Seaeagle

One does not exclude the other. TWS(up to six targets) ---> INS/command update --> ARH STT(single target) ---> INS/command update --> SARH

Correct. Do you think engaging 6 targets simultaneously is mandatory for all situations?

No it isn't. HOJ is passive radar homing and has nothing to do with semi-active radar homing(SARH).

I have seen combination of SARH/ARH stated for several missile seekerheads including that of the AIM-54 e.g: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=700&ct=2 "Guidance system: Semi-active and active radar homing" ... not for midcourse guidance(which works as you described), but as an alternative homing method(with STT support)....possibly to extend seeker acquisition range.

Because the article compares the very first MiG-29 version from 1983 to a further developed version of the F-16 from the early 90'ies? :) The first MiG-29(9.12) entered service in 1983 - for this the most contemporary variant of the F-16 would be something like a Block 15 from ~ 1982.

Yes I think so too. I have heard some people suggesting that it might get a deeper modernisation(along the lines of the -27SM), but I have not seen any official statements to support this. Anyway, apparently the Russian navy will have two regiments of deck fighters in the near future - the current one(279 KIAP) with upgraded Su-33s and a new one for the MiG-29K/KUBs.

Yes thats right - IIRC the upgrade in question involved the Zhuk-27 radar.

No its the Su-33 - there were rumours that some Su-33s had been upgraded with the Pastel RWS already some 10 years ago. More recently(couple of years ago) some airframes underwent a modest upgrade, for which the Pastel was confirmed as being part of the package. The Su-27KUB(Su-33UB) is an entirely different beast. Nope :) . Latest news is that the Su-33s will be upgraded and remain in service for at least another 10 years alongside the new MiG-29K/KUBs.

Nor can the Su-33. The Kh-31A requires a radar with air-to-surface modes for targeting/control and the Su-33 has the same radar as the basic Su-27. If anything it would be the other way around - some Su-33s have been upgraded with the new Pastel RWR, which can control ARMs like the Kh-31P.

....and that there had to be a tender(by law).

I think its too late for that - as far as I can tell the bids are in and we are just awaiting the final decision(early 2016). You really don't like the SH huh? :D . But anyway, I think you are right about the F-35....unfortunately.

Well thats a matter of opinion. The point is that possible alternatives are the F-35 and Eurofighter.....the Gripen isn't(anymore).

Yes but I was referring to the Danish tender(in response to Hummingbird). Sorry for the confusion(and off-topic).

Agree. Of those only the Eurofighter is left in the tender - Rafale is a non-starter(Dassault refused to enter from the very beginning) and the Gripen was withdrawn last year. The options left are: F-35, F/A-18E and Eurofighter. Personally I would choose the SuperHornet simply due to cost and the fact that it comes with advanced AESA radar and huge ordinance range. Our country is small in terms of defence budget, but not in terms of area - remember we are also responsible for the defence of the commonwealth(Greenland and Faroe Islands) and to some extend Iceland(via defence agreement).

No I was merely pointing out that the FCS was modified as compared with the "baseline" 9.12 and therefore doesn't fly in the same way. The improvements you mention are the ones I was referring to - I don't know if the FCS is more responsive to control inputs as such, but then I would say that greater overall stability and improved control at high AoA would positively affect the feel of "sluggishness" somewhat :)

He says they said - I have read plenty of accounts by Luftwaffe MiG-29 pilots that says otherwise while giving a far better insight to the aircraft and its pros and cons than he did. Bollocks.

I don't "categorize it as being sluggish" Tirak - it was just a wordplay on this: ...in response to the argument that it isn't particulary clever to judge the combat capabilities of a platform in its initial configuration by comparing it to another in a newer and upgraded form. I was refering to the bit concerning the F-16C's superiour BVR capability via radar upgrade/AMRAAM, when the fact is that the F-16 in its original form didn't actually have any BVR capability at all - no radar guided AAMs and a radar with a range good for little more than cuing its Sidewinders :) Then why did he say it is: I see - then perhaps you can point me to something that proves he is who he claims to be?.

No because the MiG-29(9.13) and MiG-29S(9.13S) had improvements to the FCS - still a mechanical system and enhancements may be subtle, but its nevertheless different to the 9.12.

No problem. Its just that it has been posted several times on this forum and frankly isn't worth the attention :D

No - because the truth is the F-16 went from being a dog to an actual contender lol I wish people would stop posting that shallow "research paper" - its full of factual errors, unsupported claims and biased comparisons that makes the author's claimed credentials dubvious to say the least.

R-77 and RVV-AE is the same thing - "R-77" was the original designation for Soviet forces, while "RVV-AE" was an export name for the same weapon and is in operational use with the Indian airforce. The further development of the R-77/RVV-AE is called "RVV-SD"(not "RVV-MD" which is a further development of the R-73). The upgraded Su-27SM was made compatible with the RVV-AE, but the RuAF might not have acquired it - maybe because the export item contains non-Russian components or maybe simply because they want to hold out for the above mentioned further developed RVV-SD to become operational instead. At any rate the Su-27 variant in the game is the old Su-27S from 1984 and just putting RVV-AEs on its pylons does not make it an -SM.

There are several ways of going about this depending on how sophisticated you want it, but the simplest way is to make several nozzles at varies stages of retraction(and glow intensity in the texture) and then use arg. based visibility to hide/unhide them according to the value steps under the appropriate argument number. Doing it this way the transition is not as smooth as can be achieved with other methods, but its fairly straight forward and it works. Personally I think I would use a single nozzle base, divide each "feather" into two or three sections, linking the most rear to the middle one and this to the first - then animate(arg. based rotation) in steps in order to get a smoother transition and a slight curvature of the feathers as they retract.

At any rate, there is nothing particularly Russian about coloring cockpits for the purpose of reducing contrast between outside/inside viewing. As mentioned earlier the cockpit color(dark gull grey) applied to most modern US jets has the same purpose, but since its a shade of grey I guess its just not noticed as much - same with the MiG-29 cockpit color, which is often incorrectly referred to as "neutral grey". I don't know about any psychological considerations/studies in regards to Russian cockpit coloring, but I do remember reading about it in connection with the interior coloring(bright "sand" color) of Russian submarines, which supposedly has a beneficial effect on the mood of the crew - but then we are talking about being locked down in a metal box for weeks or months never seeing daylight.......rather different circumstances.

Bare in mind though that photo compression(for web use) has a nasty tendency to corrupt color representation. E.g. in your examples the high-res MiG-21 photo shows the "turquoise" color(typical for cockpits of earlier Soviet aircraft) well, while the Su-27 photo is poor quality and the light blue color appears "faded" to the point where it looks almost looks like the color of the MiG-29 cockpit, which in turn isn't blue at all, but grey with a slight green tone. BTW it isn't just Russian cockpits. US cockpits such as for the F-15 and F-18 are often refered to as being "light ghost grey", but they aren't - they are "dark gull grey".