Seaeagle

Kh-41?....don't think so.

Yes and in the DCS you can safely assume an unknown to be enemy since only friends and enemies exist and all friendlies will automatically be IFF interrogated and registered as such if you use your radar.

Yes in earlier iterations of the sim(lomac) you could deploy it from the Su-33 though a special procedure(simulating target data obtained from an external source), to omit the fact that the Su-33 has no "ground radar" for the purpose. However, that didn't address the realism problem with an airlaunched version of the misssile itself not being operational, so the feature was removed. The missile still exists in the game as the SSM version(deployed by the Tarantul III class missile boat).....and should really be renamed accordingly to "P-270" or alternatively "3M80". No not anymore - well not from aircraft anyway :)

Is there a section dedicated to IFF equipment/procedures in the Su-27SK manual? - if there is, then maybe it is mentioned there. If there isn't, then there could be a couple of explanations for that too - either that it was removed from the published version of the manual or that the export version of the Su-27(-SK) isn't supplied with IFF equipment at all.

It sounds like the missile you have in mind is the "Kh-41" - an airlaunched version of the 3M80 "Moskit" proposed for arming the Su-33 at one point. However, although the Su-33 was previously displayed with a mock-up of it at airshows, neither the weapon(airlaunched version) nor the Su-33's ability to deploy ASMs actually materialised. It was never associated with the Su-27 though. No the Su-33 has the same radar(basic N001) as the Su-27 and therefore no means of acquiring surface targets for radar guided ASMs. Yes but the Su-27SM has an upgraded version of the N001 radar with added air-to-surface modes, while other Su-27 derrivatives(such as the Su-35) have entirely new and more sophisticated radars.

Yes thats right :) Thats the bit I was referring to in regards to "both Block 10 and 15". AFAIK the RDAF is still considering their current F-16AM fleet as being a mix of Block 10 and Block 15 airframes( you mentioned yourself that the aircraft in the picture you posted doesn't have airframe changes associated with Block 15). I remember reading that aircraft on Block 10 basis were assigned to routine missions(such as "air-policing") in order to preserve airframe life of the hard pressed Block 15 based AMs usually deployed overseas for actual combat missions. Yes I am aware that the capabilities I mentioned were applied gradually - but you seemed confused about them: ...so I just outlined the current ones - or did you mean that particular airframe(E-194) specifically? I fail to see the point(and feasibility) with that - all you would have gained is to use the same external 3D model, which properly account for something like 5% of the work involved :D . A clickable 6DOF virtual 3D cockpit is in general many times more work than the external model and, as you know, the differences in cockpit layouts from an F-16A Block 10 to an -MLU are huge. Thats just the 3D modelling.....then there is the whole aspect of programming the vast difference in electronics and combat systems. With the current trend in DCS of moving towards different time frames(WWII, 50'ies, 60'ies etc), it would IMHO be better to go for an early pure "counter-air" F-16A(like Block 15, which I believe is still the most produced variant) for the 80'ies and newer F-16C multirole variant for the 90'ies(to current day) rather than trying to span the whole F-16 history/operators with a single entity.......same goes for F-15 and F-18 BTW :)

The Danish airforce originally purchased both Block 10 and 15 airframes, which have since been upgraded several times and in the current "F-16AM" configuration correspond to a Block 50/52 system-wise. - AN/APG-66/68(V2) - Link-16 - LANTIRN - ALQ-213 - HMCS - NVG(and compatible cockpit) - MJU-7A/B As far as current armament goes: - AIM-9 - AIM-120 - MK-82 and MK-84 - GPU-12 Paveway II - GPU-31 JDAM - GPU-49 JDAM As for which Blocks to do for DCS - I think an F-16A(Block 10 or 15 from the early eighties) and a later F-16C from the late eighties/early nineties(Block 40/42?) would satisfy most needs.

I think: "ATK" is indicating the radar sub-mode - i.e. STT. "A" is indicating a target lock "ACB" is indicating a target lock on a friendly(as determined by IFF). Again there is not such thing as identification of an enemy - only unknown or friendly. "ПР"(launch authorisation) indicating that the locked target is within launch parameters of the missile.....and would not be issued if the target is determined to be friendly.

Это могло бы иметь что-то делать с функцией заправщика(УПАЗ)?

Not really - new sophisticated battlefield management can of course help to better identify contacts by streaming information from different sources and share them via datalink(such as Link 16). But the IFF(device) itself is the same. Basically it transmits a query for which it expects a matching answer, so anything that doesn't recognise the query and respond accordingly will register as an unknown entity.

....and level of external support(AWACS, GCI). But you are right - even with such assets available, ROE may still(and often did) dictate VID prior to engagement.

An IFF interrogation can only have two outcomes - either "friendly" or "unknown". The system can only positively identify a friend - anything else is "unknown" and that can be a hostile, a neutral or even a friendly that for some reason doesn't respond to the interrogation(inoperable, out of range etc). So the "Identify Friend or Foe" is really a stupid name for the device. However, as you know, in the game there are only two sides(coalitions) and IFF is a "generic" function(no risk of someone forgetting to switch it on), so you can be certain that if it doesn't register as a friendly, it must be a hostile.

Current Su-35s have little to do with the initial prototypes from the late eighties - different airframe(e.g. no canards, no airbrake) and entirely new FCS. What?! :D

It depends on the quality of the source - technical documentation usually include several different figures: 1). Nominal capacity of tanks in space - i.e. litres or gallons. 2). Nominal capacity of the tanks in mass - i.e. kilograms or lbs. 3). Usable capacity - i.e. excluding trapped fuel that cannot be pumped out of the tanks. How much a liter of fuel corresponds to in weight depends on its density - i.e. the fuel type at a particular temperature(15C is often used as reference). The USAF is using JP8, which IIRC corresponds to the NATO standard called "F34", while I believe the USN is using JP5.

Someone(think it was IvanK) once posted the attached procedure for lofting an AIM-7 from an F-18. As I understand it, late variants of the AIM-7 as well as the AIM-120 did not require any manual procedures(including pitching up the nose of the aircraft), but would automatically enter a lofted trajectory if the right set of circumstances were met. Could be because radars generally are more challenged in look-down situations.

If you were talking about AI implementation only, then it would make sense. But for a flyable aircraft, you don't just need to know the basic specifics of each radar set, but also the varies modes it can operate in and how they are displayed to the pilot on the HUD and MFDs - same goes for other systems such as RWS, IRST etc. If you just took the radar code of the Su-27/MiG-29 along with its display system and adjusted it for less power/range for depicting the MiG-21-93's a Kopyo radar, it would grossly misrepresent the most important aspect of what the MiG-21-93 upgrade was about and thereby pretty much defeat the purpose of introducing it to the sim in the first place. You said that: The Su-27SM has a modified radar, new IRST(with TV) and new radar warning system, which among other things, allow it to use new weapon types; R-77 and Kh-31A(radar), Kh-31P(RWS), Kh-29TE and KAB-500kr(IRST). Plus a whole bunch of other things including a new display system with color LCDs that wasn't "used in the 80'ies" and for which there is little or no information available. Well I guess my open mindedness doesn't extend to suggestions for shallow make-believe implementations of modernised Russian aircraft that don't remotely represent what they are about.

You proposed a MiG-21-93 version and then went on to say that all that was needed for that would be to port over the radar of the Su-27. I am telling you that the radar of the MiG-21-93 has absolutely *nothing* to do with the Su-27 radar in anyway. Apart from being minute in comparison, its a completely different design - newer technology with different characteristics and capabilities. I don't know what you are talking about in regards to A2A/A2G radar - so far no A2G radar functionality in the game(will only be introduced with the F-18 module). You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Yes "the info" is the problem.

Its not about the armament, but its onboard systems/sensory and how they are displayed to the pilot. The MiG-21-93 version has a new radar(Kopyo) that is much smaller(less powerful), but much more advanced(including air-to-ground modes) than the old N001 radar of the Su-27.

Well green is also a color :) . The DDIs are monochrome, which means restricted to a single color but can display an image in shades of this(maybe thats what tifafan meant by "limited color capability"). Example of F-18C DDI image display attached.

Precisely! MiG-21 - 60'ies MiG-23 - 70'ies MiG-29 - 80'ies MiG-29S - 90'ies I am now the one who thinks the most modern plane is the only aircraft to play?! That goes with the age - same way as it would be with an F-18A -> F-18C -> F-18E. Besides, the MiG-29(9.12) is a real aircraft build in large numbers and widely exported, while the MiG-29S as depicted in the game is a curiosity that doesn't exist in reality.

Going by that reasoning no one would ever consider buying a separate MiG-21 module. "we" shouldn't be doing anything - ED should make a full DCS level MiG-29 module and sell it at full price.

Some - at least the basic specs as published by the manufacturer(Tactical Missiles Corporation JSC) at: http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/503/567/ Length: 3,7 m versus 3,6 m(RVV-AE) Weight: 190 kg versus 175 kg(RVV-AE) Body diameter is the same(200 mm), while the dimensions for wing- and rudder span varies by a couple of mm - don't know if this signifies any change or if they are just rough numbers. In regards to the sekerhead there is information available(from AGAT) for the new 9B-1103M.

The RVV-SD is some 10 cm longer than the RVV-AE and weighs about 15 kg more. The electronics, assuming that it involves the new 9B-1103M seeker in place of the old 9B-1348E, is some 6 kg lighter(10 kg. versus 16 kg. respectively).

SARH = Semi-Active-Radar-Homing Its a terminal homing method(like ARH) and not an alternative form of midcourse guidance.