Seaeagle

The exterior and weapon loadouts were quite accurate for the 9.31, but the cockpit was just that of a 9.12 with the addition of an AOA indexter on the HUD....which obviously had nothing to do with the real thing, nor did the onboard system's representation. But then we are talking ancient times, where none of the aircraft in the sim were particulary accurate or detailed anyway - the Su-33 certainly wasn't more accurate. The MiG-29K was dropped in favour of the MiG-29S for Lock-on - i.e. long before DCS.

My botom line has not shifted an inch FoxAlfa - you just interpret it that way. My initial posts in this thread was in response to the notion that a picture of a 9.12 with an -ER is evidence that the weapon is "generic" to that variant, because modified MiG-29s always come with a "hump"....which obviously isn't the case. You will also note that I said "..wasn't compatible with.." - i.e. to begin with. I am not just basing this on the absense of T/ET or ER in early- or export manuals, but also on various other historical accounts for the MiG-29, Su-27 and development of the R-27 "family" in particular - the latter clearly indicates that the IR/long burning variants weren't meant for the MiG-29, but developed specifically for the Su-27 in order to support its wider mission requirements. But it also suggests that the R-27R fell short of expectations(to outperform contemporary AIM-7), so if more recent 9.12 manuals list other R-27 variants as part of compatible armament, I am actually not surprised nor would it be a big deal to backfit it, as the deployment routine for an -ER is the same as for the R-27R. But I do not believe that it was there all along as "backward compatible".

The question isn't whether a 9.12 can be made to carry ERs and Ts, but whether it had the capability from the start or whether it was backfitted later. So they removed it as an option from the WCS because their allies didn't have the weapon(why would they do that?) ....or the allies didn't acquire the weapon in the first place because their aircraft couldn't use it. ....yeah right.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Nor does it mean that the aircraft was compatible with a certain weapon before it existed without later modification for the purpose. Sure - certainly the case with the 9.12B, but why would the Soviets remove R-27T compatibility from MiG-29s supplied to their Warsaw pact allies, if their own aircraft had it?

The point was that there are MiG-29 variants with upgraded system's complex/expanded weapon's compatibility, while retaining the original 9.12 airframe - i.e. no "humps".

I don't think it was down to weight restrictions, but more a case of general considerations about practical loadout versus intended mission types.

There is more to this than coolant bottles in the APU-470 launcher. The bottom line is that the 9.12 wasn't compatible with the R-27T - just R-27R, R-73 and R-60M.

Its not the missile that needs to be "backward compatible", but the WCS that needs to be forward compatible with a weapon that it wasn't meant to use to begin with. There is also an SMT variant without the hump(9.18) as well as other upgrades applied to the original 9.12 airframe.

No look closer - e.g. the space at the front of the RH console where there is a display and compare it to the same place in the MiG-21-93 pit(very narrow with only a little gauge). Also much of the MiG-21-93 cockpit instrumentation is "newer".. ..the HUD and compact gauges(ADI, IAS, pressure and radar altimeters and HSI) are similar to the ones fitted to the MiG-29M and MiG-29K test aircraft from late eighties, while despite being from the same age, the same instruments in the MiG-31M cockpit are of the older types.

The one to the left is from a *much* bigger aircraft :) . Its the front(pilot) position of one of the MiG-31M test aircraft from the late 80'ies. Here is a bigger picture: Rear(WSO) position: I have seen claims on the net, that they are from the more recent MiG-31BM upgrade, but as you can see the photos are quite old and I remember them from way back before the -BM upgrade came about.

Its actually very simple - any 3d model should be oriented, so that it points to the right in the "top" viewport in 3ds max. Before animating, make sure that the pivot points are oriented correctly as well.

Yeah the Roosevelt subclass really should be sufficient for "modern" US carrier ops - spanning from the mid-80'ies to present day. For this resources would IMO be much better spent on diversification of escort ships(such as a Flt. 1 Arleigh Burke- and a Spruance class) as well as a replenishment ship(like the Henry J. Kaiser class).

The Reagan and Bush also employ a different 3-wire arrestor system, which I guess could be a bigger problem - i.e. not just a 3D issue.

I know - whats your point?. I still think that an Su-33 with the recent modest upgrades (such as SVP-24 and Pastel RWR) would be the best we could realistically hope for from ED in terms of something more modern that what we currently have.....and even that may not be possible(at least L150 RWR could be a problem). Well thats great - but as far as a "full fidelity implementation" of a Su-30MKI, I will believe it when I see it :D .

Yup exactly - good knowledge there Northstar :) No and it isn't just a reloading system - the missile canisters are usually not loaded onto the combat modules until needed and are off-loaded again(returned to the magazine) when the system returns to inactive state.

Ah ok - yes. Yes something like that. Well there is some confusion concerning the designations for these radars - the name for the guidance post(which I believe is what you are refering to) for the Kynshal system is called 3R95(not sure if the 3D search radar part of it has a separate name) - yes the platforms for them were there on the early units, but AFAIK at least some of the later units had the system installed during construction. The MR-350 "Podkat" is the name of the radar installed on the front mast(replacing "Topaz" on earlier units). So early units had "Topaz" on both masts, while later units has "Podkat" on front mast and "Fregat-MA"(MR-750/760) on the rear mast. Podkat radar(on Admiral Levchenko):

Yes thats true - well they were meant to have it from the start, but the first 4 or 5(?) units were completed without it, because the Kynshal system wasn't ready yet. They also had a different radar fit(2x "Topaz" radars), while the later units had a "Podkat"/"Fregat-MA" combo. The Sovremenny class also had difffernces(including the radar) between early and later units. Whats that? Hehe yeah I figured as much :)

Nice work!

Yes - not on par with a contemporary Harrier, let alone the "Night Attack" version we have in DCS, but.. ...yes it would still be a pretty cool addition to DCS for 70'ies and 80'ies scenarios. Indeed. Also other 2nd generation types such as the Kara(Pr. 1134b) and Kresta(Pr. 1134A) classes would be era(70/80'ies) appropriate for a Yak-38/Kiev class. Mind you, the Sovremenny, Udaloy and Kirov classes are a generation newer(third generation) than the rest of the types you mentioned and are(along with Boris Chilikin class) also sorely missing for more recent 90'ies scenarios involving the Admiral Kuznetsov....well we do have a Kirov class(Pyotr Velikiy), but its from 1998 and quite different from the initial layout, so barely applicable even for a 90'ies scenario.

Yes I get that mate, but... ...the doc says nothing about swapping out F-14 radars(wether AWG-9 or APG-71) for the APG-73. Nor would that make much sense as it would seriously sacrifice air-to-air radar performance - unless modified with a much larger antenna, more powerful emitter etc.....which in turn I cannot imagine being any cheaper than to modify the APG-71 to support the AMRAAM directly. So I still think you misunderstood something in the document :)

Not much - IIRC the AIM-120A had a very short production run(a little over a year or something) before being superceeded by the reprogrammable AIM-120B. So from a historical perspective, it has imited value IMO.

I think you misunderstood that a little :) . The report was actually all about evaluating the usefulness of upgrading F-14s(all variants) with further A/G capability as an interim solution for the period between scheduled retiring of the A6 fleet to induction of F/A-18E/F, where the conclusion was that it wouldn't be worth the cash because; - only the F-14D had a radar(APG-71) with A/G mapping modes to support it, while F-14A/B with AWG-9 would still be limited to daylight/good weather conditions after the upgrade. - the added A/G capability would still be less than what the F/A-18C already had back then - the F-14 A/G upgrade couldn't realistically be operational before the F/A-18E entered service anyway. It dosesn't say anything about AMRAAMs in relation to F-14A/B(with AWG-9), but just that the navy planned to induct the AIM-120 on F-14Ds after a computer upgrade had been performed on their existing APG-71 radar.....but as we know now, that never materialised.

Heh well I am really outside my "comfort zone" when it comes to ECM, but given the secrecy involved(for obvious reasons) I think the above is probably also the best you could do. Well I don't know, but another part of the general complexity is that an ECM suite like this doesn't just employ one type of jamming, but can switch between several different methods depending on the situation. I don't know about the current situation, but AFAIK until recently only one method(noise jamming) existed in DCS. I had a short article on the L203B Gardeniya-1FU(the ECM system on the 9.13) with a general description of its operating modes, but I cannot find it now - I will see if I can dig it out :) . Yeah the N019M was just a cost effective way of improving/backfittting R-77 compatibility to an existing radar and as such really only relevant for upgrading "baseline" MiG-29s.

Spot on!