Seaeagle
-
Posts
933 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Seaeagle
-
-
16 hours ago, bies said:
Su-27 with 59% fuel ("design weight") had significanly lower luel fraction than F-15C.
Su-27 has fuel fraction of the F-15C when Su-27 has 88% fuel, but this is significantly above "design weight", especially if having additionally 8 AAM like the F-15C, and this makes Su-27 even more G limited than shown above.
Just saying.
F-15C internal fuel capacity is 13860 lbs ~ 6286 kg.
Su-27 internal fuel capacity is some 9300-9400 kg(!)
So 59% ~ 5546 kg and has the same load as the F-15C at around 67 %. Its perhaps also a little unfair to include missile loads(design weight) for agility comparison since 8 AAMs for the F-15C would involve AMRAAMs, which are considerably lighter than R-27s.
Anyway, I am not arguing with your points about agility - only the bit about the "normal fuel load" of the Su-27 being some sort of artificial figure to make it look better.
Besides, it would probably be more appropriate to compare it to the MiG-29(more similar design philosophies), for which just about everything(overall size, dry weight, engine thrust etc) is a case of + 50% and the "normal fuel load" of the Su-27 is perfectly in line with that:
MiG-29 at 100%: ~3500 kg
Su-27 at 59%: ~ 5500 kg
....i.e. around 57% more.
-
13 hours ago, bies said:
IRL Su-27 G limits are way more complicated than that.
According to manual Su-27 is limited to 8G at subsonic speed, limited to 6,5G at transsonic (Mach 0,85-1,25) speed, limited to 7G at supersonic speed. All of that is for so called "design weight" of 21,400 kg which means only 60% of fuel and only four AA missiles - quite lightweight and restricted configuration.
Also known as "normal take-off weight".
13 hours ago, bies said:With more than 60% fuel / more weapon Su-27 is even more G limited. That's why all Su-27 fuel above 60% is called "internal external fuel tank" - it was an artificial way to make the Soviet Air Force to accept the aircraft and its G limits acceptable for them only at less than 60% fuel + 4 AA missiles.
(And that's the reason every fighter in DCS has default fuel set at 100%, but Su-27 default fuel is set automatically at 59% and if you want to take more fuel you have to change it manually)
No it wasn't bies. Its refered to as "internal external fuel" because thats what it is - compare the amount to any other comparable fighter design. It was a design decision in connection with its intended role to take advantage of internal space for extra fuel instead of carrying it externally(no external tanks available for the Su-27) - less drag penalty, while freeing up external pylons for more weapons.
-
IMO for DCS it would be better with some USNS (MSC) ships - i.e. fleet oilers, dry cargo/ammunition ships, submarine tenders, command ships etc.
-
1 hour ago, Cmptohocah said:
Yeah I guess that makes sense. It looks like a case of old vs new technology.
Yes but R-27 and AIM-7 are also much heavier than the AIM-120, so I guess that has something to do with it as well.
-
Nice work there, but a little nitpick..
On 10/28/2021 at 5:29 PM, JetCat said:..And the side panels (in 90% of all Hornets it is grey not black)....
Thats not true. The black plastic side(wall) panels where introduced with Lot 12 in 1989 and are part of the NVG compatibility meassures, so all F/A-18Cs had them except for the first two lots(10 and 11).....and the cockpit of those looks quite different(practically like that of an F/A-18A).
-
5 hours ago, Kilo said:
It's been a while since I took a look at the F-18, but didn't the SA page only display datalink information and waypoints when selected on one of the DDIs?
In DCS you mean?. According to the NATOPS, there should be an actual monochrome map display available for the DDIs.
-
18 hours ago, Kilo said:
Industrial and military stuff are prime examples of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
Yeah I think there is a lot of truth to that.
18 hours ago, Kilo said:I mean, they could have replaced the two DDIs with color LCDs, too, but why would they? The only advantage I could think of is being able to move the map to one of them, or adding some color symbology.
The map can be displayed on the above mentioned DDIs(introduced with the NightAttack cockpit), but only in monochrome representation. They are "tri-color" and can display symbology in green, yellow and red, but raster image is monochrome.
-
20 hours ago, FalcoGer said:
wait, they're actual tubes?
Yes. But I can understand your suprise as the "newer" ones(from Lot 12 and up) IIRC use flat screen technology - i.e. still CRT, but without the curvature of the display, that you normally associate with CRT.
20 hours ago, FalcoGer said:Just proves my point. they're stuck in the 50s...
Well more like the 90'ies :)
-
17 hours ago, FalcoGer said:
The F18C uses modern flat, LCD screens, yet they have limited color support.
The F-18C doesn't use LCD displays - DDIs and the MPCD are all CRT and only the latter is full color.
The exception is the AMPCD, which is LCD, but this only came about as a backfit in 2004.
-
13 hours ago, -0303- said:
Is Su-25 an odd choice for a carrier trainer? Imagine A-10 for carrier training
.
Perhaps, but the USN use the T-45 for the same purpose - based on the BAE Hawk, which was designed as an actual trainer, but also used as light attack aircraft and in some ways resembling the Su-25(more than the A-10 anyway :) ).
13 hours ago, -0303- said:.. Doubt Su-25 was originally designed with Carrier training in mind.
No it wasn't, but there are lots of examples of military aircraft that ended up in roles very different from those originally intended.
13 hours ago, -0303- said:But they chose not to design a whole new plane.
No but as mentioned above, the USN didn't do that either and considering the limited requirement for Soviet/Russian carrier training, it would be even less economical to do so.
-
13 hours ago, -0303- said:
Original source political and omitted. Nice photo. I don't think ED should invest anything in non clickable cockpit planes. But if someone made a Su25-with-hook mod I'd try it.
The Su-25UTG was based on the Su-25UB which we don't have in the sim, so a mod just adding a hook would be pretty far detached from reality. Moreover, like other "navalised" aircraft, the -UTG has strengthned landing gear to cope with the strain of carrier landings, so...
13 hours ago, -0303- said:Hm.. Wikipedia states SU-25UTG was only ever a trainer for carrier landings. No more than 10 was ever active.
Correct - unlike the Su-25UB, the -UTG has no combat capabilities.
13 hours ago, -0303- said:Still active?
Yes.
-
1 minute ago, Northstar98 said:
Thought so.
Blashemy! I won't allow the AI to do all the tanker trolling, I simply won't have this.
Lol well I fully agree that it would be cool to expand the experience with a player tanker-task when applicaple. I am just saying that so far no one seems to have found it interesting enough to implement and as long as it remains an AI-only feature, it doesn't matter much whether the refuelling packs are assigned via the payload editor or by selecting a mirror entry with them.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Northstar98 said:
Yeah, that's one thing I wondered about, I'm not sure buddystores are actually implemented..
No AFAIK buddy-refuelling packs as such don't currently exist in the sim - rather a case of separate aircraft entries assigned refuelling attribute/connection points.
4 hours ago, Northstar98 said:..but they're going to have to be for the A-6 and Mirage F1.
Ideally, but not necessarily - i.e. only if this is intended as a player option. I mean you could have said the same about the Su-33... and for this there isn't even a separate AI tanker entry :)
4 hours ago, Northstar98 said:The reason I think that is because we have a dedicated S-3B tanker, but all it is is a copied and pasted S-3B with a fuel tank and buddystore..
Exactly.
-
11 hours ago, Seaeagle said:
Secondly, the Pyotr Velikiy is the only Kirov class vessel employing the Kinzhal short range SAM system and off the top of my head(cannot remember exactly), it has 6x 8-cell launchers, so the total amount available should be 48x 9M330 missiles.
My memory failed me - for some reason I had an image in my head of 3 launch modules on either side of the aft heli pad, but as can be seen on this photo..
:
...there are in fact 4 on either side, so a total of 64x 9M330 missiles is the correct number.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Top Jockey said:
Hello,
I see, the numbers available for each missile type in DCS's Pyotr Velikiy don't match up with the real life ones.
No at least not for the types where the number is excessive - unless there is some double reporting going on in the mission debrief.
For the S-300F/FM I guess the missile number appearing short of the actual amount it should have, could also be down to the particular situation in the mission - i.e. that the ship may choose to stop employing the long range systems at some point if the remaining targets are outside their engagement envolupe.....this could also explain the bit you mentioned earlier about seemingly having more of one type of missiles in different missions.
1 hour ago, Top Jockey said:So I guess like you say, the systems are somewhat bugged and with wrong implementations.
Yes there are certainly issues with both.
1 hour ago, Top Jockey said:... I suppose ED (or who created the DCS's Pyotr Velikiy) doesn't plan to correct these aspects in a near future, would they ?
I doubt it. There are a "gazillion" shortcomings(low fidelity, erroneous implementations and bugs) with the naval warfare in DCS, but unfortunately ED doesn't seem to have any interest in this aspect of the sim, so I wouldn't "hold my breath".
-
11 hours ago, Top Jockey said:
Well, I believe I've finally managed to exhaust all of the CGN Pyotr Velikiy's onboard SAM stock... a few impressions below.
Counting the lines, one by one the type of SAM units launched, at debriefing menu:
48N6 (S-300F) : 33
5V55 (S-300PS) : 52
9M330 (Tor) : 68
9M311 (Tunguska) : 303 (as this is a somewhat big number, there can be roughly a + or - 2 units error...)
Conditions / impressions:
- it was a single mission where 52 AI aircraft (in 13 groups) launched anti-ship missiles and flown directly to the AI Pyotr Velikiy;
- not all of them attacked at the same time, neither they all carried anti-ship missiles - AGM-84D... as around 7 hits from these can sink the ship;
- both S-300 types were expended first; then "Tor", and then the "Tunguska" (sometimes along with the 30mm rotary cannons);
- I've concluded the ship's SAM stock was completely expended, as the last 2 aircraft groups flew over and near the ship without him engaging them anymore whatsoever, with the 2 rear port board / side Kortik modules keeping in ready position - pointed horizontally, as if they were replenished;
(Which by the way, are the only ones to do so after expending their ammunition; as the 4 others do stand pointed vertically after expending theirs.)
Also, there were other times, in which for instance were shot 38 x 48N6 (S-300F), instead of the 33 x in this mission, I don't understand this ?
@Seaeagle, although one was expecting 192 x, does the 303 x 9M311 (Tunguska) in DCS makes any sense for you ?
(Can it be a bug as those 2 modules do replenish much more times than the others ?)
Heh there are quite a few things in those test results, that don't make any sense to me;
Firstly, this particular vessel of the Kirov class has a combination of S-300F(rear) and S-300FM(front) long range SAM systems and use 48N6 missiles for the former and 48N6E2(extended range version) for the latter. The total amount is 96 missiles(packed in 12x 8-cell rotary launchers at the front of the ship), which IIRC are equally divided between the two types of missiles. 5V55 missiles should not be on the ship at all(only employed by the S-300F system onboard the Slava class cruisers).
So for the S-300F/FM there is both a problem with type and amount(too few if depleted) of missiles.
Secondly, the Pyotr Velikiy is the only Kirov class vessel employing the Kinzhal short range SAM system and off the top of my head(cannot remember exactly), it has 6x 8-cell launchers, so the total amount available should be 48x 9M330 missiles.
Third, over 300x 9M311 missiles fired makes no sense at all - thats clearly a bug.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, Top Jockey said:
Thank you.
So I guess that in DCS maybe 2 of the port board / side modules are using some of the other modules magazine / ammunition since the others stop engaging much earlier... I'll try it further in a couple hours.
Well I don't know(cannot test) - do the 4 other modules reload after having spent their initial 8 ready-to-fire missiles? - if not then it could either be what you suggest(total amount not distributed correctly) or simply that only two modules actually have reloading made available for them.....could be a little tedious to test since you would have to count a lot of launches to figure it out :)
-
11 minutes ago, Top Jockey said:
Thank you Seaeagle,
So, by 'combat module' I assume you are refering to each Kashtan (Kortik?) CIWS 'battery'.
Yes
. A combat module consists of the dual GsH-6-30K guns, rails for 2x 4 missiles, 2D radar/optics and the below-deck magazine. There is also a command module with a 3D radar and control system that can control and assign targets for up to 6(IIRC) combat modules. "Kortik" is the domestic(Russian) name, while "Kashtan" is the export name for the same system(3M87).
11 minutes ago, Top Jockey said:Keeping in mind that the ship does have a total of 6 of these modules, we are talking of a total: 192 x "Tunguska" missiles ?
Yes thats correct.
-
27 minutes ago, Top Jockey said:
Hello everyone,
I've been doing several experimental missions, against the CGN Pyotr Velikiy, to know more about its different armament types (sending constant waves of different fighters to attack it).
Hoewver, after a very long time expermenting, it seems that its short-range SAM - 9M311 "Tunguska" is of almost infinite stock ?
... as the 2 rear left side batteries keep re-suplying several times, when all the 4 others stay pointed up after expending all their ammunition.
I don't know why there seems to be a difference between individual Kortik modules on the ship in the sim, but the real system comes with an under-deck magasine for each combat module from which the missile cannisters are loaded and off-loaded again when not in use. The magasine has storage for 4 loads of 8 missiles, so the total amount available for each combat module is 32 missiles.
-
2 hours ago, GGTharos said:
This can be thrust, drag or both.
I was thinking this too - i.e. if both thrust and drag is too low for the MiG-29, then it could appear underpowered in situations where drag is minimal, about right where one equals out the other and overpowered in situations where drag becomes the biggest factor.
-
2
-
-
On 10/4/2021 at 3:12 AM, F-2 said:
I’d love a Mig-29kr but I’d like to point out since AI aircraft use a SFM, and we have all the files for the 9.31 on the Flanker 2.5 cad, and most of our AI assets date for different periods of time anyway. Why not just restore it? I’m don’t let that stop anyone from making more modern AI units, but why not just read this to the game as AI?
Yes I agree and restoring it as an AI entry should be pretty straight forward, but whether 9.31 or 9.41/9.47 we would need a new 3D model......I doubt anyone would be happy with the fidelity of the old Flanker 2.5 3D model in this day and age :)
-
On 10/2/2021 at 10:08 PM, FalcoGer said:
Of course I'd love to see more details like ship ECM, smoke, chaff, flares, etc, but DCS is just not focused on that stuff.
No sadly, which is why better damage modelling for them isn't addressed either :) .
On 10/2/2021 at 10:08 PM, FalcoGer said:I'd love if we could just blow them up properly next spring rather than having a complete overhaul like the ATC that's been promised since 2018 or maybe even sooner (I forgot) and never got anywhere since.
I understand, but I read your initial post about damage modelling as a realism complaint - which I agree with. But making it easier to disable ships' combat endurance by taking out individual systems, while not giving them the defensive meassures they currently lack and thus proper ability to defend themselves, has nothing to do with realism.
-
1
-
-
23 hours ago, FalcoGer said:
Right now naval combat is in a weird spot.
Some developers opt to model damage after mission kills (JF17, Viggen) while others (stock AGM-88, AGM-84D) model after sinking.
Modern warships are quite difficult to sink and the bigger ones require multiple heavyweight torpedoes to break their spine. What's the job of an anti ship missile then? It's not meant to sink a ship.
If you have a look at
You can clearly see that the ship is still floating after having been hit with a harpoon.
The point is that this ship is not going anywhere, nor is it shooting any more weapons. It's a mission kill.
Yet in DCS system damage is not modeled for ships. While visually parts of the hull can be missing, it's impossible to destroy the actual systems. This can easily be verified by shooting a tank gun at a ship at various parts. You can't destroy the radar, guns, arm launchers, much less so the older russian models' missile tubes. Any single hit against those delicate systems should be an immediate failure.
Where does this leave us? We're stuck shooting dozens of harpoons to kill a ship. While this might be realistic in terms of sinking a ship, it's complete nonsense. On the other hand 3 or 4 hits with an RB15 will sink almost anything while it's warhead is even slightly smaller than the harpoon's, which is also nonsense. ARMs are completely useless with their blast fragmentation warheads designed to take out delicate radar equipment, not massive ships.
What we need is individual components and systems on a ship that can be killed. It doesn't even need to be anything complicated. Just place some points on the ship to indicate where systems are located and add a radius around the impact point of various weapons that would knock such systems out. Obvious candidates are: Radar (S&T), Engine, CIWS, Guns and missile launchers (Arm and VLS). That would leave the largest of ships with around 20-30 points that need to be checked whenever a weapon hits, which will take up almost no cpu resources at all. Later this can be expanded upon with visual damage (ie. broken models of components), hit points, things being able to be repaired by the crew over time (unless completely destroyed or infeasible to be repaired of course) and more.
But even the simplest system would be a massive addition to naval combat. Please take a few days to implement something like that.
All good observations and suggestions - except perhaps for this little bit:
QuoteYou can't destroy the radar, guns, arm launchers, much less so the older russian models' missile tubes. Any single hit against those delicate systems should be an immediate failure.
The large Russian missile tubes are armoured, so unlike the other items you mentioned(radars/sensors) they are not particulary "delicate"
.
Anyway, ships also lack multiple defensive meassures(ECM, countermeassures etc), just as their employment of defensive armament is quite simplistic, so if the aim is for a more realistic naval warfare implementation, better damage modelling is not enough.
-
6 hours ago, Gierasimov said:
You are right, we should aim for the AI MiG-29KR
Thats not the one on the Indian carrier though :)
Replace AI Su-30kn with AI Su-30sm
in DCS Core Wish List
Posted
Yes a good suggestion.
But IRL they are not using the same radar. As you said yourself, the Su-30KN was intended as a low cost upgrade for the basic Su-30 interceptor in the same way as Su-27S -> Su-27SM. So it involved an upgraded version(N001VE) of the original radar, with the option of upgrading it further with a PESA antenna(called "Pero").
The Su-30SM is basically a "russianized" Su-30MKI and, like you said, it has the N011M "Bars" radar - although IIRC the one in the Su-30SM was further developed(increased number of tracked/engaged targets).