Seaeagle

For a start the MiG-29K was a naval variant of the MiG-29M and as such it had the same refined airframe with redesigned FOD system and increased internal fuel capacity, new improved wing design, FBW control system, more powerful and fuel efficient RD-33K engines(with a digital control system) and the same "multirole" system's complex. The main differences between the MiG-29M and MiG-29K are that the MiG-29K had; - foldable outer wingpanels, bigger trailing edge flaps and increased overall wingspan(11,99 m) leading to an increased wing area of some 42 m2. - emergency thrust regime for the RD-33K engines, which temporarily gave an extra ~ 200 kgf AFB power(for a total of some 9000 kgf) for carrier take-offs. - slightly decreased internal fuel capacity compared to the MiG-29M - 4490 kg vs. 4560 kg. - retractable in-flight refuelling probe. - More "beefy" landing gear. - Arrestor hook instead of drag chutes. - more sophisticated navigation system. You are right that the -M and -K gained some 2 tons of empty weight compared to the "baseline" MiG-29 and that the extra wing loading caused the G-rating to drop from 9 to 8, but your impression of what this means in terms of agility and performance is just nonsense. MiG-29K at MAKS 2003: As far as "heavier multirole avionics" - well I don't know, but e.g. the weight of the N010 "zhuk" radar was around 250 kg versus some 380 kg of the baseline MiG-29's N019. At any rate even the initial MiG-29M and K from the late eighties were completely redesigned inside out compared with the old MiG-29 and infinitely more capable and versatile. Besides, I don't see what all this has to do with what I said about the looks of the different MiG-29 versions.

IMHO the ~ 1990 test versions of the MiG-29M and K are the best looking MiG-29 versions made :) . But except for the MiG-29SMT(with the humpback), I don't see how any of the "newest" MiG-29 versions are ugly - quite the contrary.

LOL....really?. I wonder why being a "pure fighter" is a disqualifying factor for the F-15C, while being a pure "mud-mover" clearly isn't for the A-10. Yet another one of those bombastic claims, like there being no demand for a MiG-29 or Su-27 or any other Russian aircraft "in the west". But I guess this explains the equally unfounded claim that the popularity of FC3 is merely down to "easy accessibility".....since all the fighters included in this apparently are "low demand products".

Ah yes thats a good point - I didn't consider that. That would explain why only a single one is carried on the rack in the photo.

No the MiG-29 always had compatibility with the R-60 and if anything it would actually be the R-73 that could be in question - IIRC early on the aircraft was exported with the R-60 and R-27R only(no R-73).

The correct designation for the rack in question is МБДЗ-У2Т-1(makes it easier to find information on it when searching the web). I found this comprehensive technical description on it; https://studopedia.su/16_40809_ustanovki-raketno-bombardirovochnogo-vooruzheniya.html Chapter 3(starting near the bottom of the page). From what I could make out, the rack can support 2 bombs of 50 - 500 kg. Apparently there are adjustable stops on the rack - one setting for 50 -100 kg bombs and another for 250 - 500 kg ones. So I wonder if the position of the FAB-500 on the rack in the photo of the MiG-29 may be using the setting for smaller bombs because only as single one is carried(for better load balance).

I believe he was refering to this: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/04/dutch-f-16-takes-cannon-fire-from-itself/ No not us :) - that accident happened in Belgium. There was another recent incident in Norway, where an F-16 accidently strafed a manned control tower.

No but there should now be doubts about how it works; It may be loosely considered an analogue of the AIM-54, but the above description is only accurate for that(and only for the C version even)... certainly not for the R-33 :)

All correct and valid points, but.. No but using Lot 20 Hornets with 2005 upgrades or F-16C Blk. 50 for 80'ies(even 90'ies) scenarios certainly is. The US military didn't spend $ billions on upgrading these aircraft across the board just for the bling, so no - just removing the most modern weaponry won't do the trick, just as sticking an R-77-1 on a baseline MiG-29 or Su-27 won't do it for present day scenarios. People often forget that it takes two to tango and the present situation means that few people can be bothered to take the "red side" in multiplayer missions - the "casual player" because they are faced with a massive handicap from the outset and the "purists" because they cannot be bothered with FC3 level aircraft. So what you end up with are missions with blue aircraft on both sides, which certainly is unrealistic - even more so than early nineties' Russian test aircraft.

Yes but then that would surely also affect other things. - e.g. the WCS issues a launch cue when target parameters(range/closure rate etc) fall within the parameters of the selected missile, so if the WCS thinks that the selected missile is a "baseline" R-77, then logically launch range would be limited to what that missile is capable of.

Exactly because they are FC3 aircraft, which come with simplified systems and no clickable functions and as such most switches and dials have no system functions to activate. Recently all FC3 aircraft got new 3D cockpits and I suppose ED just wanted to prepare them for a possible "full fidelity" module at a later point(its much easier to do animations while you build the cockpit than having to do them afterwards). The question is why they didn't activate animated switches and dials for all the functions that are modelled....I guess they just didn't want to bother with it as long as they remain at FC3 standard.

For late 80s/early 90s that would be MiG-29M(9.15), MiG-29K(9.31) and Su-27M(aka Su-35)....all test aircraft though. The MiG-29SMT didn't exist back then(the earliest version appeared in the late 90'ies) and the Su-27SM is a much more recent upgrade.

Excellent post! :) ..or F-16A block 15 and F/A-18A(any lot) for the 80' ies and F-16C block 40 and F/A-18C lot 16 for the 90'ies.

Indeed and its actually a carrier version of the MiG-29M, but maybe МаксиM was referring to the idea of just putting a hook on the regular MiG-29 - during the initial testing back in the late eighties, they did employ such an aircraft called "MiG-29KVP"(just for testing ramp take-off/arrested landing). Yes you remember correctly. The Russians have two naval fighter air regiments(24 units each) - the 279 KIAP(Su-33s) and the 100 KIAP(MiG-29K/KUBs).

Ah ok - yes that sounds plausible.

Not sure what you mean - the 25 km/30 sec limitation concerns the radio corrected portion of the flight. Basically what BlackPixxel said, although I don't think he is correct about the 30 seconds being a limitation to the INS operation as such(if thats what he meant) - AFAIK the INS is used throughout, but just fed with target information directly from the onboard radar seeker instead of the remotely transmitted one at terminal stage(SARH homing) - if there is a gap between them(radar seeker not yet having acquired the target by the time radio correction is exceeded), the INS will just continiue navigating on the last known target coordinates. Don't know about that - the only mention I have found concerns the 30 second limitation for radio correction and an overall 60 second limitation for "powered flight", which I interpret as onboard battery time, which in turn doesn't just concern the INS/SARH operation, but also the missile as such.....it also needs power for the autopilot and control surface acutators. Miss :D . Well it will continiue on INS navigating on last known target location until the radar seeker finds the target - if it doesn't, its lost. No as far as I know the AIM-7M(and sub-variants) got a more modern SARH seeker, but only the AIM-7P got a datalink...and only the last batch of those even. Anyway, the point was that most SARH missiles don't/didn't have datalink and relied on the SARH seeker finding the target by itself shortly after launch. The R-27R was quite unique in having this feature when it was introduced and I suspect it might have had something to do with compensating for an inferior radar seeker technology - at least if you compare the published specs for seeker acquition range of the the R-27R's 9B-1101K and the contemporary AIM-7M, there is a pretty significant difference in favour of the latter. I am not sure I understand what you are asking - at some point in the late eighties further R-27 developments were either cancelled(some prospective variants) or put on the backburner, because they had a new more modern design(R-77) in the works. But then came the collapse of the SU, which affected everything. So post-SU, Russia just had to soldier on with whatever they had - a situation that has persisted up until recently. When they started their re-armament programme, they obviously didn't focus their funds on trying to make 40 year old technology relevant for the 21st century. There might be some improvements in store for the "R-27" family as an interim solution until more modern missiles can be inducted in numbers, but it seems to me that most of published intentions for upgrading the R-27 "family" has more to do with Ukrainian manufacturers trying to salvage their production of an outdated weapon. Yes it does. If the max seeker acquistion range is some 25 km(against RCS=3m2), then the added INS/radio corrected phase would amount to roughly double the launch range, which is what "2x distance" means :) - also keep in mind that seeker acquisition range is depedant on target RCS. - if its less than the 3m2 specified, then acquisition range drops and accounts for less of the given launch range. Not if you buy the "50 - 75km" launch range as a realistic proposition. What BlackPixxel said - from what I can gather the radar transmits either course corrections or target illumination - i.e. not both at the same time. Also the quote you posted yourself is clearly indicating this; Nope - whats odd about it?

Yes pretty much so :) . You can also opt to use the laser rangefinder instead of the radar, but its range is limited to some 6-8 km(IIRC) so only useful for very close encounters. Both - IIRC datalink limitation is described as "up to 25 km from launching aircraft and 30 seconds of duration" Well the seeker provides more up-to-date target information and thus provides for quicker reaction to target manoevering when the missile needs it - i.e. when closing in on it at terminal stage. Essentially yes, but detonation of the warhead is down to the fuzes - the R-27 has both radio proximity- and impact fuzes, so in order to "blow up" either one or the other must be triggered....IIRC the proximity fuze of the R-27 has a detonation range of some 11 meters. Ok but I think you mistranslated the "guidance" bit though :) . Its the primary sensor for target tracking - providing the angular target coordiantes to the radar in order to cue it to look in the right direction.....otherwise how would it be able to "ping" it for range information? :) . Also at the point of missile launch, the transition from IRST to radar target tracking/missile support would take longer if the radar hadn't already been "prepped" with the target coordinates. Thats true and such a procedure does exist as back-up for some SAM systems - i.e. where optical means are used for target tracking and the radar directors being "slaved" to the angular coordiantes while "pumping out" radar energy for an inflight SARH missile to home on. But again its not meant for "stealthy operation", but merely as a way to deal with ECM - aside from the optical means being range limited(and suceptable to other forms of interference), its also less accurate and doesn't provide midcourse guidance(just pure SARH). Yeah ok - whatever :D No - don't confuse a "ready-made" target fix being transmitted(datalink) to the missile INS for the seeker's own SARH operation. The radar stops transmitting course corrections after a portion of the flight, but it obviously continiues to "illuminate" the target for SARH operation. What about the american engineers then? - they didn't provide their SARH missiles with any datalink at all :) .

You are not reading this correctly. When the WCS is operating with EOS as primary sensor and radar as secondary, the radar is basically off(not emitting) except occasionally for range meassurement(if set to do so). You cannot guide(provide miscourse guidance) to an in-flight R-27R unless the radar is operating - this information is only sent to the missile by the radar when its tracking the target in STT mode and "illuminating" the target for it. So there is no magic stealth BVR capability involved and in regards to R-27R deployment, the only difference between cooperative mode and the normal procedure is that you can "prep" the radar with EOS angular coordinates, but as soon as you launch the missile, the radar kicks in to provide the missile with course corrections and target illumination. It only receives course corrections(datalink) when the radar is operating and only for a portion of the flight, which BTW is limited to some 25 km from the launching aircraft - it does not react to datalink corrections once it has the target acquired by itself.....there is a reason why the missile has an onboard seekerhead. The IRST cannot guide anything - it dosen't emit anything....thats why its "stealthy". As the helmet sight, its meant for cueing IR missile seekers with angular target coordiantes as an alternative to radar cueing. Nonsense - aside from the hogwash about the IRST guiding the missile, the fact is that the R-27R itself is only suseptable to chaff when the SARH seeker is operating and acquiring the target - at which point its no longer under datalink guidance. The point in the "combo" is to have two different sensors on target, so that if the primary one looses lock, the secondary one can take over - if your radar gets jammed by ECM the EOS can take over as it won't or if your EOS looses lock due to changing target aspect, clouds the sun or whatever that can interfere with an IR sensor, the radar can take over as it won't be affected by the same things. :no:

Yes but leave the problem with the R/ER since these can use both types of launcher :)

The question was how much significance you can place on a single word in a sales brochure - i.e. what it actually means. You guys jump to the conclusion that their use of the term "updated PN" signifies a new or upgraded seekerhead. Its not irrelevant - for a start ED doesn't implement weapons that aren't in service anywhere and secondly, in order to implement something you need to have information about it - e.g. we know that a new version of the R-77 has entered service with the VVS, but if there isn't sufficient information available on it, then how can you implement it with any degree of realism?. Ok fair enough - it just sounded like that. Eh no - but the point is that it isn't evidence that it is operational or in service. Not exactly - it could take a long time before it actually becomes operational. There is a long list of stuff that Russian manufacturers have advertised long before it was ready in the hope that an export order would help fund final development, testing and certification. See above - I am not saying that this is the case with the R-27P/EP, but there are lots of examples, where products haven't been ready to be taken off the shelve and shipped as soon as a customer showed an interest. What I am telling you is that, in many cases, Russian arms exports have not been "typical" by your above description, but rather long term contracts and often involving some form of joint venture developments with the customer in order to get final development, testing and production funded. Thats your impression/preference.....not sure ED agrees with that. Yes unfortunately, but that doesn't mean that there are no boundries in regards to lack of realism. Well for a start you should be careful about claiming what could and couldn't happen ;) - e.g. I distinctly remember ED removing the Crimea map in favour of Georgia because it seemed completely unrealistic that a conflict between Russia and Ukraine over Crimea could ever happen.... Anyway, there is a difference between whatever scenario "end-users" can come up with in their sandbox and what equipment ED spends ressources in implementing for it. Aren't you contradicting youself now? - you just said that its a sandbox, "all fantasies and illusions" and therefore anything that the user can think of goes? Yes they are - to claim that weapons aren't part of a combat aircraft is a ridiculous statement. While I agree that 100% accuracy is an illusion, its nevertheless illogical to talk about a "sim" if it doesn't strive to be as accurate as possible. ...not to mention sea units, but... How the hell would that help?! - IMHO what you are suggeting(according to the sandbox philosophy) is part of the problem - pouring all the worlds military aircraft/weaponry of all times into the sim just makes it less and less likely that any of it will recieve the attention required for proper implementation....least of all ground and sea units. Of course its possible - in most cases thats the order in which they are employed(since the radar guided variant has much better head-on launch range). The only restriction is if fired in quick succession, you need to insert a 2-3 second delay to avoid the IR seeker being affected by the missile plume of the previously launched missile....that would obviously also be the case if this was another IR missile. What? IIRC its less than 8 seconds(the short burn R-27 doesn't even have 8 seconds of burn time). Does the game impose a delay between launches as it is now? LOL.

For crying out loud Pepin - the R-27T seeker has always used PN. What I was contesting is the significance of the term "updated PN" on the manufacturer's website....understand now? :) Yes you are - you were claiming that PN isn't implemented for the R-27T in the sim, although Chizh said some pages back that it is. At the moment I am not able to test it myself or even view your track, so I am not in any position to contest your findings. But if you are right, then it must necessarily be down to a bug and not absense of PN, since the developers say that it is implemented.

Any manufacturer will try to make their product look as good as possible and describe it in the most favourable terms. No it isn't - the website in question just lists whats on offer, but that doesn't necessarily mean that a particular weapon is fully operational and in service.

Yet you have absolutely zero idea what that means - all we know for sure is that it uses proportional navigation and thats nothing new. What "analysis"? - all I am saying is that a manufacturer claiming that something uses an "updated PN" doesn't help anyone to understand how it has been improved and thus useless for ED. So you are claiming there is a bug with PN as such in the sim - thats a completely different discussion, which has nothing to do with whether the RL missile has improved PN logic or not.

Not really - no manufacturer will state in their sales brochure, that their product is using an outdated guidance law :) . "updated" compared to what though? - compared to some previous version of the R-27T specifically or just to IR seeker technology of earlier missiles. If its the former, then how and to what extend was it updated....if you don't know, then how can you ask ED to implement it? You guys are paying far too much attention to a single word, that could mean anything including meaningless advertising talk.

IMHO it could mean one of two things - either as GGtharos suggested, some form of APN(where "updated" could be another term for "Adaptive") or just a general brochure statement along the lines of "up-to-date" technology.