Seaeagle

We are not - not serious ones anyway. Russian aircraft approaching our airspace(I guess to test our reaction time) is not uncommon, but although the press often likes to make a big deal of it, the airforce usually describe the incidents as "routine" and "undramatic".

We are not at war with any of our neighbors Hummingbird - QRA missions in peacetime usually involves scrambling to VID unidentified aircraft approaching or entering our airspace and in case of the latter, to escort them out.....not shooting them down at BVR :) .

They are actually quite current as far as upgrades are concerned - most are Block 15s upgraded to MLU Tape 6.5 standard. In 2013 "new"(second hand) F100 PW 220E engines were bought to replace the old F100 PW 200(because spareparts became unavailable). So the biggest issue is with worn-down airframes, but AFAIK there is an ongoing structural life enhancement program, which should extend their service life beyond 2024. There are only 7 of those. They are Block 10s upgraded to MLU Tape 4.3. The reason why these cannot carry AMRAAMs is due to structural limitations of the Block 10 airframes.

Yeah an upward-spiralling one :P

You and me both :) . You can find specifications and description on how it works - e.g. this: http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/529/530/ But as far as finding images showing how its displayed to the pilot......well :) .

Kh-31P - the anti-radar version. Word is that the Su-33 has recently been upgraded with the L-150 RWS, in which case it would not necessarily need an external pod for guiding anti-radar missiles, since the L-150 system has(or can have) this as a "built-in" feature. I don't know if it is included with the upgrade though - haven't been able to find any information suggesting that it is.

Yes and no :) . It cannot deploy the radar guided Kh-31A(anti-ship variant) because the aircraft doesn't have a radar to acquire targets for it/guide it. The further developed Su-39 can carry a radar pod(Kopyo-25) for the purpose, but this aircraft is not in service(only exists as prototype). Edit: as per your second photo :) The Su-25T can technically deploy the anti-radar version(Kh-31P) when carrying a dedicated designator/guidance pod(" Phantasmagoria") for it. However, whether its a practical capability is another question - the Kh-31 missile requires launch conditions in terms of speed and altitude(to be effective), that the Su-25T would struggle to meet. BTW the missile in the photo is not a real missile, but a test round(hence the red colour and test markings).

LOL...not this again. JunMcKill, as others have already said, the Su-33 never had that capability. The Su-33 has practically the same WCS as the Su-27 - only differences being an improved EOS and navigation system. There was an early proposal by Sukhoi for a multirole upgrade including a new radar and ability to deploy an airlaunched version of the Moskit missile, but it didn't materialise. The airshow photo you posted is just "visualising" such an upgrade, but the aircraft is actually one of the early test airframes - more specifically the T10K-5 (bort # 69) from 1990, which certainly didn't have such an upgrade. :)

Well yes there is always that(politics). Yeah me too :)

As for the reason: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=517423&postcount=9

Well I believe differently. As far as I can gather, the contract was indeed signed. Word is that the first six units are currently being built and scheduled for delivery this year(2017) - the mention of a downpayment may concern these. But we will see :) The Egyptian airforce operates several hundred aircraft of different origin - many of which(including old Mirage and MiG-21s) are outdated and in need of replacement. In this connection the notion that a contract for 24 Rafales would exclude an additional order for MiG-29Ms is, IMHO, unlikely. :)

Well it may already. IIRC Egypt signed a contract in 2015 for the delivery of 46 "advanced MiG-29s" - these were reportedly MiG-29Ms(land based version of the MiG-29K/KUB), but at least some of the features mentioned(such as the IRST system and targting pod) sound more like those of the MiG-35 - no mention of the AESA radar though(so probably has Zhuk-ME). The thing is that the MiG-35 is really a MiG-29M with further developed sensory, so if an export customer orders a version with some of this but not all, it could be considered either a MiG-29M "with extras" or a MiG-35 "light version".

..assuming it wasn't possible anyway :)

LOL....neither Q or A seem to realise that the Su-27 never had that option in the first place(as if that was a problem).

Thanks Sweep. Takning your advice I do see faint glimpses of something there, but clearly...eh no :D .

No you are not wrong - they should :) . Not quite - the nozzles are wide open for minimal resistance when the engines are running at idle or low throttle setting, as power is increased the nozzles retract gradually until full military thrust. When engaging AFB they extend somewhat, but not fully(like in idle). You are not mistaken, but its not really a "bug" - it has always been depicted like that in the sim(the issue has been raised many times in the past), so its more of an incorrect representation by design that just hasn't been corrected yet :) BTW the visual representation of the nozzles isn't quite correct either - they are almost cone shaped when retracted, while the real ones have a sort of "cut ogival" shape.

Where do you see a "range scale" on the HUD?

No expert on this either, but there is(as I am sure you know) also a radar guided version of the Hellfire missile. While I am sure you are right about the above, the radar guided version has its advantages as well. It is less affected by visual interferences such as smoke, dust clouds or fog and its "fire & forget" allowing multiple targets to be attacked in quick succession. The latter I believe was the rationale behind fitting the Longbow radar in the first place - i.e. for a "cold war" scenario with the prospect of having to deal with large formations of advancing armour. This in turn could also be a reason why the trend seems to go towards removing the radar - i.e. for "low intensity" environments(such as counter-insurgency operations) the weight saving may be deemed preferable over a feature for which there is less need or where it can't really be used(e.g. in urban environments). IIRC in Afghanistan the radar was often removed because the weight of the radar negatively affected their ability to operate safely at high altitude in mountainous regions. Yes good point.

How are we supposed to notice that Darkfire? :) . All we can see on the photo are graphics that resemble those of DCS World - not what software is running them. I am not saying that ED couldn't be involved in it, but there have been several cases in the past, where people jumped to the conclusion that ED was behind something due to the appearance of the graphics - only for it to be refuted later by ED.

I think you need to read my post again. Firstly, I specifically said "baseline" Su-27 and MiG-29(for which there is a lot of open source documentation) and equally specifically said that it would be another story for upgraded versions(Su-27SM and MiG-29SMT) for which various aspects are classified. Secondly, i don't believe for one second that stepping back from the initial intend(announcement) to do an Su-27SM module had anything to do with fear of the Russian authorities, but rather that sufficient documentation for the new systems of the upgrade simply isn't available for the purpose of a DCS level simulation. No one is that lucky Weta - you would have a better chance of winning the lottery twice over :D See thats the kind of posting that I was reacting to in my initial response to Oceanadar - imaginary Tom Clancy style theories(involving dark men in trenchcoats appearing in the middle of the night) that people come up with to explain why one aircraft or another hasn't materialised(yet) in DCS world - perhaps because the most realistic and straight forward ones are just too boring. :) The same goes for all the IP/legal mumbo jumbo. I don't think "Russia has the same traditions" either - i.e. employing independant law firms to aggressively chase down possible trade mark infringements. Anyway, ED has simulated the Su-27 in games since Flanker 1 with ever increased fidelity, so why would a DCS level simulation of the same aircraft suddenly become a problem in this regard? You can't think of any other reason why a game developer would want to label a flight simulator with: "officially licensed product"? :)

Yes and thats what I was referring to :) Yes so do I. There is a lot of publically available documentation on both the Su-27 and MiG-29 - enough to model both these aircraft to a very high degree of accuracy/fidelity. Of course there may be individual items for which the documentation falls short and thus requiring these to be somewhat "constructed" or omitted althogether, but then thats always going to be the case - the notion that you can obtain 100% documentation for anything military is an illusion. So its a matter of whether you can collect enough to match your desired dept of simulation or whether you feel you have to "guesstimate" or omit too much to bother :) . P.S. I like your avatar ;)

Well of course. Do they? :) I don't believe thats the case Kuky - not when talking about the "baseline" Su-27 or MiG-29 anyway. Its a different story when it comes to upgraded versions(Su-27SM or MiG-29SMT) for which various systems are classified, but then thats always a limitation(not just in Russia). Anyway, there is a difference between being able to get enough documentation for a desired level of simulation and being outright "forbidden" to simulate an aircraft with the level of documentation available :)

Well I have been a "modder" since the days of Flanker 2, so... :D

Sure, but thats "the name of the game"(modding) :)

Well ok I guess I misinterpreted your... ...as an example of something "ridiculously complex" to solve :) .