Seaeagle

It most definitely is - and from what I remember having read about the Zaslon/R-33 combination, its a rather strange mix of technological solutions. Anyway, I am not saying that "multi targeting" with R-27 SARH missiles couldn't be achieved with a phased array radar, just that it doesn't look like it was pursued - perhaps simply because these missiles are considered obsolete and the feature is provided with the RVV-AE anyway.

No not if the Su-30 variant is the -KN. 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.

Yes but the N001VEP is not a phased array set - it retained the cassegrain antenna of the original N001. However, there was a possibility to further upgrade it with a phased array antenna(called "Pero") developed specifically for the purpose.

It doesn't. The Su-30KN upgrade involved an upgraded version of the original N001 radar(called N001VEP) with added air-to-ground modes and compatibility with the R-77.

R.I.P

That sounds like a good solution to the whole "MeToo" debacle as well.

Heh yeah they do seem to have a very long list of things they want to do.

Ok so it isn't that then. I was just thinking that considering how long it has been in the works, it would certainly fit the "eagerly awaited" bit if ED had taken it over.

We don't know what goes on behind the scenes - what if Razbam gave up on it?

Ok thanks. I know they couldn't get documentation for the F/A-18E, but didn't know whether they got it for the F-15E.

For the F/A-18E or F-15E?

Spot on Jmarso.

I guess you could "calibrate" the IAS gauge to show knots by re-texturing it, but I don't think its possible to change indication on the HUD("hard coded")....at least for FC3 aircraft. Also as Ironhand said, considering that the metric system is used throughout(altitude in meters, distance in km, fuel quantity in kg etc), the question is whether its even desirable to swap "imperial" units into the mix.

For aircraft carriers in the first period, you can realistically only use CVN-71(commissioned in 1986) and maybe CVN-72(1989). For the other periods you can use any of the Nimitz class ships provided(to be provided) with the "Super carrier" module. If you want to know which vessels deployed to the Med within the specified time frames, you can check out this German site; https://www.navysite.de For escort ships, there isn't much to choose from in DCS - basically the Ticonderoga class cruisers and OHP class frigates(all decommissioned by now, but there were still some operational in 2011). The recently added Arleigh Burke class is a Flight IIa variant and in a configuration(modified funnels) that first appeared with the DDG-89(2003), so that would only be realistic for your 2011 scenario. On the above mentioned site, you can find a list of deployments of each carrier, where you can see embarked squadrons, which ships accompanied it etc - example for CVN-71; https://www.navysite.de/cvn/cvn71deploy.htm

The cutout is there on the real IAS gauge, but same color as the rest of it - see attachment. Probably just a texturing glitch

When did they say that?. AFAIK they just said that it was "a very complex" aircraft and that it was "a challenge to fly" What modern aircraft would fit with the latter? - certainly not the F-35.

Missile launch warning is one thing, which indeed may be RWR specific, but you should at least get a lock warning if your ECM forces the opponent radar into STT mode - it doesn't tell you whether a missile has been launched, but does give you a fair warning to expect one.

I think its a mixed bag I think. For already existing entries like the weapon models, I agree that it seems odd that the old ones haven't been replaced yet, although for the vehicles such as the bus and the Ural 4320-10(not a "Ural-375"), it could be down to missing damage/collision models. For new types(such as the upgraded T-72), there is also the bit about adding them the "inventory" along with their specifications. Nevertheless all pretty straight forward and doesn't explain why the models remain unused for years, so I think you are right that its just down to priorities.

Its an "artifact" from the days of Flanker 2.5 - if you look a little further up, you will also see the F-111F there. Both were removed as active entries with Lock-on, but have remained in the code.

Yeah I know - just saying that there is more to "underwater environment" than suitable water depts when it comes to submarine/ASW warfare :) Heh yeah so do I. While that is a sound argument, I don't think one excludes the other.. Apart from many issues being of universial nature, there is also a large degree of shared equipment/systems and armament within the pool of both US and Russian assets...and most of them are already working or should be working for the units already in DCS. But I agree that something like full implementation of submarine warfare(which indeed would require major new developments) should only come after the current surface warfare simulation has been improved - otherwise it would be completely overwhelming. In regards to CA, I would say that it would be better to apply missing assets and improve the basic functionality of the ones already there before starting to apply player control for them :) .

If the state requirements stipulated that there should be two crew members for acceptance trials, then there is probably a reason for it :) . I know. But then the "Counter insurgency" type of missions the Ka-50 performed in the Chechen war were probably also less demanding on the pilot than it would be on a "full on" battlefield against a pier advesary. I am familiar with the development history of the Ka-50 - the upgrades you mention only existed on a couple of prototypes, which IIRC were recycled old airframes. Sorry I just don't believe that. IIRC the Ka-50 was actually initially selected for production in the 1990'ies, but later(when the re-armament programme got underway) abandonned in favour of the Mi-28. Surely if the single-seat Ka-50 itself was considered a sound design and there was a desire to adopt it, then it would't be ditched alltogether due simply to an administrative setup of state trials a couple of decades ago. Anway, the fact is that the Mi-28 was selected, put into production and entered service, while the Ka-50 didn't...only the two-seat Ka-52 variant. At any rate, the point I was trying to make was in regards an Apache module - i.e. the notion that it wouldn't necessarily need to include proper "muli-crew" simulation(unlike for a Tornado or F-111). Considering that "Western" forces have always considered a single-seat combat helicopter a dead-end because it would put too much workload on the pilot, an Apache module that would do exactly that would obviously be an unrealistic proposition.

Thermal layers? Bingo. Sure, but if the declared goal is to make a "Digital Combat Simulator" ; ...then comparing the current implementation to what you get with other pure flight simulators is rather cheap. Good write up :) . In addition the sim lacks multiple of the most significant modern naval assets of the eighties and nineties - e.g. Pr. 956/Sovremenny class and, for ASW in particulary, the Pr. 1155 "Udaloy class"(prime Russian ASW ship), Pr. 971/Akula class, Pr. 949A/Oscar II class and SSN-688/Los Angeles class etc. Exactly. It hasn't been a priority for decades, but if it shouldn't be one "at the moment" then when exactly should it be?. I mean if the introduction of a dedicated naval fighter(Hornet) and "Super carrier, + new suitable maps isn't enough to make the naval stuff a priority, then when will it ever be......what other "profitable" naval oriented aircraft module could possible drive such a focus and where does that leave the dream "to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible"? Its already *long* overdue.

Ok There is a reason why they stuff two crew members into an attack helicopter.....and why the Ka-50 wasn't adopted by the Russian military :) . So no its not different and there is no way you could make a realistic "full fidelity" Apache simulation with only the pilot position modelled.

ROFL - seriously?. Which ASW platform can you think of that isn't at least a "two-seater"? :) Yeah - they would just need to start developing the entire naval side of the sim, which has been pretty much dead in the water since Flanker 2.5.......submarines would also be nice(especially working ones) for ASW operations :) . I think that would qualify as the understatement of the year :) .

Oh I didn't see that - I know that they said they weren't interested in the Tornado, but are you sure its because its a two-seater?. .....and the Apache. He also said that they wouldn't do the F-15C because, being a pure fighter, its a "low-demand" product.....so is anything Russian apparently. So whats left that could be considered "eagerly awaited" and not already announced/teased or refuted?