Seaeagle

No probably not. Well I am not so sure - I think the poll posted on this forum section clearly indicates that FC3 still has its attraction as long as those new FF modules don't involve the Su27, Su-33, F-15C or even the MiG-29S. One does not exclude the other .Ideally the current FC3 aircraft would all be brought to FF standard along the way, while FC3/MAC(or whatever it will be called) could be used for simpler replication of more "exotic" types, where there is no hope of FF modules. ....and not that one either until quite recently .

No I can't, because the Russian forum section where it was posted no longer exists.

Cockpits and systems - e.g. the Su-33 never had the SPO-15 RWR. I know and that wasn't what I was talking about(see above) - in fact bringing back such unrealistic armament for the Su-33 was exactly what I was refering to earlier;

Sure Silver_Dragon . I know the circumstances and I am not suggesting that because ED was able to do the Su-25T and Ka-50 earlier, that they could necessarily also do other test aircraft. I was merely saying that as far as operational status is concerned, there would be no difference, and that those other test aircraft wouldn't be any less "valid" candidates for DCS in this regard. Besides, there are lots of discrepancies with both the Su-25T and Ka-50(and even the Su-33) implementation in sim, where lack of information meant that either omissions or "best guesses" had to be made.

The Su-25T and Ka-50 both fall in the exact same category as MiG-29M/MiG-29K, Su-27M, MiG-31M etc as developments of the late eighties, for which only a small batch of test aircraft were built. In some cases test aircraft were sent to frontline units for operational testing and evaluation, but that did not change their status to operational aircraft. The fact is that neither the Ka-50 nor Su-25T made it past testing. If anything they were actually further from this than the other test types I mentioned above - because while those were suspended/cancelled in the early 90'ies for purely finansial reasons in the aftermath of the Soviet collapse, the Ka-50 and Su-25T were rejected for technical/operational reasons.

Why? So what?- the Ka-50 and Su-25T didn't either. I would much rather see FC level replication of such test aircraft that actually had the weapon's capabilities the OP is seeking, than ruining the current FC3 aircraft by applying fictional capabilities they never had.

It looks like it only had a single escort ship assigned to it on that cruise(Med 1988) - namely DD-978 "Stump"(Spruance class destroyer).

They were not. There were only two actual MiG-29K test aircraft back then - no 311 and 312 and they were "converted" 9.15 airframes. So they had all the features of the MiG-29M including the system's complex - the modifications basically boiled down to; bigger wings(larger span) and flaps, uprated landing gear, retractable in-flight refuelling probe and a more advanced navigation system. They used the same engines(RD-33K) as the MiG-29M, but with an "emergency thrust" regime(like on the Su-33). There was a single 9-12 airframe with some simple modifications involvng an arrestor hook and a glide scope indexer in the cockpit for some initial tests of arrested landings - this was IIRC called "MiG-29KVP", but it had nothing to do with the actual MiG-29K. The revived MiG-29K. that is currently in service is the 9.41(single seat) and 9.47 (two seat) and is a case of a complete redesign - sort of like with the legacy F-18 to Super Hornet. So Vanir got it all wrong as usual.

Right, but we both know that a "full fidelity" module cannot be made like some "user mod".

I think Nipil just hit the nail on the head. My own impression (and also what I have heard from ED) is that documentation isn't the problem as far as the 9.12 is concerned, but getting the legal rights to do it is. So I must admit I never understood the talk about it being a possibiity for a (supposedly foreign) third party to develop it for DCS - I mean it would still be distributed via ED's software, so it not like they could just claim to have no involvement in it.

Yes - you can also use the helmet sight alone for this. No because all you are doing with those sensors, is to pick a target of interest and determine its angular coordinates, which in turn the weapon's control system uses to cue the missile seeker to look in the right direction in order for it to obtain a target lock of its own. The only other thing they are doing is to find the range to target in order to determine when the missile can be launched and cover the distance. So unlike with the SARH version of the missile, there is no direct dependency of a particular sensor type nor any ability to control the IR version after launch.

What Ironhand said. No the missile's own IR seeker needs to have a lock before you can launch - the IRST(Infra Red Search and Track) system is just one of three available methods(the radar and the helmet sight being the two other) you can use for designating a target for it. The advantage of using the IRST for this is that, like the missile IR seeker, its "emission free"(doesn't alert the enemy RWR) and that it generally resembles the properties of the IR seeker - i.e. if the IRST can find the target, there is a good chance the the IR seeker can too.

Ok thanks. Yes I remember seeing that in the equipment list, but forgot what it was Yeah I know. Ok that clears up that confusion then. But I could swear that I read in some military documentation that for the -38A the AN/ASQ-173 was only required for a target designated(lased) by an external source. Thanks - I didn't know that.

No I don't, but I think you are right. The first version of the Nite Hawk(AN/AAS-38) was a pure FLIR pod and engaging ground targets with LGBs could only be achieved with an external source(other aircraft equipped with a laser designator or ground units lasing the target) and only if carrying a separate laser dot tracker pod(ASQ-173). So I think this first version of the Nite Hawk is what is referred to as "a thermal imaging navigation set" for the Lot 12 in the Lot/features list. With the AN/AAS-38A introduced with Lot 14, the Nite Hawk got a built-in laser designator. IIRC it also included a spot tracker for self designation of targets, with the ASQ-173 pod only required for targets designated by an external source. But I am a little unsure about the last bit - i.e. whether the ASQ-173 was still required - thats what most sources on the interweb say anyway, but then they also seem to think that the AN/AAS-38A was the first version(probably due to the "A" suffix). The last version introduced with Lot 17, the AN/AAS-38B added some additional features, which IIRC correspond to those of the ATFLIR in DCS - such as improved image resolution, a built-in laser spot tracker(no need for ASQ-173) and an air-to-air mode.

Yeah in 1985 the Hornet itself had only just been put into service, so they would have been the very first version. The list of Lots/added features I once posted, doesn't include the A/B version and not even the first couple of C/D Lots, which were really just "digitalised A/Bs - only new features I remember being the new Up-front control panel and integrated digital engine/fuel panel - the rest was sort of "under the hood". Mind you, all legacy hornets had CRT displays - from Lot 12("Night Attack" version) and up, the DDIs were updated with NVG compatibility, ability to show text in 3 colors(red, yellow and green) and display imagery(monochrome), while the new MPCD was a full color display.....but stil CRT. It was only with the AMPCD backfitted in 2004(as depicted on the DCS Lot 20), that the Hornet got an LCD based display. The AN/APG-73 is really just a deep modification to the original AN/APG-65, so the basic radar design is the same and IIRC retains several parts such as the antenna and transmitter.

No sorry I don't. But at the corners of my mind, I seem to remember that its known as "TADIL J" in US terminology, where TADIL is an abbreviation for "Tactical Digital Information Link" and "J" is the version, which in turn is know as "Link 16" by NATO. Its somewhat newer than most people realise - I believe it was introduced in 1997-1998 or so, but when exactly it was implemented specifically on USN Hornets is another matter - probably a few years later.

Well as you can see on YT footage, they do have a guy directing the aircraft on to the launch blocks, checking the aircraft, signalling the pilot when to power up etc.

Well IMO it was a sound approach to what the Soviets wanted from their aircraft carriers - i.e. not a US style "force projection" super carrier, but a cruiser-carrier tailored for specific tasks of naval warfare(ASW, ASuW and air-defence). The Kuznetsov design met those requirements in terms of balance between cost effectiveness and capability - unlike any of the other Soviet takes on aircraft carriers, which were either wholefully inadequate(Pr. 1123 "Moscow class" and Pr. 1143 "Kiev class) or much too large, complex and expensive(projected Pr. 1143.7 "Ul'Yanovsk class). With the Kuznetsov they got a practical ship of mid range size with good endurance, sophisticated onboard systems/armament and- above all - a proper airwing that both in terms of size and capability(performance, range and payload) justified the cost of operating it. So yes I like the design, but like I said, sadly let down by the circumstances surrounding its inception and service. Well I guess there are limitations in this regard, but at least the basics concerning launch and recovery should be achievable. Anyway, I didn't read the OP as a question about why the Kuznetsov wasn't made to "full SC level", but rather since it isn't, why he has to pay for a US carrier that is just to get an updated 3D model . Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but you would need the proper contacts to find out. Indeed. Of course.

Interesting find . But I guess thats down to simplification in DCS. The laser should not be active without a target and even then I suspect that it will only be on for a brief burst and certainly not continously - IIRC if you leave the laser on in the Ka-50, it shuts down automatically after a short time to prevent it from overheating.

I think I already acknowledged the troubled service history of the ship and the reasons for it. This However, does not justify the ridicule and shallow assesments by people who don't know what the hell they are talking about......not saying that you don't, but what is written about it on most press- and private internet sites is just complete crap. The ship was put into service with the Soviet navy in December 1990 - at this point it was not fully outfitted or in serviceable conditon. There is nothing unusual about this - its actually normal procedure that the military takes over a ship from the bulding yard and performs the remaining system's installations and testing before the ship is declared fully operational. What was unusual were the circumstances surrounding this for the Kuznetsov with the bankruptcy and subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union, the change of ownership to Russia and total absence of funding for it afterwards. But I agree that it should not have been condidered operational and sent on deployments in that condition. I don't want to rag on about anything - just saying that fires during yard repair work aren't totally unheard of outside Russia. Neither should fires as a result of misguided welding work on a ship yard.

When did the Kuznetsov "combust" at sea? - aside from the ship yard fire(s) and a single minor incident while at port in Turkey, I cannot remember any. In my opinion this is just BS exageration by dumbass tabloid press and interweb people, that that you apparently find funny. If you are looking for real operational failings, then its not the smokey powerplant or "spontaneous combustions", but rather the multiple occasions of failing arrestor gear with the subsequent loss of fighter jets. Indeed.

Yeah bollocks. As if US warships have never been torched by welders at ship yards. If you are referring to the Ingull class, then Its not "an ocean going tug", but actually a multi-purpose rescue ship that can undertake all sorts of support tasks - sort of the ship equivalent to a Swiss army knife. It doesn't "self destruct". Underfunding, inadequate maintenance/repairs and multiple accidents at iincompetent ship yards have plagued the ship throughout its history.

Well you would need to ask ED about that . I don't think it was a reasonable solution either - if it had come with the same level of expanded functionality as the US carrier(s) as originally planned then sure, but as this was abandonned, the updated 3D model should IMO just have replaced the old one in DCS World like any other 3D update for existing units.

What aircraft with a laser warning system are you flying? Anyway, its been a long time since I studied the MiG-29 systems in detail and I cannot remember exactly how the laser is employed for range finding with the EOS. But I would say that IRST lock as such has nothing to do with the laser rangefinder - an IR seeker of a missile also locks the target, but has no laser for meaassuring range, so it would be down to a sufficient heat "signature", while the laser component of the EOS is just for figuring out when a selected weapon is within range of the target.

No its not. The initial idea with the" supercarrier" module was for the Nimitz class and Kuznetsov to be modelled to the same standard and functionality. But then for some reason ED changed their minds in regards to the latter and only an updated 3D model for the Kuznetsov.......so the afterthought was to ditch it. It wasn't for the reason mentioned above. Heh well yes it is now.