Seaeagle

The EOS is set up to use the laser as primary range meassuring tool with the radar as alternative, in case the target is outside laser range. So the EOS range as such is not limited by the range of the laser component

I think you are mistaken EOS range for the range of the laser rangefinder, which was some 6-8 kilometers. IR range is highly dependant on aspect and there is something to suggest that the real system(on baseline 9-12) didn't really work well(or at all) in front aspect. But for a look-up situation against a rear aspect target in full burner(optimal condition) 6-8 miles would seem extremely short.

One does not exclude the other. But you are right that starting by an update to the existing units would be a practical way to go - e.g. more advanced damage modelling will require the 3d models to support it, so it would be handy to have at least a few upgraded entities to set the standard(both in terms of technical requirements as well as 3D "fidelity"). But as far as extended/improved modelling of systems, armament and defensive equipment goes, this will to a large extend automatically apply to many of the unit additions mentioned in this thread - because there is a high degree of shared equipment on ship types operated by a nation - especially for units of the same generation as the ones already in DCS.

Yup .

Correction: the "baseline" MiG-29(9.12, 9.13) wasn't, but the FBW versions certainly were with numerous changes to the airframe and wing design. Probably quite true unfortunately.

No not controversial at all and I can understand your preference, but I don't agree with the notion that FBW aircraft are boring to fly. Its just a different experience and in the case of the MiG-29, the FBW versions are also far more capable combat platforms.

why not?

I don't know what exactly the issue was, but its clearly not weight related. The same documentation(and every other I have seen) states, as you said, that four Kh-31 missiles can be carried(on the two inner wing stations) and those are *much* heavier - the long-burn R-27s are about 350 kg + launchers, while the Kh-31s are over 600 kg + launchers(which are heavier too). It doesn't matter if the photos you have seen seem to have involved inert ones - the configuration was thoroughly tested and certified with multiple test firings of live missiles. But then I have never seen R-27s(any version) on a MiG-29(any version) with anything other than the APU-470 rail launchers, while the Kh-31s are catapult launched(by AKU-58M) so maybe that has something to do with it - i.e. length of the R-27E missiles, rail launching, clearance to airframe/control surfaces etc.

Yes but according the the documentation I have, even for the 9-15/9-31 there were some restrictions - i.e. it could take 4 R-27 missiles, but only 2 of those could be of the long-burn variants.

There was such a doctrine, but it does not apply specifically to radar/IR missiles - most SAM systems as well as aircraft radar complexes were set up so that they could simultaneously guide two missiles against a target for increased PK. The only official mention of launch of an IR missile after a radar guided one, that I have seen, has to do with the need to impose a slight delay on order to avoid having the IR missile locking on to/or being distracted by the plume from the missile launched shortly before - but then that would apply regardless of whether that was radar guided or another IR missile .

The R-27 "family" is modular, but this old discussionj regarding possible DL for the T/TE is really down to a misconception about what resides in which missile section - more to the point, that the common "autopilot" section should have something to do with INS/datalink capability.....it does not. The "autopilot" section does exactly what the name implies - i.e. it takes simple steering commands from the seekerhead and translates them into appropriate control surface deflections. The inertial navigation system is an integrated part of the SARH radar seeker,, while the IR seeker doesn't have one.

Yes but there are quite a few diffferences between the Russian Sovremennys(Pr. 956A) and the two first delivered Chinese ones(Pr. 956E) - and far more for the later ones( Pr. 956EM). So the same 3D model cannot be used for all - not without major modifications anyway.

There is only one variant of the Su-33 and, as mentioned above, it has the same air-to-air and air-to-ground armament(i.e. only unguided bombs and rockets) as the Su-27S. There were roumors about a possible Su-27SM style upgrade, which would provide support for guided a2g armament(and the RVV-AE), but so far only minor upgrades such as the above mentioned RWS and an advanced bomb delivery system are known to have been implemented. There is of course the Chinese J-15, which was reverse engineered on the basis of an old Su-27K(Su-33) test aircraft, that China bought from Ukraine - the J-15 does have guided air-to-surface armament, but calling that a variant of the Su-33 would be a little bit of a stretch......and good luck trying to find documentation for that BTW .

The same . Actually they can all "be mounted" on the Su-33, but the WCS is pretty much the same as on the Su-27S, so there is no system/sensory support for them. In the case of the "Kh-41", it was a proposed air-launched version of the massive 3M80E SSM, but there is something to suggest that it never materialised except as mock-ups displayed on the aircraft at airshows - possibly because it really is an unpractical idea. The Kh-31A, on the other hand, is a fully operational weapon, but it requires support from the aircraft radar - i.e. air-to-surface modes, which as mentioned above, the the Su-33 radar doesn't have(same N001 radar as on the Su-27S). Kh-25MP and Kh-31P are anti-radar missiles, which are usually controlled via an extension to the radar warning system - the Su-33 was supposed to have a more modern RWS(than the Su-27) with such a capability, but due to the break-up of the Soviet Union, it didn't get it until very recently and for most of its service history, the Su-33 didn't actually have an RWR at all. In recent years some minor upgrades were performed on the Su-33, but while it now does have the necessary RWS system for controlling ARMs, there is no indication that such weapons were implenented. At any rate the RWS in question(L-150 "Pastel") is considered a sensitive item and clouded in secrecy, so finding the necessary documentation for how it works is probably going to be vert difficult.

I don't think this is merely a case of back-up. The service ceiling of the MiG-31 is some 25000 m - one of the pressure altimeters cannot count that high, while the other can but the readout is not as clear and intuitive. I.e. at a quick glance you get a figure e.g. somewhere between 10 an 15000 m, which may be fine "high up", but not good enough at lower altitudes.

I was thinking that too. Look at the inner scale of each altimeter - the one to the left counts 1000 meters in increments of 5(from 5 to 25) while the one to the right counts them in increments of 2(2 to 18).

IR homing missiles(R-27T/ET and R-73) can be used with any sensor of the aircraft; EOS, radar or helmet sight, because all they do is to determine the location of the target and pass this information(angular coordinates) on to the missile seekerhead, so it knows where to look for it. The seekerhead itself must lock on to the target before launch. There is no post-launch control for IR missiles, so using "launch override" should provide a very low probability of intercepting the target. The semi-active radar homing variants(R-27R/ER) require the radar to operate(the seekerhead needs the radar to illuminate the target for SARH) and in normal operation you would use radar modes for engagement, since they provide the longest detection range and thus take advantage of the missile's launch range provided by its inertial navigation system + datalink control. You can however, use the EOS to find the target instead, but when launching the missile, the radar is automatically switched on in order to provide the above mentioned support. All correct. As mentioned already, the most likely explanation is that the R-27R/ER switches to "home-on-jam" mode because the target is using ECM.

But do N019 and N001 radars updated for R-77/RVV-AE compatibility even have the ability to launch this missile from STT?. From my understanding this can only be done via a by-pass channel to a new "add-on" radar mode specifically for the purpose.

NP.

Yeah thats what I said . How quickly an aircraft at a certain speed and altitude will slow down when cutting power, is down to its mass versus drag. So if the Su-27 looses airspeed quicker than the MiG-29 despite being heavier, then it must be because the airframe of the Su-27 is proportionally more draggy than that of the MiG-29....no? .

Well being heavier should by itself cause it to loose airspeed slower(inertia) when cutting power, so it must be down to drag of the much larger airframe.

No problem - I kind of suspected that you meant the Iran-Iraq war, which is occasionally referred to as the first Gulf war. But then I wouldn't call that a "proxy war" as it had little to do with the Cold war between the superpowers. Iran had been a close ally of the US during the reign of the Shah, but that ended with the Islamic revolution, which occured before the start of the Iran-Iraq war and during this, Iraq was in fact backed by both the Super powers. Well ok if you say so, but in my experience such individual accounts from that war should be taken with a huge grain of salt . Not surprising considering that they had a lot more of those and operated them for a lot longer....it certainly cannot be because the MiG-21 or MiG-23 would be less vulnerable to ECM .

Eh? - the first Gulf War was in 1990 and the Iraqi airforce had MiG-29s back then.

Indeed and developed in the latter part of the 70'ies, while the "Cold War" officially ended in 1989. Or perhaps he was thinking of its(the MiG-29) induction with Warsaw Pact countries, which often happed several years after it entered service with the Soviet airforce - e.g. if I recall correctly, East Germany got theirs in 1988.

Its not a "nato jet" - its still a Russian product and if those "other reasons" I talked about above involve not wanting to risk being accused of breaking Russian secrecy laws, then that would still be a problem for a development team in the country.