Seaeagle

Or keep the KC-135 as is and introduce a KC-130?

Looks good - nice job! :) The in-service year(1998 ) of the Su-33 is correct, although it should perhaps be said that this is the official acceptance year......a complete air regiment(24 units) was actually operational already in 1994 and the Su-33 had completed all acceptance trials by then, but for some reason it took some 3 and a half years before the official documents were signed.

A batch of pre-production test aircraft rather - for further development and acceptance trials. Two were further modified to -TM standard(also known as "Su-39") with new navigation system, more sophisticated version of the Shkval TV and radar(Kopyo-25) in an external pod. I don't know the current status of the Su-25T/TM airframes, but they were not converted to Su-25SM. The Su-25SM is an upgrade performed to the "baseline" Su-25 - i.e. a concept similar to the Su-27 > Su-27SM and MiG-29 > MiG-29SMT.

On MiG-29 versions currently relevant to DCS: - MiG-29(9.12) "FULCRUM A" entered service in 1983. (There is no such thing as a "MiG-29A"). - MiG-29(9.13) "FULCRUM C" entered service in 1987. (*not in DCS world) - MiG-29S(9.13S) "FULCRUM C" - upgraded(radar & armament) version of the above from around 1992 - service status is somewhat unclear. - MiG-29G "FULCRUM A" - unofficial designation applied by the German luftwaffe for their 9.12 version after modifications for NATO compliance, which were performed sometime after the German re-unification - i.e. post 1989. Single seat 9.12 version got an added "G" for Germany, while the twin-seat MiG-29UB(9.51) was renamed "MiG-29GT"(for Germany Trainer). All of Luftwaffe's MiG-29s were later sold to Poland, where they remain in service.

Thats probably because not such thing exists - its simply called "MiG-29" whether a 9.12 version(any) or a 9.13. Yet: a). In connection with the armament expansions including IR and extended range versions of the R-27 for the MiG-29SE, it specifically mentions the upgraded N019M radar and modifications to the WCS - the very things that separate a MiG-29S(9.13S) from a 9.13. But maybe you are suggesting that the initial Soviet 9.12 had capabilities in this regard that the later 9.13 didn't have. b). Again - you claimed earlier that a platform capable of deploying the R-27R would also be able to deploy the IR and long-burn versions with little or no modifications - the export 9.12B can deploy the R-27R, so why are the other R-27 versions not mentioned as compatible armament if it can "generically" deploy those as well?.

1). the "stock MiG-29A" (9.12 version) cannot use wing drop tanks - that ability only came with the 9.13 version. Although it can be "back-fitted" to the 9.12(as Luftwaffe did with theirs). 2). only the two inner hardpoint are compatible with R-27 missiles - the same station used for the droptanks, so its either wing tanks or BVR weapons. MiG-29S can combine wingtanks with BVR weapons, because the R-77/RVV-AE missile can be fitted to all hardpoints.

The IR and extended range versions of the R-27 were not intended for the MiG-29 and therefore not implemented with its weapon's system - you keep ignoring the paragraph I quoted stating that integration of these weapons only came about with the WCS modifications of the MiG-29S. Besides, you contradict yourself. You now claim that its because its the MiG-29 export version that it isn't compatible with those weapons, while in your previous post you claimed that any platform capable of deploying the R-27R could also use the extended range version without modification. After the introduction of the 9.13 variant in 1987, the 9.12 was only produced for export.

Bellony! The site lists aircraft and their specifications currently offered for export by RSK MIG - its a "sales brochure" and not a historical account of what was delivered in Soviet times. It clearly states that the basic MiG-29 is compatible only with the R-27R1 and R-73E(note export designations) air-to-air missiles and specifically notes R-27ER1 and -27ET1 as well as RVV-AE as additions available with the MiG-29SE:

You are free to believe what you like :) . But at least MIG doesn't claim that the MiG-29 is compatible with them: http://www.migavia.ru/index.php/en/production/the-mig-29-fighters-family/mig-29-mig-29ub-mig-29se?limit=1&start=1

And I am telling you that it isn't the case - I remember an old interview with Belyakov, where he stated that they had completed modifications to the MiG-29s WCS for the integration of the R-77(MiG-29S) and that similar integration could be made with the R-27ER/ET......i.e. back then even the MiG-29S was not yet compatible with them. They can obviously carry them since all versions use the same suspension racks - APU-470 rail launcher and AKU-470 ejector rack(for Su-27), but you seem to think that use of long burn versions of the R-27 is a simple matter of the ability to hang them on the aircraft - its not. During the engagement process, the WCS is calculating the correct launch condition based on target information and missile parameters - these are not the same for R-27R and R-27ER.

No I am not - its common knowledge.

The real MiG-29 (9.12 and 9.13) is only compatible with the R-27R. Ability to use "long burn" and IR versions of the R-27 only came with the modified WCS of the MiG-29S.

..to ignore it :D Seriously though its not the most important instrument to observe(most fighters don't even have a separate Mach indicator gauge) - the important one is the IAS gauge :) .

No :) . I believe there were examples of this, but generally speaking the stumbling block is usually with acquiring the necessary level of documentation. Even for older largely declassified aircraft, its obviously so that the "deeper" the simulation, the more information required and the harder it becomes to obtain it to a sufficient level from open sources alone. For more recent aircraft types various systems are classified, which in turn would make a "DCS level" simulation all but impossible......I guess you could call that "legal issues". But I don't see any of this being an issue for ED with regards to something like the MiG-29("baseline" version). The funny thing about this forum is that when people start speculating on the feasibility of a particular aircraft module and why it hasn't been made/announced yet, they tend to come up with the most exotic explanations. Who ever said that they can't/won't make a MiG-29 module?. ED works in mysterious ways and without knowing what goes on behind the scenes, any attempt to assign logical reasoning to their projects(and the order in which they are pursued) is bound to fail.

Yes mate I understand what you plan to do :) - i.e. place more than one aircaft(or parts of them) in one max scene and then, with arg based visibility, show/hide them under the argument number for paint scheme selection in the game. So that changing a paint scheme in the in-game editor will also change the appearance of the aircraft - e.g. from Su-30M2 to Su-30MKI. But I think I misinterpreted what you said earlier... ....as if you intended to include only those two versions, in which case it would be better(in my opinion) to choose a combination of the Su-30M2 and Su-30MKI for the reasons I mentioned earlier :) .

You do nice work Combatace. What I meant with my last post, was that I seem to remember that you also did an Su-30M2 and since this variant doesn't have canards or TVC, you can get it to work properly with the stock Su-30 slot made flyable. Whereas with a combined Su-30MKI/Su-30SM both have features(canards and TVC) that won't, so IMHO it would be better with a combination of Su-30M2/Su-30MKI, just as it would provide bigger diversity(Su-30MKI and Su-30SM are very similar).

How is figuring out which Su-30 version have TVC not on topic in a discussion about replacing the stock Su-30 with another version? Its obviously not my decision, but for the type of mod you intend to do, I wouldn't go for a version with features that aren't available for the Su-30 slot or, in the case of TVC, for any aircraft in the game. But I will butt out and leave you to it :)

The Su-35 has the 117S engine, which is an upgraded version of the AL-31FP - it has more power(14500 kgf in AB versus 12500 kgf of AL-31F/FP) and allegedly doubled life time(to some 4000 hours), but the TVC system is the same as on the AL-31FP.

I beg to differ. The WIP screenshots were not only for an external model, but also for a player cockpit and they wouldn't start building that unless they intended to use it at some point. Besides, as someone else mentioned, a developer confirmed a while back that they were still working on it. IIRC Wags also mentioned at some point, that development of the ground radar modes for the F-18 could form the basis for other projects such as the F-16. So there is IMHO plenty of indications that they still intend to make an F-16 module along the way. But given the current list of projects, its probably not going to be right around the corner and it would be bad PR practise to announce(or even "tease" about) a project years ahead of its realisation......just look at the current situation with the F-18 :)

Why wouldn't they?. The differences between the MiG-29 and MiG-29S are minute both externally(hump and some antennas) and internally(ECM panel and a different fuelgauge), so there is really no reason not to update the MiG-29S. I suspect that both the new external- and cockpit models of the MiG-29 are still WIP and that they just want to perfect them before making the modifications to MiG-29S.

Yes but that was the point I was making - i.e. that in some videos the MiG-29 is seen to smoke a lot, while in the airshow I was at, it didn't really smoke more than the other aircraft and certainly not more than the Su-27 did. Ok I see what you mean, but the choice is not necessarily to upgrade all of one type and none of the other :) . I was responding to the notion that domestic and export customers only went for upgraded/new versions of the Flanker, while no one has shown any interest in MiG-29 derivatives, which is clearly false. Considering that the MiG-35 is a newer development, you cannot support that claim just because the Russian contract for it hasn't been signed yet - what matters is that they(Russian MoD) intend to sign it once state acceptance trials have been completed. Besides, they already purchased both upgraded MiG-29SMTs as well as MiG-29K/KUBs for the navy. On the export markets, India already purchased the MiG-29K/KUB(16 units initially followed by 29 more) and is in the process of upgrading 69 of their baseline MiG-29s to MiG-29UPG standard(sort of SMT+). Additionally Egypt has recently signed a contract for 50 MiG-29M/M2s. Its nothing compared to the new MiG-29K/KUBs though - with 3 bags it has the same range as the Su-33 and can also be refuelled in the air :)

No that right, they haven't signed the contract yet, but they intend to: http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20150812/1179340533.html There is initial approval of the type by the Russian MoD, prototypes are being built for state acceptance trials and if completed according to schedule, they plan to sign a contract for some 30 aircraft in 2018.

They didn't - they went for both :) . The Su-33s will be upgraded(although probably only moderately) and continue to serve with the 279th regiment, while a newly formed 100th regiment will operate the 24 new MiG-29K/KUBs. I wouldn't say that the MiG-29K struggles in this area - it can carry a lot more fuel(both internally and externally) than the old baseline MiG-29. It also has in-flight refuelling capability and can carry a "buddy-refuelling" pack. The MiG-29K/KUB is a brand new aircraft, while there is really only so much you can do in terms of upgrading the Su-33 - especially considering the age of the airframes. The MiG-29K production line was already in place with the Indian order(s), while there are no export customers for the Su-33. So designing, testing, certifying and setting up a production line for a new upgraded version just for Russian navy, would likely not be economically feasible.

I don't see how it would be less expensive to upgrade the Flanker fleet. Anyway, Russia already has upgraded MiG-29SMTs in service and in fact opted for MiG-29K/KUBs for the navy instead of deep upgrade/expansion of the Su-33 fleet. They have also ordered the MiG-35.. although the planned configuration sounds more like the MiG-29M/M2.

Yes thats clear, but doesn't explain why they are sometimes seen trailing a big fat plume of jet black smoke, while on other occasions only a small puff followed by a short and barely visible trail :) .