Seaeagle

There is the MiG-29UBT, which is the SMT upgrade for the MiG-29UB. Apart from the typical SMT features such as increased internal fuel load(through "swollen spine"), swing-out IFR probe and "glass cockpit", it also involves a phased array radar called "Osa", which is small enough to fit into the short nose of the original -UB airframe. Article on NiiP radars with short description of the Osa radar: 5c2956391712800d15f7cc874ea07713.pdf (niip.ru)

Sure but those are also much larger aircraft in the same class as the Su-27(which btw also has a comparatively larger antenna).

Yes it does. It has the N019 "Rubin" radar and while it could probably be said to be a derrivative of sorts, its nevertheless a much more capable radar with more modern technology. Small compared to what? - the antenna is 700 mm in diameter(larger than that of the Hornet's APG-65/73).

Ah ok - its been a long while since checked these things out in DCS, so I didn't realise that both versions were there. Those are the correct export designations for the missiles as part of the "Club" missile system. Yeah that would be fine. But I seem to remember Chizh being against implementing both domestic and export versions/designations for the same missile in connection with the R-27(e.g. R-27R for Russia and R-27R1 for other nations), so I doubt a similar suggestion for naval missiles would fare much better . Good question. To be honest I am not sure about the exact relationship between them - overall it does look like the same missile with different guidance systems. But from what I can remember looking at photos of them, there were little differences - then again both missiles come in a version for submarines and another for surface ships, so I guess that could be the reason. Agree.

Yeah I know that there was a little more to them that just pure straight running, but I still suspect that the simple code implemented for torpedoes in DCS was meant for the WWII boats and not for modern submarines - i.e. you can get away with it for the former, but for the latter it makes no sense. See what I mean? IIRC 3M54 actually comes in two versions - one with subsonic cruise- and a supersonic terminal stage, and another variant that was subsonic all the way.

I guess the torpedo code that exists in DCS was made for the WWII segment - i.e. it just straight running with no acoustic guidance.

Yes it was a long time ago(when the plans for the Supercarrier module first emerged" ), but the fact is that back then it was indeed the intention to model both the Nimitz as well as the Kuznetsov with interactive features and the new Kuznetsov 3D model was made in connection with that , so the notion that the Supercarrier module was "never about anything else other than the Nimitz class" is simply not correct. But like you said, that plan changed for whatever reason(could be commercial considerations or that ED didn't feel they had enough info on Russian carrier operations) and from that point on became all about the Nimitz class. Thanks.

Doesn't matter. The intention was there - otherwise why post a screenshot showing it with deck crew.

Yes it was. If you can find the original announcement for the Supercarrier module, you will see that it involved both the Nimitz class as well as the Kuznetsov(there were screenshots of this with animated deck crew), but they changed their minds later and made it all about the Nimitz class, leaving the Kuznetsov with only an updated 3D model.

Well it has the 9.15 airframe, but later modified with the tandem seat cockpit arrangement - first displayed as the "MiG-29 MRCA"(IIRC in connection with the Indian tender for aircraft of such class). Then later modified further into the MiG-35 prototype(e.g. had an experimental AESA radar installed). I don't know how much these modification affected weight in comparison with its original single seat configuration, but I would expect it to be somewhat heavier. For the new MiG-29M/M2 and MiG-35 versions, it should be very similar to the new MiG-29K(9.41)/MiG-29KUB(9.47) as they are all based on the same airframe.

The front aircraft is the MiG-29K (9.41) with PAZ-MK buddy refuelling pack. The one behind is the old MiG-35 demonstrator - this was built on the modified airframe of the fourth(no 154) MiG-29M(9.15) prototype. The current operational MiG-35 version is based on the same airframe as the MiG-29K(9.41) in the photo.

Well I agree that the Kinzhal system is much more modern and capable than Osa-M, but Pyotr Velikiy's S-300FM system(front radar and new missiles) is a more significant difference because the long range S-300 SAM systems(along with the P-700) is a core feature of these ships. But there are many other things that changed from the early to late units and "Kalinin"/"Admiral Nakhimov" was the first to have Kortik modules(instead of AK-630s) and Udav-1(instead of RBU-6000). IIRC only the first 4 units(1980-83) were completed without Kinzhal AD. Agree - i.e. with the URK-5 "Rastrub" system.

Yes but there is also the 3rd unit Pr. 1144.2 "Kalinin"(later renamed "Admiral Nakhimov") . This was originally commissioned to the 120th brigade of the Soviet Northern Fleet in 1988 and as such fits both the location and timeframe. Its also much closer in design/composition to the "Pyotr Velikiy". Well we have the Slava too - the second unit "Marshal Ustinov" was commissioned with the Northern Fleet in 1986 and was all but identical to the "Moskva" that we have in DCS now. But yeah a lot of important units missing - most notably(for the timeframe) the Pr. 956 and Pr, 1155 as well as some of the older types still in service at the time. But I don't really agree with the list posted by samba_liten - many of the units on this are really too old for a late 80'ies scenario.

Same aircraft(MiG-29M no 156) before the OVT modification: Yeah could be interesting.

Odd - the text says "MiG-29M", but the cover photo shows a regular MiG-29.

Sure. At the corner of my mind I remeber reading somewhere, that it was something like a 2 second interval - as I recall the source seemed credible, but not verifiable. I am afraid I cannot help you with this - US stuff isn't exactly my strong point. I know that the AEGIS system should be able to support more missiles in the air than it has illumination radars for, by timing and possibly splitting CW illumination between them initially. The AN/SPG-62 is a mechanically steered radar though, so I suspect it has more to do with ensuring target kill at optimal distance(i.e. controlling multiple missiles in the air for the same target) rather than splitting its attention between multiple targets.

I agree with what Northstar said - there is nothing classified about what weapon's systems go with which Arleigh Burke variant at a certain period in time. This is what we are talking about, when critisising the "hodgepodge" nature of several ships in DCS - i.e. that a particular variant of a ship has armament/systems that are incorrect for it or/and combinations of them, that didn't exist at the same period in time. Whether this is down to poor research on the part of the developers or a case of trying to provide some sort of "abstract" version for all purposes(time frames) I cannot say, but I think we all know that neither would be acceptable for an aircraft . The inner workings and nitty gritty performance details of individual weapon's systems, for which secrecy could come into play would only be needed for simulatng them from an operator's point of view - i.e. player control. For an AI controlled unit(including aircraft) you only need general information about sensors/systems/compatible armament and the basic performance stats published for them.

According to the Luftwaffe manual, there is a blow-back feature(to protect the brake panels and actuators), which come into action at speeds above 540 KIAS(~ 1000 km/h) - i.e. the panels will be pushed in by the force of the airflow. Altitude is also a significant factor concerning the effectiveness of the airbrake. I remember a pilot describing the effect of it in the F-16(with a similar airbrake design), saying that at low altitude it was like slamming the brake in your car, while at high altitude the effect was hardly noticable.

Thank you! - I always wondered about the meaning of those abbreviations.

I was also a little unsure about the "сброс" bit because I also only came across this as meaning "reset" but, like Fighter29 said, I realised that there are other meanings of the word - the closest ones I could find, that would make sense in this connection being: "ditch" or "dump". Anyway, the button is definately related to countermeasures - e.g. the counter for remaining countermeasures on the front panel of the MiG-29, is labeled "остаток лтц".

If you are asking about the actual Russian text printed on the throttle, then it should be someting like this: торм. щиток (brake flap/panel) <- выпус - уборка-> (extend - retract) сброс до-лтц Not sure how exactly to translate the latter - probably something along the lines of: "dump countermeasures". Anyway, you are kind of on the wrong forum section, since the throttle in the picture is from the Su-27 .

MiG-29K (9.31) No. 312.

lol The ship(Danish frigate F361 "Iver Huitfeldt") was sent to the Red Sea as part of the international coalition to protect commercial shipping in the area - the drones were dispatched from Houthi controlled parts of Yemen. I am nor sure if the drones were aimed directly at the frigate or intercepted as they were heading for nearby commercial ships though.

Maybe not, but according to some sources, the rounds were apparently ~30 years old, so maybe that had something to do with the high failure rate.

Yeah - I guess the atmosphere is always going to be rather tense in this sort of situation, but when you know about all the issues they had to deal with, it kind of put things into perspective.