Seaeagle

It does have a datalink - you could not transfer data directly from a GCI station to the HUD of the aircraft without one. But no - a tactical display is not necessarily dependant on the presence of full datalink capability.....the MiG-29 just doesn't haven one. Yes but not functional on the MiG-29. It should not.

The MiG-29 does have a datalink, but its a one-way system for GCI control only with transmitted target data being displayed on the HUD. There is no "peer-to-peer" connectivity and no display of the tactical situation on the HDD like in the Su-27/33. Later multirole variants of the MiG-29 have completely different system's complex including full datalink capability and two HDDs. What is going on, is that the MiG-29 lacks the GCI system of the real aircraft, but the HDD functionality is represented correctly.

Any loadout configuration comes with its set of limitations in terms of allowable speed/G-loads. However, exactly the above( 2x R73 and 2x R27R) does not, which could be a reason why its so common. The Admiral Kuznetsov is basically a purpose built multirole heavy cruiser in much the same way as the Kirov class - using the same SSMs(P-700) for surface-to-surface warfare, but aircraft instead of missiles for ASW(Ka-27PL) and area air defence(Su-33). The Kinzhal and Kortik air defence systems do not bring any AD capability to the fleet as such - with a max engagement range of 15 and 8 km respectively, they are much too short-ranged for anything other than protecting the ship itself from missile attacks. Completely incorrect. There were always two schools of thought in the Soviet Union when it came aircraft carrying ships - one that favoured relatively small ships equipped with VSTOL aircraft because these didn't need costly and complex installations like catapults and arrestor gear - and another faction which favoured "the full monty" - i.e. much larger nuclear powered ships with catapults, arrestor gear capable of embarking a fighter wing and early warning aircraft config similar to that of US super carriers. Even so they were never intended to mimic US aircraft carriers(which were seen as overly expensive "means of imperialistic aggression"), but rather as centerpieces of surface groups operating in support of the submarine fleet on the large oceans. The evolution from the first such assets(Pr. 1123 "Kondor") to Kiev class -> Kuznetsov class -> Ul'yanovsk class was down to a realisation that to be effective in the role - having sufficient endurance and ability to operate sufficiently capable aircraft/enough of them and having proper surveillance of the air space around them, they needed ever larger ships. The Kiev class were obviously built for fixed wing aircraft - namely the Yak-38M, but this quickly proved inadequate, so initially the plan was to develop a more capable replacement for it and subsequently modify the existing Kiev class vessels for the purpose. The third ship(Novorossisk) was partly modified during its construction, while the fourth(Baku) was fully designed for the new aircraft(Yak-41) and also had considerable modernisation to its systems and armament. Early on the Kuznetsov was intended to be just a fifth Kiev, to be followed by four full size(some 79k tons of displacement) nuclear powered ships with 4 catapults, arrestor gear for horisontal take-off fighters(navalised versions of the Su-27 and MiG-29) and a dedicated AEW aircraft(Yak-44).. But this plan was changed(probably economically unfeasible) and instead the fifth and sixth ship were to be of mid range size with the same propulsion, but better endurance than the Kiev class and with a new under-deck SSM armament and thus more flight deck space, but still equipped with Yak-41 VSTOL fighter(but twice as many)......and then finally a seventh and eighth ship of full size with nuclear propulsion. Kuznetsov was designed with a take-off ramp for assisting the Yak-41 on short take-offs(as with Sea Harriers/Invincible class). At some point MiG and Sukhoi came up with the idea of evaluating the feasibility of using this system for their horisontal take-off fighters(maybe because the economic situation of the time made the prospect of the full size carriers starting to look bleak). While the tests proved the concept, it quickly became clear that the initial ramp design wasn't optimal, so they joined forces with a naval research institute, which came up with a new ramp design, that proved so successful for launching the Su-27K and MiG-29K that it, apart from the Kuznetsov and Varyag, it was also incorporated into the design of the prospective full size carrier follow-ons......cutting the number of catapults from four to just two(on the landing run) and only for launching the Yak-44 AEW aircraft. The "Kievs" were decommissioned because the only applicable aircraft for them(the Yak-38M) were retired from service, while the development of their prospective replacement - the Yak-41 - was cancelled. The Kievs did not have "Shipwrecks", but all of them had P-500s on deck originally. The one sold to India(Baku aka Admiral Gorshkov) even had more(12) than the other, but they were removed in connection with the full-deck modification(for the MiG-29K). [headshake] Vanir....every one of the aircraft carrying cruisers - from the very first "moskva class" to the definitive Ul'yanovsk class were meant to support the submarine fleet on the large oceans. They were more or less capable of doing this of course, but their very purpose was to bring air power to a place, where this could not be provided by land based aviation......there would be zero reason for this in the Black Sea or in the Baltic. All these ships began their life in the Black Sea for the simple reason that they were built(and tested) there, but they were never meant to operate there. Yes it does - it just doesn't have the "force projection" function - i.e. the ability to conduct large scale land attack operations, but is more of a hybrid between an aircraft carrier and multirole cruiser for all aspects of naval warfare. nonsense - the Kuznetsov very much does function in the flagship role and is every bit as well equipped as the Kirov class for the purpose......I really don't understand what "electronics fit" you think it lacks in comparison with the Kirov class. LOL. The ramp was fitted for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Your impressions of what the "international treaties" stipulate are so far off that its just funny. The treaty in question(Montreaux) deals with "capital ships" as a max of tonnage, how many naval ships may transition into the Black Sea at a time and how long they may stay etc. Aircraft carriers were not even mentioned initially. They were added later as an entity, but just as a sub-category of "capital ships" for which the same max tonnage applies. The only definition made in regards to aircraft carriers was that any ship that carries more aircraft than needed for its own protection(2-3 max) was to be considered an aircraft carrier and thus subject to the limitations set out for capital ships. Nothing at all about the means of launching or recovering them. In other words its all about tonnage - whether a battleship or an aircraft carrier and there is no specific ban on aircraft carriers(although the max tonnage would indirectly). Anyway, all this is a moot point, since the limitations set out in the treaty for the most part only concern non-Black Sea nations and the Soviet Union was a Black Sea nation......which in turn was the reason why the US never signed the treaty(as it gave the Soviet Union an unfair advantage). Yes they(it) are. Its a moot point because the treaty didn't really affect Soviet ships and because their aircraft carrying cruisers weren't ever meant to operate there anyway - only exiting after their construction and occasional re-entry for repairs and maintenance. What? Thats correct. The Soviet navy really wanted the Su-33 and MiG-29K to operate in a way similar to the US navy's F-14 and F/A-18, with the Su-33 being the "fleet defender"(for air superiority) and the MiG-29K as the multirole strike fighter. Sukhoi clearly had their own ambitions for turning the Su-33 into the latter, but there is no indication that the navy shared this. Again - there is no way the Shorads of the Kuznetsov could act as "fleet air defence". The purpose of those systems are solely for protecting the ship itself from saturation attacks by missiles(ASMs and SSMs). The roles of the Kuznetsov are: 1). air defence - controlling the airspace over the fleet's area of operation. Equipped with(at least intended) an AEGIS style radar system(Mars-Passat) and Ka-31 AEW helicopters providing surveillance and Su-33 air superiority fighters dispatched for interception. 2). anti-submarine warfare - equipped with a powerful sonar suite it can detect submarines at range and dispatch a small airforce of ASW helicopters to combat them. 3). AsuW - mainly via onboard armament of long range supersonic SSMs, but also via MiG-29K strike fighters. [headshake] No that was not the initial idea behind putting the Su-33 on the ship, but rather merely as an air superiority asset. However, "loading up with full A-G stores off the Kuznetsov and heading out on strikes" is nevertheless exactly what the Russian navy did with the Su-33 in the first ever combat mission the ship was on(in Syria). Not only that, but of all the useful(air-to-air capability) upgrades they could have made to the Su-33, the first one they applied was the SVP-24 bomb delivery system........enabling it to drop unguided free-fall bombs with greater accuracy. The design of the now cancelled "catapult carriers" Pr. 1143.7 and 1143.8 featured a ramp for launching the Su-27K and MiG-29K, while the two remaining catapults were only for lanching Yak-44 AEW aircraft. So I am afraid that your entire idea the Su-33 being just a training asset on the Kuznetsov in preparation for some future catapult launched strike role is faulty - just as I have to say that I find it more than a little funny that you apparently think the Russians built the ship just for this - basically for shits 'n giggles.

Not in DCS(though I don't know if the 3D model has provision for it), which I believe was your question. On the real aircraft the pylons consist of wing adapter block(s) to which different weapon's launchers/racks are attached - all are removable. The integrated wing tip station can also be removed for installation of ECM pods instead, but must otherwise remain in place.

Whether its feasible is largely a question of effort vs. gain. Aside from multiple differences on the 3D model - especially for CVN-77(the hull, superstructure, mast etc), there is also the issue of the Reagan(CVN-76) and Bush(CVN-77) having a three-wire arrestor system, which would require modification to the systems' code. Since the module will provide(eventually) five different Nimitz class carriers, the question is why you would need more and if the required effort is worth the bother for two more. Why exactly? - the flyable carrier aircraft(F/A-18C and F-14) we have in DCS have both been retired by now, while AFAIK the CVN-78 has yet to reach full operational status and the aircraft(F/A-18E/F/G and F-35C) slated to operate from it don't exist in DCS World even as AI entries. So if anything, I think your suggestion for CVs of other nations would be a better bet(and more interesting) although... ...those have the same issue as with the Ford class - namely that we don't have any suitable aircraft for them in DCS world. In my opinion, it would be a much better idea to look at additional surface/subsurface combatants and support ships than just saturating the sim with more CV/CVNs.

It also has a larger wing area, which in combination with the higher weight means higher wing loading and thus a lower G-rating( 8 ). Anyway, the entire aerodynamic configuration is different, so I guess much depends on the situation. Not really - although Sukhoi clearly had ambitions in this regard, its quite evident that the Soviet/Russian navy always saw it just as an Su-27 air dominance fighter capable of operating from a carrier, while the role of strike-fighter was assigned to the MiG-29K(and Yak-41) - much like with the US Tomcat/Hornet combination. I don't know if you could say that the SVP-24 is missing - it depends on what period you want to depict, since the SVP-24 is very recent addition. For the vast majority of its operating life, it had the exact same armament and systems as the Su-27S - safe for a couple of extra wing stations, a better OLS, a much more sophisticated navigation system....and the missing RWS. Not as far as I can tell - so far it seems that the upgrades the Su-33 has received are exactly the SVP-24(and a new MFD in place of the old IPV for the purpose) along with the long overdue L-150 RWS and improved engines. There are rumors that they may go for a further Su-27SM style multirole upgrade, but I guess we will see if it materialises.

Indeed. Yes but unfortunately ED has apparently decided that the success of FC3 isn't down to the presence of high profile "red aircraft", but rather is down to "casual player accessibility", so they make lo-fi versions of the existing blue aircraft for MAC.....and of course no full fidelity red fighter modules.

What bies and lunatic98 said. There could certainly be a case for alternate variants, but IMO not in the way you suggest. Like others said, something like that probably wouldn't be very economically viable for ED just as it wouldn't be very interesting for the community to have ED spending all their time endlessly modding 2-3 of the most popular aircraft. There is currently a 20 year plus gap between the most modern "REDFOR" aircraft and the "BLUEFOR" ones - not to mention that the REDFOR ones remain at FC-3 level. Development resources would IMO be much better spent addressing this - not just for the sake of REDFOR players, but also for the BLUEFOR side(if they hope to have human REDFOR opposition in multiplayer missions). I personally don't believe in the notion that full fidelity versions of the current MiG-29 and Su-27 is a no-go due to lack of documentation or "government laws", but for the more modern variants it may well be. So if you cannot address the time gap between western and eastern aircraft by making new modern/upgraded versions of the eastern, there is the possibility to provide an earlier variant for each of the western ones(such as an F/A-18A and F-16A) that are contemporary with the current REDFOR variants......and then group them according to time era(80ies and 90ies) in the same way as with e.g. the WWII and Korean war stuff instead of just putting everything from the 1980ies to present day into the same "modern" pool.

No you don't disagree, because thats basically what I said as well :) . Sure, but I guess we are all just trying to gauge what a likely candidate could be based on the few hints we have been given - such as "eagerly awaited", "milestone", "very complex" and "brain melting".

Yeah me too. Its just that the few hints we have been given seem a little over the top for these(or the F-15C).

You are welcome :) . I don't know how well this relates to the DCS situation, but at least it should give some pointers. Keep in mind that these are the max weight figures, so it would probably be good practise to keep well below that. I also remember reading elsewhere that the front starting position is really only meant for aircraft in normal TOW configuration(which IIRC is less than the 30 T stated as max for the Su-33). At any rate a head wind of 15 m/s corresponds to the carrier steaming ahead at full flank(29 knots), so for heavy loads/front starting position, you need either that or to set mission conditions so that wind speed and carrier travel direction/speed provide this in combination.

Agree - but then while getting an official licence to do a full fidelity module for a "baseline" MiG-29 or Su-27 could be considered a "milestone", I don't see it as being more "brain melting" than a full fidelity F-15C. IMHO that would take something like an Su-35 :)

I realise that you are asking for DCS figures, but in case you are interested I found an old chart(RL) for max carrier take-off weights, where the following is stated for the Su-33: With a head wind of 0 m/s: 100 m take-off run: not supported 180 m take-off run: max TOW = 27,3 T With a head wind of 15 m/s: 100 m take-off run: max TOW = 30,0 T 180 m take-off run: max TOW = 32,7 T I also seem to remember reading somewhere that the maximum return(landing) weight is somewhere around 25 T. Moreover, there is a two-way switch for controlling FOD inlet grids - "Auto/open" - which always seems to be in the "open"(FOD grids disabled) when operating from the carrier....it may also be required for use of the "emergency thrust" feature(in order to provide sufficient airflow to the engines).

Well I could be wrong, but I don't think so :) . I think thats just an assumption based on the specific situation regarding the development of the Su-27. As mentioned above, there are other examples of the "S" suffix being used to denote a refinement/update to aircraft already in serial production. Look here: http://www.knaapo.ru/about/history/aviamuseum/aviamuseum-2/ Its a page on the Knaapo website listing aircraft types previously produced by the plant - as you can see they refer to the Su-27 production as "Су-27С/П, 1982" So I think its more a case of the "S" and "P" suffixes just not being used much although there clearly is a difference between the two sub-variants.

Yes I believe thats the case - IIRC Sukhoi designated the improved design(the one that entered service) the T-10S. But the "S" designation has also been assigned to other aircraft(like "MiG-29S") and usually denotes a moderately updated/improved variant as opposed to "M" for something more radical.

You are welcome :) . In Soviet times, the Su-27S was assigned to the regular airforce(VVS), while the Su-27P was operated by the air defence forces(PVO). Unfortunately my Russian is very limited, so we might need a native Russian-speaker to confirm, but AFAIK the "S" designation stands for "improved/enhanced", while "P" is for "interceptor".

We have the Su-27S - the Su-27P is air-to-air only and does not have any air-to-ground capability(unguided rockets/dumb bombs). Just the Su-27SM

You are thinking of the original R-77 - it was officially adopted by the Russian MoD in 1994, but like you said, doesn't seem to have been procured in any large numbers, except perhaps for small batches for testing purposes. However, the export version(RVV-AE) was put into production and sold to export customers as part of the armament for various types of combat aircraft. The "R-77-1" is a new version of the missile - it looks practically the same, but is a little longer(and heavier), has a new bigger rocket motor and updated electronics. AFAIK it entered production a few years ago.

Well my Russian is poor, so I am not in a position to interpret the exact wording properly :) . It just sounds like he is saying what he always says when questioned about their intention to upgrade a system's feature for an FC3 aircraft - i.e. that such things are beyond the scope of FC3 and will only be pursued for full fidelity modules. Lol - no worries mate(I could have made that comment myself).

Yes Well I am not an electro-engineer, so I cannot point out which component does what :) It doesn't to me - apart from being labelled "inertial-semiactive radar homing head"(which I think is a clue), the specifications for the 9B1101K clearly state inertial navigation with radio correction as one of two available operation modes(the other being semi-active radar homing):

Yeah something like that - to be honest I cannot remember the details, as it was just something I came across once(maybe in the Su-27SK manual).

He is just saying that they will only re-do the SPO-15 if a future full fidelity module requires it.

The IR sensor of the R-27T/ET uses basically the same navigation principles as the R-73 - no one claims that this has an INS. Like I mentioned before - the INS(with radio correction) is an integral part of the SARH seeker unit.

It does not have an INS. IIRC the procedure in question has more the nature of a "last ditch" effort, in which you basically uncage the seeker and launch the missile without a target in the hope that something with sufficient thermal energy will pass through the narrow FOW of the IR seeker and cause it to lock on.

Thats not an assumption - thats how it is. Its not used as an R-73. No its just to show comparative kinetec launch ranges for the T/ET because there are aerodynamic differences between these and the radar guided variants, which leads to the IR variants having somewhat shorter range. Yes and thats basically the purpose of the R-27T/ET variants - i.e. unlike with R-73 you have a missile capable of taking advantage of the IR seeker's long acquisition range in tail aspect. Its not that specific - you have just described it yourself above. A radar(seeker or otherwise) is always going to work better against a head-on target than a receding one, while the opposite is the case for an IR seeker. I would :) . An R-27 variant(R-27AE) with an active seeker was proposed and may even have been tested for a short while back in the eighties, but it has long since been abandoned in favour of the new R-77/RVV-AE design.