Seaeagle

Yes you are right - the operating time is not specifically for datalink operation, but the total operating time for the electronics as such(I guess duration for the onboard power supply).

Yeah I know. Well they are illustrated as comparative specifications, so I don't know. Maybe they are just trying to make the -R look a little better than it is :) .....it does look a little funny that they state a rather loose "50 -60 km" for that and a very specific "60 - 62,5" for the -ER :) .

Still it is the data submitted by Vympel :) - the website in question(Tactical Missiles Corporation) just passes on the information they got from the individual manufacturers. Yes but INS/radio correction is also "its own seeker" as this is a function of the homing head(9B-1101k) and, as GGtharos said, this isn't an endless feature - IIRC datalink support is limited to ~ 25 km from launch aircraft and a number of seconds of operation(cannot remember if its 60 sec though). Exactly.

Yes but its also a much heavier missile - the launch weight is 100 kg higher, so it will need some of that extra boost thrust to accelerate. I also wonder how the extra weight and length of the missile affects its agility against a maneuvering target. Yes but that doesn't really explain the negligible range difference between the -R and -ER against a maneuvering target - if guidance is the culprit, then why state a difference at all? :)

Yes the chart is AFAIK from an aircraft manual and as such the recommended launch parameters for the operator(pilot), while the manufacturer's data are for absolute best case conditions(to make the product look as good as possible). The specifications for the -T/TE are clearly just the aerodynamic best range, since there is no way in hell you are ever going to be able to engage anything at 80 or even 65 km head-on with just an IR lock :) - so its basically the equivalent to the R/ER ranges for "other targets", where the shorter ranges specified for the T/ET are down to difference in aerodynamics(such as seekerhead). If radar power/datalink reach was the issue, it wouldn't explain why the range difference between R and ER becomes much more pronounced at longer ranges against non-maneuvering targets. It probably has more to do with difference in motor configurations. The R has a boost-only motor, while the ER has a two-stage boost-sustain motor.....the second sustain stage is "weaker" and may only contribute moderately to range against a maneuvering target, but comes into its right when the missile is "cruising" at high altitude towards a non-maneuvering one.

You need to assign "point connectors"(a dummy object) to link e.g. a missile launch to the position of a particular launcher on your model.

Sounds interesting :) Oh yes I agree - DCS it is primarily a flight simulator and I never really expected naval warfare to reach the same level of sophistication as the aerial warfare, but there is(to say the least) room for improvements......even in comparison with DCS' ground warfare. Yes. The P-700 system was originally designed for submarines - more specifically Pr. 949("Oscar class) SSGNs and one of the primary requirements was the ability to launch from a submerged state, which involved flooding the launch blocks with seawater to equalize pressure(like with torpedo tubes) prior to launch. Interestingly this procedure remains for the system when installed on surface ships :) .

Yes :) I don't know anything about CMO other than your own account for it above, so cannot comment on that. But I certainly don't think DCS goes into "considerably detail" when it comes to the naval stuff. Ok - I thought you had counted the launches and my point was that if they made such a basic oversight in regards to the load, then it probably shouldn't be taken at face value for the much more nitty-gritty details about the systems involved. Anyway, the P-700 system on the Kirov class is not really VLS - although installed below deck, it uses inclined launchers like most Soviet SSM designs.

What makes you think a game's representation of such a scenario has anything to do with reality? :) I mean for a start you could ask why the Kirov only had 16 SSMs to fire, when the real one has 20 :D .

No you are not wrong - thats pretty much what happened :) . Mind you, the Su-27UB is not the same as the Su-30. The very first Su-30 was originally called "Su-27PU" and was a dedicated interceptor variant - it was based on the Su-27UB, but with the addition of a retractable IFR probe and rear-seat position modified with a separate radar display, so the rear crew member could act as "RIO" and mission controller. The basic Su-27UB combat-trainer is still referred to as such by the Russian airforce(and Sukhoi for that matter). Later when they further developed the Su-30 into a multi-role fighter, they first added an -M suffix to denote this. The Russian MoD didn't show much interest(probably for budget reasons), so Sukhoi started marketing it as a dedicated export article under the name "Su-30MK"(added -K for export). It was always the intention, that customers would define the exact configuration according to their needs, so the myriad of Su-30 designations just reflect this - e.g. "Su-30MKI" denotes an Su-30MK with the chosen configuration of India(added "I").

Yes its a pretty widespread practise, but then thats also basically what prototype/test aircraft are for - i.e. to try out different things, test them and then refine/modify until a definitive configuration meets the customer's requirements for full scale serial production. Another example is with the six MiG-29M(9.15) test aircraft(also from late eighties) - the fourth of these was modified to a twin seat configuration as the "MiG-29M2 MRCA" and later further modified with AESA radar(and other system upgrades) becoming the first "MiG-35" prototype....so 3 different designations/appearances for the same airframe. The sixth prototype was modified with TVC engines to become the "MiG-29M OVT" for demonstrating thrust vector control....exactly as with the "Su-37". That is correct - to begin with Sukhoi just gave further developed versions of the Su-27 an extra suffix to denote their purpose, but(unlike MIG) later decided to come up with these new designations for marketing purposes in order to separate them from the basic versions(Su-27 and Su-27UB). But I think you are right that the Russian military often stuck with the original designations.....e.g. I remember back when the Russian MoD announced their their intention to procure the replacement for the Su-24, they referred to it as the "Su-27IB" although Sukhoi had long since changed the name to "Su-34" :)

Well I don't blame you for being confused :) . There are several things that can cloud the exact number. Aside from the part about planned procurements vs. realised, sometimes company owned prototype/test aircraft are repainted and issued new bort numbers - i.e. the same airframe can appear different at different times for whatever reason. They are also often re-used as basis for upgraded versions - e.g. a new night-attack prototype may not be a completely new-built aircraft, but rather one of the initial airframes being recycled and modified with new equipment etc. The latter is the case with the "Su-37" - it was one of a dozen original Su-35(Su-27M) test aircraft from the late eighties - modified with TVC engines(and unique cockpit layout) for demonstrating thrust vector control.

I don't know what(if anything) the Ka-50 borts denote or even exactly how many were built. But as far as I recall it was something like 10 or 12, which would also be in line with the typical number for a test batch.

Oh come on! :D . Bort numbers do not indicate directly the number of aircraft built - especially not for prototypes ones. E.g the initial version of the MiG-29K was made in two prototypes - bort #311 and 312, for which the first two digits "31" indicate the variant(9.31) and the last digit the first and second one built....i.e. 9.31-1 and 9.31 -2 respectively. So doesn't mean there were 312 made :) . Another example was with the pre-production Su-33s - IIRC these were numbered 37, 39, 59, 69,79, 89, 99 and 109.

You clearly didn't understand a word of what I said.

You are of course right that there is a big difference between doing something to FC3- versus DCS level, but the point I was trying to make was that your argument about "numbers produced" doesn't hold water - what about the Ka-50?.....a full fidelity module of a prototype aircraft of which only a dozen or so were produced. Why would it even matter whether there are 40 or 140 aircraft in operational service?

The Ka-50 and Su-25T only existed as prototypes as well and no more than a dozen of each were built - that didn't stop those from being modelled for DCS. The original Indian order was for just 16 planes(12 MiG-29K and 4 MiG-29KUB), but with the option for another 29 units. The Russian navy has 24(20 MiG-29Ks and 4 MiG-29KUBs) assigned to the 100 KIAP. So a total of 69 delivered/on order between India and Russia. . There were never more than 24 Su-33s in service with the Russian navy(279 KIAP), yet its in DCS. Thats like saying that if there is an F/A-18C in the trailer, then the F/A-18E superhornet couldn't be an option. I could be wrong of course, but I suspect that ED finds upgrading existing FC3 aircraft to DCS level less attractive(business wise) compared to spending the resources on entirely new not-seen-before candidates.

Ok - I didn't know it was already in the plans.

Ah ok :) - just remembered someone from ED(think it was Nick Grey) being quite enthusiastic about doing the Mosquito at one point, so I thought it could be that.

de Havilland Mosquito?

The SMT is really only "modern" in terms of its system's suite/cockpit - its an upgrade to the legacy MiG-29 and therefore uses the original airframe, so making the spine larger was the only way to find extra space for internal fuel. But as AeriaGloria said, the really modern versions have a new airframe with redesigned FOD protection system. The solid inlet doors and LERX auxiliary intakes were deleted allowing extra fuel to be stored in the vacant space. Instead the new system has raisable grids inside the intakes and, when engaged, the engines breathe through a perforated wall in the main wheel wells.

I agree with most of what you said, except perhaps for the part concerning TVC nozzles as a means to help offset weight increase on the modern versions :) . TVC nozzles are just "bling" that can be applied if a customer so desires - in most cases they don't because they themselves add weight, increase complexity/maintenance requirements, while being useful only in a rather narrow set of circumstances. Much less. There is a much bigger leap from a legacy MiG-29 to e.g. the MiG-29K both in terms of the overall philosophy(going from a relatively simple point defence fighter to a sophisticated multirole strike fighter) as well as the technology involved. When the Super Hornet first entered the scene, its onboard systems were not that different from those of the last legacy lot, while even the old 1990 MiG-29M/K was worlds apart from the legacy MiG-29 in that respect :) .

Indeed - it may be "vastly superior" in certain circumstances, but less so in other. Yes but not so much in regards to the "A"(9.12) and "C"(9.13) - the latter has a little extra internal fuel and minor modifications to the FCS, but they are essentially the same aircraft whereas... ...the modern versions just look like the old MiG-29, but they are in reality entirely new aircraft - different airframes/wings/control surfaces, digital FBW, more powerful engines etc.

Basil Embry was a Vice-Air Marshal during WWII, who flew in special bombing operations on several occasions. Because his rank was too high for operational flying, he didn't lead the sorties and flew under the alias of "Wing Commander Smith".

No the "S" suffix normally stands for an improved or upgraded version - e.g. MiG-29 -> MiG-29S. This is actually also the case with the Su-27 - the initial T-10 design failed to meet the requirements and was heavily modified and redesignated T-10S before entering service.