Seaeagle

I seriously doubt that - what makes you think that it is?

The small round fuel indicator on top of the IPV is for fuel transfer to another Su-33 - i.e. when the aircraft is configured with the UPAZ-1K buddy refuelling pack. This feature is not represented in DCS, so the indicator is not functional.

AFAIK there is only one version of the R-73 in service with the Russian airforce and it has seeker off-boresight(gimbal limits) of +/- 45 degrees. The R-73E is just the export version. Recently this has been advertised in two versions - one with radio fuse and another with laser fuse(R-73EL), but otherwise they have identical characteristics. http://eng.ktrv.ru/production/military_production/air-to-air_missiles/raketa_r-73e.html In addition to those, there is a new upgraded version called RVV-MD(which basically stands for "short range air-to-air missile") that also comes in a version with radio fuze and another with laser fuze - it has a little better range and a new improved seeker with +/- 60 degrees gimbal limits. However, AFAIK this version is not yet operational. http://eng.ktrv.ru/production/military_production/air-to-air_missiles/rvv-md.html Anyway, as with most Russian missiles, erroneous designations(such as "R-73M", "R-74" etc) for all sorts of would-be variants are flying around on the internet, but most are bogus. No the R-73 has no INS and must lock on to target with its own seeker prior to launch. The seeker can be pointed to direction of a target via different means - radar, EOS or helmet sight, but the target must be within the gimbal limits of the seeker in order for it to be able to lock on to it.

I think mvsgas' point was that if you do a very slow high-alpha pass at low altitude like the MiG-29 in the first video, there isn't much you can do if one of the engines fails you - the CF-18 in the second video did the exact same thing with the exact same result ...and you cannot put the engines much closer together than on the F-18. Anyway, I think the Canadian pilot was a little more modest than he needed to be in saying that he was just lucky to be alive - IMO it had more to do with good skills/split second reaction and a good ejection seat(SJU-17) than luck :)

No problem mate - but like I said its been quite awhile since I last did any modding, so between what I have forgotten and structure changes in the meantime, I may not be of much help to you. Yeah and as I recall, that was also the case for some cockpit elements in this sim earlier on. See thats where I am out of the loop - back when I last did any modding, you could not add new aircraft entries, but had to mod your stuff on an existing slot. So you would get whatever instrumentation already assigned/declared for that and all you could really do was to put it where it was appropriate in your own cockpit environment. But yes these days you should be able to(and probably need to) build up everything you need in various lua files, but I haven't tried that. I don't know if thats the problem, but if you used an old file as template, it could be out of date - as I understand from people who have worked on this, there has been alot of changes made in the sim structure over the recent years, so something that worked fine a few years ago might not today. You can check this old post by Alex O'kean on creating a cockpit from scratch: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1470816&postcount=9 Its a little over my head and I don't know how current it is, but it should at least give you an idea.

Not sure what exactly you are doing. But if you have built your own 3D cockpit, then AFAIK it would be a matter of making animated gauges and just put them wherever you want them in the pit. Simple needle gauges don't need their position or size to be defined - they just react to specific animation arguments. The same goes for switches and knobs - I think what you found in regards to placement coordinates has to do with the clickable overlay function. But its been a long time since I dabbled with this, so I cannot say for sure how things work these days :) .

Actually I remember a photo of the 08 with a couple of R-60s on the wingtips. But anyway, the Su-25UTG is purely a carrier trapping training asset and has no combat functionality....although I am sure Sukhoi have had wet dreams about turning it into a strike aircraft at some point :) .

AFAIK thats also how it works IRL. The R-27R/ER uses pulse dopler for target illumination(SARH operation), where the aircraft radar alternates between pulses for its own target tracking and target illumination for the missile's SARH seeker + transmitting course corrections. I could be wrong, but I don't think the system takes seeker acquistion range into consideration, but starts this procedure as soon as the M-link is established - i.e. at the point of launch. Well an STT lock will nevertheless warn the opponent to expect an imminent missile launch - I mean thats pretty much the reason for tracking someone in STT :) . Anyway, the point is that the procedure that provides course corrections(datalink) for the in-flight -R/ER is linked to the target illumination, so if you were to get that for the -T/ET, you would also get the same warning on RWR. Which is why such a procedure would be highly inefficient and should be considered sort of a "last ditch" attempt if no other means are available. This is where I think there is a problem between the sim and reality :) . The IR seeker's immediate FOW is very narrow(a few degrees) not to be confused with its gimbal limits. Since you cannot control where the IR seeker is looking after launch, the seeker will be looking straight ahead and only be able to lock on to anything that might pass through this narrow FOW....and only if it emits enough thermal energy for the purpose. Considering what I wrote above and that the datalink doesn't provide particulary accurate intercept course, I doubt it would help much. As far as I can tell, IR seekers in DCS don't have moving sensors, but will just "see" anything within full gimbal limits, which could explain why you can get good results with launch overriding the R-27ET.

LOL....yeah it happens.

In which case there would be zero to gain in terms of surprise attack. When you lock up a target in STT, the target's RWR of will alert the pilot that he is being singled out for an attack. Moreover, some RWRs can detect when your radar is starting to transmit course corrections to the in-flight missile. In other words, you would be providing the exact same information for the enemy RWR to pick up as if you had been using the SARH variant.

Yes I believe so - late eighties I think. IIRC some of them(F-16A ADFs) were sold on to Egypt at a later point. Hehe no mate - thats a MiG-23 cockpit. The MiG-29 9-12 cockpit looks practically identically to the 9-13 pit(in your previous post) and also has the HDD. But you can quickly tell them apart by two items - the 9.13 pit has a small ECM control panel below the AOA/G-meter and the fuel gauge has increased range on the tape and an extra light for wing drop tanks. Well we already have the 9-12, but I agree that it would be cool to have a contemporary F-16A - e.g. Block 15.

Yes and I think it was actually just one F-16A version(the ADF) operated by the ANG(Air National Guard) that got modified for deploying the Sparrow missile. Yes but even the C versions had no AMRAAMs to begin with, since the first C variant came along around 1986, while AMRAAMs weren't operational until 1991-92 and many C's were in fact flying without any BVR missiles well into the nineties. Well the MiG-29 in your photo is not really an early MiG-29(9-12), but rather a 9-13, which appeared in 1986-87 and as such actually completely contemporary with the F-16C(Block 25). It didn't have R-77 compatibility - this only came with the 9-13S(MiG-29S) modification(radar upgrade) in the early nineties. But yes - its actually a little funny that exactly BVR capability is one of the F-16 attributes often cited as superior compared to the MiG-29, when to begin with it was actually the other way around :) .

No - the IR homing variants have no INS and no datalink for course updates. Correct.

I am not sure I understand the question. The orange VMSK-4 suit is what Russian naval pilots are wearing, so its the right one for the Su-33. But in DCS the pilot in the Su-33 3D model is AFAIK the same as the one used for the e.g. MiG-29 - i.e. wearing a green airforce flight suit. My point is that just painting that orange does not really make it "the right one" :)

Agree with the suggestion, but its not just a question of color though. The pilot in the photo is wearing the VMSK-4 ventilated survival suit, which is very heavy and comes with floatation pouches, three-finger gloves and special boots. So its completely different to the "normal" air force flight suit.

Yes - well ok I just got the impression that you thought it was an Su-27SM cockpit. Yeah I see that now - sorry my bad :) . Mind you, I don't think many people who voted for it picked up on that bit - normally when you are asked about the "Su-27", you think of the base version and not derivatives like the Su-30 or Su-35.

Thats the cockpit of an Su-35(Su-27M) test aircraft from late eighties. Pretty sure that "Su-27" in the poll means the same variant as we have now, but as full fidelity vs. the F-15C ditto.

In regards to the further Su-33 upgrade - yes thats really what I was thinking. If you look at the ship and its aircraft as a package, then its not unlikely that the extra cost of repairing/upgrading the ship that has arisen after the two mishaps could affect the upgrade plans for the Su-33. Of course it wouldn't make much sense to spend a lot of money on the ship if the aircraft it deploys are obsolete and ineffective for modern warfare, but as you said, they already have a capable modern multirole fighter for it(MiG-29K/KUB). I don't think they are ready to give up on the Su-33 yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if they decided to take a more modest approach for the upgrade(including new engines, which they may need anyway) to keep it flying for some years, but ditch the multirole part of the upgrade - but we will see. However, in regards to the ship I don't think they really have a choice - at least it would be a choice of whether to operate aircraft carriers at all. Considering that plans for new carriers are on a very early stage, I think a decade or so would be a realistic bet for when they could have a replacement for the Kuznetsov built and fully operational, and not having any in the meantime would be very detrimental to the navy's future aspirations in this regard.

Thanks for the links. To be clear - I was not disputing that the upgrade(involving the L150, SVP-24 and other items) has been carried out, but it didn't occur already in the 2002-2007 period. I remember seeing the news of freshly painted Su-33s taking to the air after the upgrade in question and that was definitely not 18 years ago :) . Like I said, there may well have been talk and intentions to perform it back then, but this does not automatically mean that it was - as I am sure you know, Russian military officials and defence contractors are "famous" for making very optimistic statements for prospective developments in general and their expected timeframes in particular :) . In regards to radar upgrade/R-77 compatibility, the last link you provided clearly says that this is something that is part of a possible second stage of upgrade(along with things like new datalink and new engines), which has yet to be performed - i.e. the rumored new Su-27SM style upgrade I mentioned. However, information of what exactly it will include is rather sketchy and whether it will end up being an actual Su-27SM style upgrade(including new cockpit layout) or just individual elements of it remains to be seen......if it materialises at all.

I don't believe thats correct SovietAce - in regards to the L150, there may have been some steps taken to introduce it that far back, but it has only materialised very recently along with the SVP-24 and other improvements.

The published screenshots of the Arleigh Burke showed it as the DDG-112 "Michael Murphy", which IIRC was commissioned in 2012 - i.e. a late Flt. IIA variant with the modified funnels, one Phalanx installation + RIM-162. I believe RIM-174A was installed from around 2011, so the DDG-112 would probably have that too. Implementing AShM mode for Standard missiles would probably also be a good idea, since Flt. IIA ships don't have Harpoon launchers :) .

The MiG-29K was also mentioned several times in the thread and probably more realistic than the MiG-35 in your list.

Not really - they worked as you describe, but IIRC the blocks were part of the aircraft 3D model(the same applied along with the ladder when in parked state) and just made to appear/vanish via visibility animation. For proper implementation they should of course be part of the Kuznetsov model.

It really doesn't matter. The Su-33 never had the ability to deploy the R-77. The WCS is practically identical to that of the Su-27 and the radar and range of compatible weapons is the same. The Su-33 doesn't even have the ability to use all its 12 weapon's stations at the same time, because the weapon's control system was ported directly over from the Su-27 and therefore only supports 10 stations. The only real differences between the SUV-33 and SUV-27 are a much more sophisticated navigation system and an improved version of the OLS. If you by "launch shoes" mean the AKU-170 ejector rack for the R-77, then thats not the problem - it has standard attachment points and can be mounted on stations compatible with the R-27 missiles. But the required modifications to the radar and weapon's control system for the purpose is not cheap or simple. I don't think so(that you are wrong) :) - there are rumors that they may go for an Su-27SM style upgrade for the Su-33, but so far its just that(rumors) and the rather modest upgrades they have performed so far would IMO suggest that they have no such intentions....but we will see. :)

From people "in the know" :) . I wondered about this myself, since the export versions I have seen didn't have the "TAKT" switch on the IPV at all.