded to "dual engagement" capability if the customers so desires. No as mentioned above, the added TWS mode can be expanded for simultaneous engagement of two targets with RVV-AE missiles. Hogwash What? The limitation of mechanically steered radars is that they cannot scan quickly enough between targets to provide illumination for missiles' terminal SARH operation - hence the need for STT. ARH missiles do not need terminal target illumination, since they have their own onboard emitter and only need to be guided into the general direction of the target while this is outside seeker acquisition range - and for this TWS mode is adequate.

Source? No the launching system was designed from the beginning to be able to control two missiles in flight against the same target for increased PK(something you also often find with SAM systems). Why would the missile itself need any particular "dual engagement capability? - the seeker unit is simply tuned to a particular frequency set. Exactly - a channel separation which is provided, so the first launched missile can recieve target illumination support on one frequency as it closes within seeker acquistion range, while the second in-flight missile gets radio correction on a different frequency . This is necessary because each M-link channel can only provide one type of support at a time - i.e. either radio command or target illuminaton. The R-27R/ER were designed specifically for the N019 and N001 radars, for which the entire targeting procedure ends up in single target track mode for missile engagement, so "why would you even think" that "dual targeting capability" was a thing? I already answered that question in my previous post. What makes you think that it was... other than "it makes sense because it is possible"?. I have not seen such a feature mentioned in connection with the Bars radar. Conjecture - you are again jumping to the conclusion that multi-engagement with SARH missiles is a fearure of the Bars radar, because a phased array radar could potentially do it. Irellevant. The N011M Bars radar was a further phased array development of the N011(slotted array) for which the R-77 was the primary A/A weapon - the fact that the Russian airforce didn't procure the R-77/RVV-AE and thus had to make do with the old R-27 missiles until recently has nothing to do with how the radar was designed. Besides, the N011M Bars only reached operational status in connection with the Su-30MKI export order for india(which also involved the RVV-AE missile).