Seaeagle

Yeah I think so too - basically the same as cabin light in a car(controlled by a door switch). I don't think so and I suggested the above more as a solution for ED to implement.

Well there is more than one bug there - aside from being skew, they are also mounted on the APU-470 launcher for the R-27R and... ...which it shouldn't. Only the MiG-29S and MiG-29G(through modification) are compatible with wing drop tanks.

The pilot has now been identified by the documents found in the wreck, but it turns out that it wasn't the one in the above link after all. Since all other have been accounted for, it could be that he has already had an official burial.

They recovered some documents in bits of clothing which could help to identifying the pilot. However, a WWII enthusiast who runs a historical website recording all known aircraft crashes(allied and axis) on danish soil, claims he already knows(or has very strong indication) who the pilot was and that it should concern this entry: http://www.flensted.eu.com/g1944142.shtml According to him, this is the only crash in the region for which the exact location was unknown, while all other have been accounted for. The crash site was a bog at the time of the war, which probably explains why the Germans were unable to recover the remains of the pilot and aircraft. Also it must have been a rather violent crash(pretty much nose-down impact), since the aircraft was found buried 5-7 meters into the ground. So there isn't much left of it - so far the largest part recovered is the engine block.

A Danish farmer and his son have uncovered the remains of a crashed Messerschmitt Bf 109 and its pilot in Northern Jutland, Denmark. http://cphpost.dk/news/school-project-leads-to-sensational-find-of-german-wwii-aircraft-in-jutland.html

Depends on the situation I think - the AIM-7M has a dual-stage motor and lofting capability, while the R-27R has a single-stage(boost only) motor and no lofting. So in the right launch conditions against a high altitude, non-maneuvering target, the AIM-7M may outrange the R-27R. The R-27ER when launched at high altitude against a similar target would indeed far exceed both(up to some 100 km) due to the massive two-stage motor. But against a maneuverable target, it barely exceeds the range performance of the R-27R - against a "fighter type of target" the official quotes state up to 50-60 km for the R-27R and just above 60 km for the R-27ER. Personally I think the R-27ER is more of a specialised bomber-intercept version, than the "super R-27R" that seems to be the general perception.

There are two different launcher types for the "R-27 family". - the APU-470 rail launcher used by the MiG-29 and for wing stations on the Su-27. - the AKU-470 ejector rack used on fuselage stations on the Su-27. The R-27T & R-27ET can only be used on the APU-470. The R-27R & R-27ER can use both the APU-470 and AKU-470.

Yes I have seen that before, but are you sure its from a Venezuelan Flanker though?.....the MFD looks weird. Yes it does indeed look like a graphic representation of the SPO-15 - still not the HUD though and the colour LCD MFD is a far cry from the old IPV :) . No both cockpits are of MiG-29SMT....and both old experimental ones(not the current version). MiG-29M2 front cockpit(attached).

Well I would(HUD at least, but frankly IPV too) No they are not. Image of Su-33 HUD indications in various modes attached - AFAIK they photographed framed on the wall of current training facility(housing a full cockpit Su-33 simulator).

1). Because the IR versions(R-27T and -ET) can only use the rail launcher(APU-470). 2). The rail launcher can only be used on the two inner wing stations....R-27 missiles are too big further out. 3). The rail launcher cannot be used on fuselage stations due to danger of ingesting missile plume into the engine inlets at launch. These stations require the ejector launcher(AKU-470), which can only be used by the radar guided variants(R-27R and -ER). ....well that too.

How about tying floodlight to canopy open/close? - i.e. with lights on then: - when is canopy open both floodlight and instrument lights are on. - when canopy is closed then only instrument lights are on.

I would like to see that too :) Well its not the latter. I have an official chart somewhere showing the various operating modes of the SUV-33 and these do not differ from those of the Su-27.

"Of course" - where did you get that impression?. Anything I have seen(cockpit layouts of various aircraft as posted above and statements from "people in the know") seems to indicate that prior to the recent upgrade, the Su-33 didn't have an RWR at all. How would you get all the information of the SPO-15 displayed on the HUD?. I could possibly understand if you meant the HDD. But then that(graphic display symbology) is one of the things associated with the L-150, so it would be more likely in connection with this. Anyway, the L-150 Pastel system was in development already from mid eighties and slated for aircraft under development in the late eighties such as the MiG-29M/MiG-29K and Su-27M(Su-35). The Su-33 and Su-25T both fit that timeframe as well and IIRC the L-150 was in fact flight tested on the Su-25T.

First sorry for late reply, You are welcome - yes it looks like it :) AFAIK none so far - it appears the only new things in regards to the recent upgrade, concerns the RWR, MFD and the SVP-24 bomb delivery system. There may also be some other subtle enhancements required for the SVP-24 system to work - e.g. I remember in regards to the Su-25SM there was some mention of improvements to basic instrumentation(such as speed indication), because the old wasn't accurate enough.

BTW in regards to the new MFD; It may not really be that new - it looks like it could be the same unit fitted to the original Su-35(Su-27M) test aircraft from the late eighties(image attached).

No I have never seen one either. Indeed. I don't think the Su-33 ever had the SPO-15. Attached are images of five different Su-33 cockpits - the first one is the same pit(T10K-5) as JunMcKill posted, while(AFAIK) the rest are of later in-service aircraft. Note the area below/to the right of the Ekran display.... all with slightly different layout and if you view them in the order I numbered them, you can see how it evolved. Image 2: First they moved the fuelgauge(to a bracket on top of the IPV). Image 3: then deleted the small panel(with 2 switches) below the Ekran - blanked with a cover plate. Image 4: then moved a dial to that position and moved several announciators, creating a cutout beside the Ekran where an SPO-15 display could fit(but covered). Image 5: this space now holds a different display - possibly for the L150 Pastel RWS.

Have you seen the SPO-15 panel in any Su-33 cockpit? :) . Yes it is the T10K-5(no 69) from 1990 - i.e. one of the seven serial built test aircraft.

No the display upgrade didn't go to the extend of changing the cockpit layout as such - i.e. not a Su-27SM style one with multiple new displays, but merely replacing the IPV with an MFD.

Export restrictions aside, I don't think its possible to avoid that situation. Previously this has mostly been down to the willingness of different nations to spend the cash on upgrading - i.e. as upgrades became available they would purchase some, but not other depending on their specific requirements/defence budgets.

Look at the row of buttons(by the red arrow in the attached image).

Do you mean why you get LA sooner when the radar automatically transitions from TWS to STT than when you are manually switching from a search mode to STT? If so the explanation is simple - when the radar is operating in TWS it is collecting track data for the target, so at the point when it transitions to STT, it only needs a short time to prepare for missile launch. In a search mode the radar is not tracking the target - this only occurs when you switch to STT and therefore the radar needs more time build a firing solution.

Guidance via radio correction is used until the target is within seeker acquisition range - when the seeker locks on, the obtained target data automatically overrides the radio correction data(transmitted to the inertial navigation system by the aircraft radar). So if you launch the missile within seeker acquisition range, switch to SARH operation occurs as soon as the seeker can acquire the lock. There is a possibility(don't know), that while the missile remains within reach of radio correction(the 25 km), it may be able to revert back to this in case seeker-lock is lost momentarily.

Well wikipedia. That is an old photo from around 1999 and shows a Su-27KUB of which only 2 prototypes exist, so it is not "in use". Aside from the obvious(side-by-side cockpit) it also has various other airframe differences including new wings, so its not "the older Su-33 airframe" nor does it have much in common with the Su-35 - e.g. it had an upscaled version of the radar used in the MiG-29K/KUB. The Su-33 has recently been moderately upgraded involving things like a new RWR, MFD and a new delivery system for unguided munitions, but there is no evidence that the upgrade included a new/upgraded radar and ability to use new weapons such as the ones you suggest.

There really is no such thing as "our international fleet" or "our QRA aircraft". The Danish F-16s(some 30 operational) are all stationed at the same airbase(Fighter Wing Skrydstrup) from which practically any part of our airspace can be reached within 10 minutes or so. The QRA("Afvisningsberedskab") consists of two(!) aircraft :D - which F-16 version is used for the purpose could be changed any day of the week. AFAIK the lower spec Block 10 based F-16AMs are used for QRA simply to conserve airframe life of the hard-pressed(from international deployments) Block 15 based ones. But then as long as ROE dictates VID in dealing with possible airspace violations, carrying AMRAAMs doesn't seem all that useful. IMO you are making far too big a deal of this - if you are concerned by readiness, then other things are far more "bonkers".....such as our complete lack of anti-submarine capabilities or that our 3 new frigates were built with state-of-the-art long-range airdefense systems, but have yet to be equipped with the associated missiles(SM-2). Anyway, I think we have derailed this thread far enough as it is, so lets return to the subject of the F-35 :) .

How do you know that they are meant for Club-S(submarine version) and not Club-N(surface ship version)? :) .