Seaeagle

Yes L203 Gardeniya-1FU Heresay :) . Anyway, there are different versions of Gardeniya jammers, so even if an early version didn't work properly at one point in time, it doesn't mean that subsequent versions are dysfunctional "crap". Incorrect - there is even a dedicated control panel for it in the cockpit. I think this misconception stems from the Moldovian 9.13 airframes(later purchased by the US), where ECM compenents had been removed and replaced by counterweights before being handed over. But anyway, a little "off-topic" in relation to a possible DCS MiG-29 module, since this concerns the 9.12 which never had ECM.

Well I don't know, but I don't think so - originally, the design bureau was called "Mikoyan and Gurevich"(Микоя́н и Гуре́вич").

Yeah I always did that too, but as AlphaOneSix said, in Russian they actually do say "Sue-27". Yup - the lower case "i" in the middle simply means "and", so I guess an English translation could be something like "M&G" :)

Krtv is an "umbrella" organisation for manufacturers and they just list what is on offer - the weapons aren't always fully developed or/and operational with any military force yet.

Actually I think it does make a difference GGtharos :) . In the photo of the Su-34 that Flanker posted, the homing head on the R-27 does indeed look just like the 9B-1032 passive radar seeker as it has been displayed on various ocassions. The existence of the missile itself is not in doubt - the doubt was to what extend it is operational....or rather whether the Russian airforce acquired it. Yes. There are some vague mention here and there, but only in a rather "primitive" way and even then there needs to be an targeting logic/interface to facilitate its proper use. Yes what I have seen seems to indicate something like that, but then things have progressed since the baseline Su-27 - with the integration of the L-150 on e.g. the Su-33 and Su-27SM, its much more likely that the weapon could be used effectively since this(the L-150) has built-in interface for controlling ARMs(such as the Kh-31P) in several different modes of operation.....so I don't really see any reason why it couldn't be used for controlling an R-27P/EP as well. What I am trying to say is that I don't think this variant of the R-27 was in the arsenal of the Soviet/Russian airforce previously although it has been advertised for some time by its manufacturers, but that thisi may have changed recently in connection with upgrades/new versions of the Flanker. As with the R-77, there isn't much sense in acquiring a weapon if its incompatible(or its application severely restricted) with the aircraft at hand.

The latter.

I know where its from :)- still seems wacky to me though. Well I am glad it looks ridiculous to you too - its not the specific figures themselves, but the magnitude by which they differ from anything else I have ever seen. I just cannot see how they could radiate so much power in the first place and, as GGTharos said, how sufficient cooling could be provided. But then I am not a radar tehcnician and I really don't know anything at all about early generation Russian radars. My insight to this pretty much begins with the N019, N001 and N007 + newer sets (such as N010 and N011 variants) and for these, the figures are totally different.....the most powerful being the Irbis, which IIRC employs two separate emitters with a combined peak output of some 21 Kw. True.

Yes thats what I found as well. Neither have I. I get the impression that such improvements primarily involve electronics - reprogrammable data and signal processors and integration(fewer "boxes), while the antenna and emitter is reused....unless of course we are talking about the more recent AESA upgrades. I think Fri13 just forgot a comma on those figures for the N003 and the one for the MiG-25 is just nuts :D I know that the average power of the N007 Zaslon(MiG-31) is 2,5 Kw, which I think would translate to a peak output similar to that of the AWG-9. For comparison the N019 and N001(MiG-29 and Su-27 respectively) have an average output of 1Kw and peak of around 5-6Kw.

Wow! - never realised that it was that powerful.

Actually as I mentioned in my above post, there are several different cockpit layouts - some where there is no space at all for an RWR display on the front panel, some where they have moved TLPs and switches around, but still no sign of an RWR display, some where(as you said) there is a cutout for one, but blanked by a panel and finally one where you can see an RWR display, that has the rough dimensions of the SPO-15, but probably is dedicated panel for the L-150....probably because in the photo, the cockpit still had the old IPV and therefore couldn't display L-150 info on MFD. AFAIK this was only the case on some airframes, which further supports my impression of a long term WIP :) . I doubt it. Like I said, there are several Su-33 cockpit photos, where there wasn't even made room for it yet. If it was due to secrecy, then why not simply refrain from showing any cockpit photos at all......and why then show photos with it now? :)

For most of its service life it actually didn't have one. I think it was probably always meant to have the L-150, but for some reason didn't get it until very recently. It might be that the L-150 itself wasn't fully developed/certified back in the early nineties or/and that the economic situation immedeatly after the fall of the SU was such that there was no money for it/no appetite for using whatever there was on the Su-33 - I don't know the exact reason, but the more you learn about the Su-33, the more it appears to be a long term WIP project :) . Yeah thats a fair point, but the MiG-29 and Su-27 are not alone in that respect - the "legacy" F-18 also has its threat display in equally odd position(by the pilot's right knee). No the SPO-15 of this generation was a "stand-alone" instrument and only display threat info on the panel itself. However, I believe a digital version was developed sometime in the late ninties, where threat info could be displayed on a color MFD instead - I remember having seen a photo of this on a color LCD of a MiG-29SMT.....but interestingly it was just a graphical representation of the old SPO-15 display with the exact same layout. Yeah, but like I mentioned, I think it was just down to long term WIP. If you look around for photos of the Su-33 cockpit, you will find that nearly all of them have slightly different cockpit layouts and that there clearly were steps taken to move things around to make room for an RWR display :)

Yup - cannot argue with that :)

Interesting - I don't know much about these fighters, but are you sure about that GGTharos? From what I can remember having read in regards to the radars in question, the APG-63 has a dish diameter of some 900mm(which corresponds to your 36 inches) and a peak output of about 5 Kw. But while the AWG-9 apparently has a dish of same size(and type), IIRC the power output is *much* higher... ~10 Kw peak. Neither do I, but they did make the APG-71(for F-14D), which essentially is an AWG-9 with electronic parts(digital signal- and data processors) from the APG-70.

Its actually unrealistic for the Su-33 to have the SPO-15 in the first place :) .

Heh well ok, but I would say that it comes in the reversed order :) Hardly - you can find lots of open source information on it including an operator's manual.

What country is "keen on releasing classified info"? :D Anyway, whats classified about the Su-33? - it has practially the same onboard systems as the old Su-27, while the main things that sets it apart from this(flight characteristics/carrier related systems) are already simulated pretty well with the new PFM.

Or that the combination of how well it will sell vs. the required development effort makes them think it will be profitable. :) There could be a number of reasons. For one the above mentioned "equation" may not seem nearly as attractive for a MiG-29 - i.e. if the sales potential is deemed roughly the same as for the Hind, but the development effort is several times higher. Then there is the question of whether they can get a license from MiG(differnent companies have different policies in this regard) and whether they need one for legal reasons - and in the case of the -SMT in order to get proper documentation to make it, which in turn might not even be possible(if too much of it is classified).

Whats that got to do with anything? - ED is also Russian based and got licence agreements for both the F-18C and(I presume) the F-16C. We were talking about licensing in connection with Russian made aircraft.

Or maybe its the other way around. AFAIK ED is partly foreign owned, so maybe thats the problem - i.e. if they fall under the law about having to register as "foreign agents", obtaining contracts with Russian athorities/state owned enterprises could perhaps be problematic. Anyway, I don't know what the deal is - it does sound odd if a developer outside Russia would have a better chance of obtaining a licence than one residing in Russia......but then IIRC ED only talked about "a third party" and that could also be Russian.

No sorry, I don't have any links handy, but you should be able to find this information if you look around. But going by memory, a few other features I can remember is that the system is highly automated with a very short reaction time. It has two radars - one for initial target detection/prioritisation and another(phased array) for target/missile tracking and missile guidance. There is also an optronic(TV) back-up sight, with which the operator can autotrack the target and thereby feed the system with the angular coordinates of the target in case the targeting radar is affected by ECM. The 9M330 missile is "cold launched" - i.e. is ejected by a catapult device in the launch container and oriented into the direction of the target by a thruster in the nose of the missile before the rocket motor is ignited. The motor is a two-staged boost/sustain type. It can intercept targets travelling at up to 700 m/s and with a G-load up to 10. There is of course alot more to the system, but the above and the radio command guidance system I described earlier should at least account for the basics of how it works :)

Like I mentioned earlier, the Tor uses a radio command guidance system(similar to that of the Tunguska) for the 9M330 missile. The system tracks both the target and the inflight missile(via a beacon on the missile), based on which the targeting computer calculates course corrections required by the missile in order to intercept the target - these(course corrections) are then transmitted as simple steering commands to the missile. The missile itself has no "brain" and is essentially controlled in the same way you would control an RC toy. It is equipped with a radar fuze for the warhead, for which(IIRC) the range can be set remotely, so I guess that it can also be triggered to detonate(self destruct) if the launching system(or its operators) deems that the missile no longer has the ability to intercept the target.

It does not - the guidance method is radio command and the missile has no seekerhead, so nothing to facilitate TVM.

...or for ships :) . Nor is the multitude of countermeasure systems.

For the R-27R missile, the maximum time duration of inertial guidance/radio correction is 30 seconds, while IIRC the total time for powered flight is ~ 60 seconds. Whether the launching platform can determine a "lost missile" prior to that - i.e. target/missile parameters, range/time duration I don't know, but at least there would be little reason to provide missile support beyond its max operating time.

No mate I didn't misunderstand :) . You are right about the above, but my response was in regards to what Ironhand said; “until the radar dropped out of STT after the launch.” - i.e. that you don't need to drop out of STT in order for missile support to end and thus RWR no longer giving a "launch warning". The "lock warning" on the other hand is associated with the radar tracking the target in STT mode regardless of whether a missile is launched or not.