Seaeagle

The N019's SNP(TWS) mode is said to be quite vulnerable to ECM - probably due to processing limitations. Anyway, the F-15's APG-63 radar has a lot in its "toolbox" - various specialised modes and features for all sorts of situations, so you cannot assume that capabilities are similar just because both have a TWS mode. Well not "passively". The MiG-29S has a modified version of the N019 radar(N019M), from which the R-77 can be launched directly from TWS mode - i.e. no need for transition to STT. That description concerns the "baseline" N019 radar operating in SNP mode prior to transition to STT for launch of an R-27R(SARH) missile. It is also a simplification in regards to the purpose of the SNP mode - it assists the pilot in analysing the tactical situation by tracking up to ten contacts and, based on their movements/range, determines which is the most suitable for engagement and displays this to the pilot. But its true that during this procedure, the target is not alerted prematurely about being singled out for engagement in the same way as would be the case if transitioning directly from a search mode to STT for track data. Whether the R-77 uses its onboard radar seeker has nothing to do with the mode the aircraft radar is operating in at the point of launch, but rather whether the target is within acquisition range of the ARH seeker(some 16 km against fighter-type target). Unless this is the case at the point of launch, the missile is initially steered towards target by its INS(inertial navigation system)/receiving updated target coordinates via datalink(mid-course guidance). According to some sources, the target's RWR may be able to detect when the launching platform starts to transmit those updated target coordinates to the in-flight missile and thereby trigger a launch warning.....maybe thats what you are seeing(rather than missile seeker going active)? Yes it should.

Don't understand your point Dudikoff - I don't see how being in a look-down situation should help with seeker acquisition range(rather the opposite I would think).

Thats the thing - its not STT. The suggestion is that the radar is operating in TWS and somehow provides periodic mid-course updates to multiple in-flight missiles without datalink.

Define mid-course SARH guidance. Early SARH missiles used beam riding(rearward facing antennas tracking the beam emitted by aircraft radar) to guide the missile towards target until the seeker's forward looking antenna could pick up aircraft radar's target returns and home directly on them(SARH). The AIM-54 is a long range missile and the small antenna of the SARH seeker obviously cannot home directly on target reflected energy from 100+ miles distance, so the only explanation I can see for the "SARH midcourse guidance" reference would be some combination of inertia/"periodic beam riding". BTW the references to this that I have seen talks about "Semi-active radar guidance" - not Semi-active radar homing(SARH). That is of course if the AIM-54 doesn't actually have INS/datalink. The SARH reference might not refer to midcourse guidance.....some seekers use combination of SARH and ARH for "pre-terminal" and terminal homing respectively. Upon activation, an ARH seeker first runs a search pattern to locate the target and the idea should be to shorten the search period by using SARH mode to "pre-align" seeker antenna with target.

Neither do I - it was only number 4 that was lit. Yes thats pretty much what I arrived at as well. I don't see how you can determine that based on the translation.

Same as you :) - but in the case of this paragraph it only mentions "подканала", which I think translates simply to "sub channels". Yes as I read it, a flashing "button-lamp" indicates element(s) of the corresponding sub channel failing to respond during test. No arguments there :)

Yes it sounds like I was wrong about what a lit lamp indicates - the reason I thought this, was that I have seen a picture of the SDU panel with lamp no 4 illuminated...I guess it could be showing an error or part of the test procedure. On the other hand, a lit lamp might have one meaning during a test procedure and another in normal operation....but i don't know. I still think you got the "axis" bit wrong though - i.e. rather than a lamp indicating a control axis failure, it is indicating a failure in one of the FCS' back-up channels(hence numbered 1-4). Maybe we could ask in the Russian section and see if anyone knows more about this.

I don't know about Norway, but ours(RDAF) have used them for some time - PIDS(with chaff dispenser) on station 7 and ECIPS(with ECM) on station 3. IIRC I have seen them on Belgian F-16s as well.....not sure if I remember correctly though. Note However, that the further developed PIDS+ and ECIPS+ (with the missile warning sensors) are quite new, so I wouldn't be surprised if we are the only ones using them so far.

I think you got that bit a little wrong. The fly-by-wire system has quadruple redundancy and AFAIK the lights are indicating which FCS line is currently in use - counting down from number 4. So if the system is operating correctly, number 4 should be lit.

They are for jamming. There are basically two types.. - PIDS+ a pylon with integrated missile warning sensors(3) and chaff dispenser. - ECIPS+ a pylon with integrated missile warning sensors(3) and ECM. ...which can be used in combination - i.e. PIDS+ on one wing and ECIPS+ on the other.

As far as I remember, it was down to the map technology used at the time - something about a fixed limit to the number of objects that could be placed. Since an expansion into Georgia appeared to provide a better basis for realistic combat scenarios, it was decided to remove the Crimean ground objects for the purpose. With the war in South Ossetia in 2008, it seemed to be the right decision, while no one in their right mind would suggest a conflict involving Crimea to be even remotely plausible. Edit: Remembered correctly - post by Wags(from 2008 ) on the subject: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=517423&postcount=9

:hmm: It sounds like the same 147 kg Ironhand was talking about - cannon ammo weight?

Found it. - APU-470: 70 kg. - AKU-470: 90 kg. - P-72: 49 kg So for a full Su-27 air-to-air loadout: - 4x AKU-470(under- and between engine ducts for R-27R/ER): 360 kg. - 2x APU-470(inner wing stations for R-27T/TE & R-27R/ER): 140 kg. - 2x P-72(outer wing station for R-73): 98 kg Total: 598 kg Again I believe wingtip launchers(for R-73) are counted in aircraft empty weight as they are always mounted unless ECM pods are fitted.

Yes thats a good point.

Heavy box ;) Even so.....it would have be one seriously obese pilot to account for that extra ton of weight :D Hmm - whats the empty weight of the Su-33 in DCS?

They are on the Su-27 as well - they are only removed when fitting ECM pods. Wing pylons are composed of wing adapters and weapon specific launcher racks/rails with different weights, so their combined weight will differ depending on the loadout.

Well obviously not usable fuel and pilot.

Yes sorry the weight of the entire round is 840 grams - the weights I quoted was indeed just for the projectile. But 100 x 0,84 kg = 84 kg.....not 147 kg.

Yup. I don't know - hard to see a situation in the sim where you need anyway near the full fuel capacity.....half even.

Well thats about a ton more than the real aircraft.

Sounds weird - that would mean 3 times the actual weight of the real rounds.

Even so the A2A armament really only accounts for a fraction of the weight issue. I don't see how they could be counted into the empty weight. A GSh-301 round weighs some 390 - 400 grams(depending on type) and the Su-27 carries 149 rounds, so roughly 60 kg it would seem. - B8M-1 rocket pod(80 mm rockets) weighs 450 kg(150 kg empty). - B-13L rocket pod (122 mm rockets) weighs 535 kg(160 kg empty).

Hehe yeah, but then max TO is also a rather unlikely situation - even with a full load of fuel and max air-to-air configuration(6x R-27ER + 4x R-73), you would still have a couple of tons to spare(although the weight of launcher racks must be considered too) :) . Fuel in particular - the Su-27 can carry an insane amount of internal fuel.....I guess there is a reason why the fuel dump switch has a prominent place on the front instrument panel :)

Well I guess that would be max take-off weight, which is some 30500 kg. Empty weight ~ 16500 kg, max fuel 9400 kg and max ext. payload ~ 4450 kg. So even 100% fuel plus 10 missiles won't take it to MTO.....need a bomb load for that :)

You might be thinking of the Kh-31(very similar in design, but *much* smaller) - I believe both the Su-30 and Su-34 can carry that in DCS :)