Seaeagle

No the Su-27 in DCS is the Su-27S(airforce variant with A/G capability). As mentioned in the above post, there is also an Su-27P(airdefence force variant without A/G capability), but the distinction is rarely made(suffixes not used much), so both are normally referred to simply as "the Su-27". The one you are thinking about is the Su-27SM - an upgrade to the basic Su-27, which among other things, provides compatibility with the RVV-AE(aka R-77).

Half right :) The Su-30K was the export version of the initial Su-30(Su-27PU) interceptor variant and didn't have any armament capabilities besides those of the basic Su-27. The Su-30M was the initial multirole variant - Su-30MK is the export variant of that. In both cases the "K" suffix means for export. You would be right about that :) . Su-30MK is a common designation for a multirole export version of the Su-30, but since the concept always came with the option for a customer defined configuration, it is usually followed by an additional suffix denoting that particular configuration of the customer country - e.g. MKI(added "I" for India) or MKK(added "K" for "Kitay" = China), which BTW differ considerably. I know :) - I posted the cockpit picture of the Su-27P exactly to show that there is no A/G options on the WCS panel and theorized that the initial Su-30(Su-27PU) interceptor variant may not have had any A/G capabilities either, since both were meant for the PVO(airdefence forces).

Isn't it? - considering that much concerning these items is exactly secret, I wonder how you can make that call. The radar at least is a pretty sophisticated and capable set and I have heard no complaints about the weapons or general combat capabilities of the MiG-29K. Besides, in the IN version of the MiG-29K, several items of its avionics and the ECM are not even Russian: - INS/GPS navigation system (Sagem Sigma-95) - radio navigation system(Thales/India) - Radio altimeter (India) - UHF radio (India) - helmet mounted targeting system(Thales TopSight E) - RWR (Tarang - India) - ECM pod (Elta EL/L-822 - Israel) Anyway, this is getting way off-topic.

What makes you think that - and what "electronics" are you referring to? I think probad was referring to the alleged level of downtime due to engine reliability with the initial batch of aircraft delivered to the IN. I say "alleged" because I have long since learned to take articles/reports by certain circles in India with a grain of salt. Its no secret that the Indian military has had two "schools of thought" for decades and that one of them really doesn't like the idea of adopting Russian(and previously Soviet) military hardware and that self-appointed "experts" and "analysts" have gone to great lengths to campaign against it - often with "doctored" facts and dubious argumentation. I am not saying that there aren't any problems with the MiG-29K/KUBs(some teething problems were to be expected) , but I fully expected the above mentioned parties to stand ready and blow them out of proportions at the first given opportunity. But then the subject of this thread has had its share of that too ;) .

None official(usually not very informative concerning specs), so I cannot say whether its correct or not, but IMO it does sound quite plausible. Radar guided missiles are LOAL and usually require a little fly-out time to "set up" and locate the target.

Not for an AIM-9X shot perhaps, but word is that the AIM-120 has a minimum engagement range of some 2200 yards, which is about 6600 ft....so :)

"allegedly"? :) : http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/503/506/ The seeker in question is called 9B-1032 and is developed by a company called "Avtomatika". I could swear I had a photo(with cap removed) and a spec sheet for it somewhere - I will see if I can find it. No but that could also be a little difficult, since it looks the same as the standard -R/ER. This version was never realised - there was some work on it in the late eighties, but it was cancelled and never put into production. Not realised either. The seeker involved was the 9B-1103M by AGAT - AFAIK this is still being offered as a universal ARH seeker(in different sizes).

R.I.P. Lord Sinclair

Yes pretty much - the multirole variants of the Su-30 fall in two categories originating from the initial export orders Su-30MKI and Su-30MKK for India and China respectively - the former is the more advanced version with TVC and phased array radar, while the latter is a more "budget approach" without TVC and with an upgraded version of the original N001 radar. The Su-30SM that is currently being procured by the Russian airforce is practically the same as India's Su-30MKI(except for various non-russian systems of French and Israeli origin), while the Su-27SM is a similar approach as with the Chinese Su-30MKK. The old Su-30(Su-27PU) from around 1990 was a dedicated interceptor variant operated by the PVO(airdefence forces) - it was practically an Su-27UB with an IFR probe, but reportedly had an expanded datalink capability allowing it to act as a mission controller for a flight of single seat Su-27s, where the back-seat crew member functioned as RIO(hence the TV screen in the back). No it had the same radar(N001) and weapons(R-27R/ER and -T/TE) as the standard Su-27, but had an improved EOS(also fitted to the Su-33). Only a handful(5 or 6 airframes) were built and may have been operated more as evaluation/operational testing rather than being in actual service - AFAIK they were later reclaimed by Sukhoi and some of them used as prototypes for the multirole Su-30MK. Prior to the Su-30MKI, India bought a batch Su-30Ks - an export variant of the original Su-30, which apparently lacked the mission controller aspect and as such was little more than an Su-27UB with an IFR probe.

He stated a a max roll rate, which is achieved at a particular altitude and then continued to say that it will drop to around 20 deg at slow speeds. If he meant it as you say - as overall highest and lowest regardless of altitude, then the wording is misleading.

Well yes that was the point I was trying to make. I can well imagine a "HUD-only" cockpit as long as we are talking a relatively simple radar/WCS upgrade allowing it to use "new" air-to-air missiles like those employed by the MiG-29 - i.e. the MiG-29 doesn't make much use of its IPV for that purpose either. But I cannot see the feasibility(possibility actually) of advanced features such as radar ground mapping modes/associated weaponry and TV opticals/armament with only the HUD as interface. The quote you posted was a little excessive(lol), so I condensed it to the paragraphs concerning the proposed MiG-23-98 upgrade and highlighted a couple of passages: To me the mention of "new self-defense suite" and "improved cockpit ergonomy" indicates a more sophisticated "full upgrade" proposal along the lines of MiG-29SMT, while this... ..to me it sounds more like the "HUD only" configuration you talk about. Anyway, good luck with your project :)

The quote again: "The Fulcrum’s maximum roll rate is 160° per second. At slow speed this decreases to around 20° per second". Considering that the maximum of 160°/s is achieved at 3200 feet, I assume that this is the altitude we are talking about in which case it drops to around 105°/s at M 0.4 according to the graph. The chart doesn't show velocity below M 0.4, but how slow would you have to go before it drops 20°/s at that altitude?.

Interesting project :) I don't know anything about this upgrade and I have never seen a photo of the cockpit, but are you sure that it only has a HUD?. What little info I could find on the MiG-23-98 upgrade mentions the installation of two color LCDs(supposedly MFI-68 - same as in MiG-29SMT), which sounds more likely considering the mention of radar air-to-ground mapping modes.

The graph I posted above is from the Luftwaffe MiG-29G manual documenting the very same aircraft and it disproves the claim made in the quote - i.e. that roll rate drops to around 20°/s at slow speeds.

Yes I understood that - just wondered whether block 40/42 might have been prepared for the AIM-120 prior to the weapon itself coming "online". I could not find any info on AIM-7 in connection with F-16C/D versions. Ok I missed that - thanks.

AFAIK the AIM-9X has an IIR(Imaging IR) seeker - this means that the seeker is not just homing on the intensity of thermal energy alone, but is also capable of distinguishing between the "shape" of sources. Whether its completely immune to flares is another question - IIR requires quite a lot of processing compared to "basic" IR homing and I could imagine that this could be a limiting factor - at least for a small a2a missile. Edit: sniped by GGTharos.

Hehe no problem - long thread :) . Anyway, as far as I can gather, only the F-16A ADF version operated by the US ANG(and later export customers in the Middle East) was made compatible with the AIM-7. AFAIK these were originally Block-15 airframes upgraded to Block-15 OCU + further modifications(including radar support for the AIM-7). Yes but IIRC block 40/42 were introduced in 1989 - i.e. a couple of years before the AIM-120 itself started to enter service. I could imagine that they(and perhaps even earlier F-16C/D blocks) could have had provision for the AMRAAM from the outset(as was the case with the F/A-18C).

I don't think thats the case mvsgas. As discussed previously, Danish F-16AMs are a mix of "MLU'ed" block 10 and block 15 aircraft and the former are still not AMRAAM capable - apparently due to structural limitation of the block 10 airframe.

....feeding.

Does not - see attached graph.

No it has SFM. AFM = Advanced Flight Model applied to aircraft like the Su-25/Su-25T PFM = Professional Flight Model is the new (higher)standard recently applied to e.g. the Su-27 and F-15C.

The F-15 in the sim is a "constructed" version - it lacks lots of things that even early versions had, while it has other things(such as AMRAAM compatibility) that only came after several upgrades. "Reality" in regards to specific capabilities of an aircraft depends on time frame as well as the variant. "Balance" is only meaningless if you want to make it so - i.e. there are different ways of pursuing it. Bad way: cherry-pick features - adding or subtracting with no consideration to actual real life configurations or nerfing/over model others in order to obtain some sort of perceived parity with other aircraft. Good way: introduce aircraft in variants that are contemporary, model them as close to real life specs as possible and then take whatever resulting inferiority/superiority in the stride :) . There are currently 3 different versions of the MiG-29 in the sim although at least two of them are practically identical, while there is only one version of the F-15 although it has a longer service history and has been through more upgrades.

Ok thanks :) .

I don't know either, but would nozzle design also affect the "flow rate"? - I am reading this as the rate at which the fuel is burned, so wouldn't it more likely be down to the type of propellant used for boost? Then again if the R-27R has a bigger engine and burns off all its propellant in just 6 seconds(all boost), then how can the flow rate be lower?

Thanks - yes I understand now. It was the single thrust figure for the AIM-7 and that it was higher than for the R-27R that baffled me - and as mentioned above the latter still does :) .