Alfa

No the MiG-29 versions you mention(in the sim) have an electro-mechanical control system with mechanical linkages to the hydraulic actuators of various control surfaces. But it does have some "FBW-like" functions such as a computer controlled AOA/G control system, that monitors AOA and G-forces and performs automatic operation of LEFs as well as an AOA limiter("pitch kicker"), which is described as follows in the MiG-29 manual: "The pitch kicker is designed to prevent inadvertent stalls by moving the control stick forward of neutral when either pich rate or AOA, or a combination of both, reaches the critical value. The computer triggers solenoid valves to operate the hydraulic actuators, which cause the taileron to assume an aircraft nose-down deflection and the control stick to move forward. Thus the pilot is immediately made aware of an approaching stall condition of the aircraft. A force of 17 kp, in addition to normal control forces, applied on the stick can override the pitch kicker." As far as I can tell, the AOA limiter is always active and not a function of dampering(an AFCS mode).

With the mention of the upgrade to deploy R-77, I first read the above as a question of datalink support(radio correction) for the R-77. But now it seems that you are actually talking about datalink between the J-11A and other aircraft/AWACS. Could you clarify please?

Heh yeah that was a rather clumsy sentence on my part :D The aircraft radar "illuminates" the target and the returns of this are picked up by the missile seeker, which in turn processes these, generates its own target coordinates and feeds the INS. At this point they(own target coordinates) override the "ready-made" ones transmitted directly from aircraft radar to missile INS via datalink.

The R-27R has an inertial navigation system(INS) with radio-correction(datalink) for the initial stage of flight and semi-active radar homing(SARH) for terminal stage. At initial stage of flight the missile is steered towards the target by its onboard INS, which receives target updates from the launching radar(aircraft) via datalink. At this point the missile itself cannot be fooled by chaff, as its seeker is not yet within range of the target. At terminal stage the missile's onboard seeker acquires the target by picking up the target returns of the radar energy emitted by the aircraft radar....if these are reflecting off chaff, the missile seeker might get decoyed.

There is also another reason - the Su-25T/TM are heavier and less agile than the standard -25, so likely less suitable for the "up close and dirty" dive in attacks that Su-25 pilots are trained for.

These posts are getting a little too long for me, so I have cut my replies down to the key arguments :) . No but we know that they had good documentation to work with from the outset and as I said earlier - the more assumptions you have to make the harder it becomes and the less likely the end result has anything to do with reality. By the same token you could argue that the Su-34 "looks identical" to the Su-33 if you are sufficiently clueless :D . Then keep the A(original version), add the K(most capable and versatile) and then chuck out the G(same as A really) and the S(adds little) for all I care :) ....but don't know much about the MiG-29K obviously. Yes it would... Katmandu - this is getting stupid. You are constantly giving the impression that it doesn't matter whether you have 95%, 40% or 3% of the required information available. The VVS didn't get the RVV-AE, but they have(now) aircraft capable of deploying it - so do other nations. All versions of the R-77/RVV-AE are using the 9B-1348 seeker. They by-passed the RVV-AE and went for the modernised RVV-SD(domestic version of it) instead.

Wow - wait, what? :D I have no idea what ED has in mind.

Well more recent than that - "Flanker 2.5" had the MiG-29K as the flyable add-on aircraft. :) I for one would love a MiG-29K(!), but hopefully they could do "a little" better than that :) . E.g. PFM for the MiG-29 wouldn't do - the MiG-29K has different aerodynamics and FBW. Su-25T WCS.....:shocking: . But seriously though, some of the new Su-33 features could actually come in handy - apart from the hook, there is AOA indexer, IFR probe routine, engine emergency thrust mode, 90 deg nose wheel deflection, wingfold etc.

I didn't read the whole post(way above my head anyway), but note that he started by saying that he had to base his calculations on a lot of assumptions about the F-35. This was actually the point I was trying to make - if we compare e.g. to the Su-27 and its further multirole developments then; - for the Su-27SM you wouldn't really need to do anything, because it retains the original aerodynamics and FCS of the basic Su-27 airframe since its a system's upgrade for this. - for the Su-35 there are changes to the aerodynamics and it has a more advanced digital FBW system, but I think it would nevertheless be easier to deal with this than with an entirely new airframe. I don't know what documentation they had either - I would assume that they would have had to simulate some aspects themselves(e.g. I don't know of any publically available charts for the Su-33), but again - the more unknowns, the harder it will be. Well thats not much is it? :D . Its really the same deal as I described with the aerodynamics/FCS of new/upgraded multirole versions of current FC3 aircraft vs. 5 gen ones - and if take my above examples in regards to radars then this is what you can find on NiiP's homepage; - SUV-VEP (Su-27SM): https://www.niip.ru/catalog/aviatsionnoe-naprvlenie/suv-vep-mech/ rather thorough description and specs. - Irbis (Su-35S): https://www.niip.ru/catalog/aviatsionnoe-naprvlenie/rlsu-irbis/ more general description with only key specs. - AESA (Su-57): https://www.niip.ru/catalog/far-s-eul/afar-kh-diapazona/ no description or specs - only general information on AESA technology. I rest my case :) Which one do you mean?. The 9B-1348E seeker is the one used on the currently produced RVV-AE. It is speculated that the RVV-SD is using a modernised version of the 9B-1103M seeker. This was first promoted as the ARH seeker for upgrading R-27E missiles(R-27EA), but has since been upgraded(redesigned really) several times and is currently being offered in several different variants including some with combined homing methods(passive radar+ARH and SARH+ARH).

Well there is a little more to 5th gen than just flight performance/FCS and the latest versions of AAMs :) . Even so, there is open source information on flight performance(charts) and the inner workings of flight control systems for aircraft like the F-15C, Su-27 and MiG-29 - I doubt you would be able to find anything like that for the F-22, F-35 or Su-57 :) Anyway, the real sticking point is always going to be the onboard systems - these can be hard enough to do(even in simplified form) for new multirole- or upgraded versions of the current 4th gen FC3 aircraft. But at least we have a pretty good idea of what they contain and some information on their general specs - the same cannot be said for 5th gen aircraft. Quite a bit actually - e.g. you can find specifications for the 9B-1348 seeker of the R-77/RVV-AE, while we don't even know exactly which seeker the RVV-SD has :)

That may be, but there is also the question of how far you are prepared to go in terms of "guesstimated" features - there is quite a leap from making a reasonably realistic modern/modernised 4th generation fighter to a 5th gen. one.

Well the whole thing started with Flanker(Su-27 and Su-33), then Lock-on(F-15C, A-10A, Su-25, MiG-29/G, S) then Flaming Cliffs(Su-25T) as an add-on to Lock-on. When DCS was introduced(with Black Shark), the the intention was to keep Lock-on/FC alive running in parallel with DCS until full DCS fighter modules could be made. But it soon became clear that having to simultaneously support two different sim worlds was going to be cumbersome, so the Lock-on/FC aircraft were integrated into the DCS environment(with FC2). FC3 is just a further integration to fit the current modular concept. IIRC Matt once said, in a passing comment, that the decision to continue FC and make updates to its entries was in recognition that it was still among the best selling products....or something to that effect. Whether this still holds true I don't know, but I don't believe they would stick with FC and apply updates such as PFM and 6DOF cockpits, if it was bad business :) .

Don't know much about Chinese military aircraft, but AFAIK the J-11B is a much more indigenous development than the J-11A(basically a Chinese licence-built Su-27SK with very few changes) and the things that separate them(advanced combat systems) probably have little to do with Russia. But I still don't understand why people seem to think that getting documentation from the Chinese would be any easier.

Yup - mind you, the g-limit is only dynamically calculated below a gross weight of 44,000 lbs - above this its fixed at + 5.5 Gs, while the negative g-limit is fixed at -3 regardless of weight. Yes IIRC the 7.5 G limit is for a gross weight of up to some 32.000 lbs - i.e. with a very light payload(fuel and stores), considering that the dry-weight of the aircraft is something like ~ 24.000 lbs.

"paddle switch" :) . The 7.5 Gs is the design limit - command limit is calculated based on fuel level/payload, so its often lower. But with the stick full aft, pulling on the paddle will allow a 33% increase in command G limit, so at max its actually closer to 10 Gs.

Yes nice work! :) The Su-27 and -33 are also both compatible with the dual rack though, so hopefully they get it too(?).

Well its a mixed bag Weta - some of the things are already modelled well enough in FC3, some also affect contemporary US radars to some degree, including some that would probably not be useful to model at all(such as processing overload). But I can't imagine a DCS level MiG-29 without GCI - both the system as such(ground network) and the onboard datalink and WCS/radar modes - since, as you said yourself, it played a significant role in how the MiG-29 was intended to operate. I could imagine that if there is something that would create "noise" as you said, it would probably be the work load involved - having to click switches and dials on various panels to prep and operate the radar(rather than having most on controls on HOTAS). But as Zius said, learning and mastering the quirks and complexities unique to a particular aircraft type is what DCS is about and what makes it attractive :) . Yes I think so too, but you said; Since these also fall into the category for which secrecy could be a problem, I thought you meant that just three aircraft would likely exhaust the interest for modern Russian fighters in the West.

Well it was a joke(hence the laughing face). But I have been reading hundreds of posts by Chizh on the Russian forum and he does seem to have a strong preference for "Western"(US mainly) equipment and equally low regard for just about anything Russian - it might just be a "knee-jerk" reaction to bombastic and unrealistic claims made by Russian manufacturers reflected by forum posters, but when I read that he doesn't believe there is a market for Russian aircraft in the West, I cannot help to think; "quelle surprise" :D I don't see how "sales to date" could indicate/support that claim - you would first have to make a module for a modern/semi-modern Russian fighter aircraft in order to get an indication on its popularity based on sales figures :) . I have no idea about what ED's sales figures are, but IIRC they said themselves at one point, that the FCx line was still the best selling product. It may be, as some claim, that its just down to a shallow learning curve, but I suspect that it may equally be down to having a collection of sleek, powerful fighters of both Russian and US origin in the same package. Secrecy is definitely a factor for a lot of modern Russian aircraft, but you cannot just throw anything Russian into that basket - it very much depends on the particular aircraft type and variant. Well I don't know - I think you are generalising a little too much. Some "modern"(there is an elastic in that term) aircraft might not be "on the top of their list" because they don't currently have the necessary data on them(for ASM mainly), while other might not be due to commercial considerations. Well not a lot to base that on is there? ..and this is just a Russian thing? - I mean there are no "Western players" who want an F-16C or an F/A-18C because they are "modern", "iconic" and "kicks ass and will let them rampage across the skies"?! :D My point exactly :) . Yes so do I - even the baseline Su-27 and MiG-29 brought up to DCS level. Seriously? - Su-35, Su-30MKx, MiG-29SMT or MiG-29K....no? :) AFAIK it always did.....and by a very large margin. Agree completely.

No but thats the thing - the "one size fits all" might not even apply universally for the same country, but depend on the particular aircraft for which the documentation is requested, the company that produces it and its policies for providing information and under what circumstances. I agree that there should be possibilities for the aircraft you mention, but more due to the publically available information. Privately owned combat aircraft are "de-militarized" - i.e. combat- and combat related systems removed. Moreover, in order to be allowed to fly them they must meet FAA regulations, which often means that also some of the original non-combat items such as radio, navigation equipment and even some basic flight instruments have been replaced. But of course you could still get a lot of valuable information about how the aircraft flies as well as many of the things that make it fly(FCS, engines, fuel-, electric- and hydraulic/pneumatic systems etc). However, aside from purchasing them, flying and maintaining such aircraft is insanely expensive and I suspect that if you could get such an agreement with a private owner, it would come at a price :)

Sounds like Chizh is applying his own preferences to the market :D .

What makes you think that India, China or any other nation would be be more inclined to share detailed information on the military aircraft they operate? :) . Possibly, but not necessarily - its a common misconception that aircraft types which are old/ outdated/no longer in service automatically become declassified.

Actually it is to a large extend. With the introduction of updated external models, 6DOF cockpits and especially PFM for FC3 aircraft, advanced systems(ASM) and damage modelling are the most significant differences remaining between FC3 and a "full fidelity module". Clicking switches will do nothing unless all the associated systems/functions they activate are implemented - researching, programming, testing and debugging those could easily take 2-4 years.

Yet they made very sure to target facilities without causing large amounts of casualties on the Syrian side and not to hit anything Russian exactly to avoid escalation. Thats incredibly naive - the attack was a statement and "a success" simply because it took place regardless of whether it had any actual military impact on the Syrian regime....same as the last one. The Western coalition will say that they hit all targets, have seriously thwarted the Syrian regime's ability to use chemical weapons and that none of their missiles were shot down, while the Russians and Syrians will say that the Syrian regime has no chemical weapons, that the attack hit nothing important and that most of the missiles were shot down. .....just as expected :) .

Yeah I agree.