Alfa

Thanks for the improved translation :) . I don't speak Russian and rely on Google to come up with something comprehensible and we all know how that can turn out - especially when it involves technical terms.

Yes although a little vague as to whether they are talking only about aerodynamics/propulsion or also guidance. I have read somewhere that it was accepted that seeker performance was not competitive and that the push to introduce INS/radio correction on the R-27R was really seen as a way to compensate for that rather than to trying to "out-perform" the US equivalent. At least the stated acquisition range of the 9B-1101K of some 25 km vs. RCS of 3m2, seems to fall quite short of the seeker ranges you provided for the different versions of the AIM-7 here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3296483&postcount=21 BTW in connection with earlier discussions on the matter - I have found several sources confirming that the max range of radio corrected flight for the R-27R is 25 km(or 30 seconds duration) and one claiming that maximum duration of controlled flight is 60 seconds - I guess this would mean in total(radio corrected + SARH). I also remember reading that the development of the R-27ER(which btw seems to have been operational around 1987 vs. 1984 for the -R) also involved modifications to the guidance system e.g. ability to launch from higher altitudes(which makes sense) - i.e. wasn't just a matter of sticking a larger motor section on the R-27R as the "modular concept" could give the impression of.

Thats entirely possible, but I don't think so. So where do you get the impression CW is being used? - I mean if there is no mention of it in the aircraft manual and no indication that a CW illuminator exists, wouldn't it be more appropriate for you to provide a credible source proving(or indicating even) that it does? Oh so thats what you are doing :D I cannot understand how you could interpret this: ...as the CW illuminator just being integrated with the radar, when it clearly states that there isn't one.

Yes pretty much :) Anyway, you asked for sources, so I looked around and found the following(highlighted the relevant passage): Its an excerpt from an account of the history and developments of "AGAT"(the developer of the missile seeker in question). A Google translation(well) of the highlighted part: "The main differences between the CSG 9B-1101K and the earlier developed CSGs was the absence of a special illumination transmitter in the radar of the aircraft (illumination is carried out within the time diagram of the radar sighting complex of the aircraft)." What Esac_mirmidon and GGTharos said. I have no idea where that site got the impression that they do - may simply be a case of common misconception that STT/SARH support automatically means CW illumination.

Yup. I did wonder about that - i.e. whether e.g. an upgraded version of the APG-63 radar will establish an M-link regardless of whether the selected missile can take advantage of it or not.

Don't know how its designed in the game, but... Didn't you swap the R-27ER and AIM-7 around? :) The R-27 missiles were designed for the MiG-29(R-27R) and Su-27(R-27R and -ER) - neither the N019 nor the N001 have CW illuminators for SARH support and the R-27R and R-27ER are both guided via M-link during initial stage of flight. The AIM-7 is a much older design and initial versions of the missile were supported by CW illuminators(e.g. from AN/APG-63 on F-15A). Later upgraded versions(such as AIM-7M) used HPRF illumination for SARH, but still didn't have M-link support. Only the latest version - the AIM-7P has datalink(and IIRC even only on Block II).

See attachement - Russian style snow and ice remover :) Well the Russian one is based at Murmansk, so not much hope of that.

If you are referring to the video(around 0:46), then it looks more like the missile is starting to pull a vapour trail as it gains altitude - and that lingers a lot longer than smoke(see at ~ 1:31 ) :) .

Eh actually it was with the East German airforce(LSK) they only served briefly. IIRC they got the MiG-29s from the Soviet Union around 1988 and thus only had them in service for about a year before the GDR ceased to exist with the re-unification in 1989. The Luftwaffe inherited them in 1990 and had them in service until around 2004. So that makes 1 year of East German service and 14 years of West German service :) Yes but AFAIK the first photo actually shows a later modification(UFC and MFD among other things) performed by Poland(not Germany). No one thought otherwise :) . What we are unsure about is whether the voice warning system was modified with German audio before or after Luftwaffe got the aircraft.

Yes good info Imp. I also checked up on this on Scramble.nl(which is usually good with nerdy stuff like serial numbers and the like) and it appears that all the ex-German MiG-29G/GTs are assigned four-digit numbers starting with 41-- such as "4101"(I guess to denote that they belong to the 41. ELT) and that the unit also has three of the originally purchased MiG-29s("65", "66" and "70") as well as two ex-Czech ones("77" and "92"). But all of them are of the 9.12 Warsaw-pact export variant and have the same engines - Luftwaffe just detuned theirs to run at a lower power setting in order to get some more hours out of them. So where they originated from doesn't matter in regards to the engine start-up procedure and the description in the Luftwaffe MiG-29G manual is applicable to all.

No I believe all MiG-29s operated by Poland have them as part of a general upgrade package applied some time around 2005 or there about.

Yes - well the bort numbers. IIRC all the ex. Luftwaffe MiG-29s are all operated by the 41. ELT and AFAIK both of the aircraft in the video(#70 and #65) are assigned to that unit. Anyway, whether those particular aircraft are ex-Luftwaffe MiG-29G or not is really irrelevant - the engine start-up procedure/appearance is the same for all MiG-29s.

+1

Thats precisely what it is - APU exhaust :) . Its actually pretty easy to hear whats going on in the video. At around 3.12 you can hear the APU starting(rough grinding sound) and at about 3.32 you can begin to hear the turbine spooling up - as it reaches idle speed, the APU disengages and powers down(the flame) and then starts up again after a few seconds and repeats the process for the second engine.....exactly as described in the G manual. It is in fact the very same aircraft - remember that Germany sold their G's to Poland :) .

No differential braking is available on most fighters - the tighter turning performance of the Su-33(as compared with the Su-27) is down to a higher deflection angle(up to 90 deg) of the nose wheel.

As feefifofum said, there are two types of brakes - the normal brakes and a run-up brake, which applies higher pressure to hold the aircraft when applying power in preparation for take-off. On the Su-27 and -33 the normal brakes are toe pedals, while the run-up brake is a lever on the flight stick. On the MiG-29 there are two levers on the stick - a large one for normal braking and a separate smaller smaller one attached to it for run-up braking(both levers pulled together).

Actually there is a Lot 21 F-18C......literally a as in a single airframe (Buno 165526) :) Crap - sniped by mvsgas :D . But IIRC Lot 21 actually also contained a handful of F-18Ds as well as the first couple of SuperHornets.

^^ Thats also what he said :) . which is correct....IFF as in "Identify Friend/Foe".

It depends on what you mean by "the 2 outermost wingtip pylons" - there is only one wingtip pylon on each wing, which in turn is removed when carrying ECM pods instead. Correct - at least that used to be the case. In the attached image, you can see an Su-33 in "clean" config, with the attachement points plugged, but there doesn't appear to be any at the position of the most inner stations.....so maybe they have removed those connection points entirely in recent years :hmm:

Yes its because the SUV-33(weapon's control system) was adopted straight from the Su-27(which only has 10 stations). You can also see that the pylon readiness panel(below the HUD control) is the same as on the Su-27 and only has 10 lamps. The only modifications made had to do with the navigation system(which is part of the SUV) and integration of an enhanced version of the EOS. In regards to the removal of pylons; all pylons are removable on the real aircraft - except for the wingtip ones, which need to be there for aerodynamic purposes(they are removed only when fitting ECM pods in their place). "Pylons" consist of two parts - a wing adapter unit and a weapon specific launcher/rack. Sometimes you will see aircraft without ordinance flying with both attached, sometimes with only the adapter and sometimes with neither. So being able to remove the inner wing pylons does not necessarily add much to authenticity - but leaving them empty would :)

Well nearly 1/4 less than the cost he listed(120 million USD) :) . Mind you that is for the F-35A version - the -C and especially the -B are a lot more expensive. But yes - as production is ramped up, the 2020 unit price for an F-35A is expected to be around USD 80 million.

I don't know how its modelled in the game at the moment, but in the real aircraft it should work similar to TWS in the F-15. The MiG-29S'(again the real one) N019M radar supposedly got an extra add-on TWS mode called "SNP2", in which two out of up to 10 tracked contacts can be "bugged" and prioritised as primary and secondary target. Once launch parameters are met for the primary target, it can be engaged with an R-77/RVV-AE directly from SNP2(without transitioning to STT) and if parameters are met for the secondary target, it can be engaged while the first launched missile is on route to primary target - i.e. simultaneous engagement of two targets from TWS. When the target gets a warning is debateable - since the opposing radar isn't operating in SST, it won't get a lock warning until the inflight missile's ARH seeker locks on. But its RWR might be able to detect the opposing aircraft radar starting to transmit midcourse guidance update at the point of launch. In regards to question no 2; I am not sure exactly how it works with the MiG-29S - theoretically an R-77 could be launched with only an IRST lock(angular coordinates) if the target is within range of the missiles own ARH seeker at that point. But I guess this depends on the level of R-77 integration performed with the modified WCS/radar of the MiG-29S. But for the "baseline" MiG-29 and Su-27, the radar will automatically switch on if the selected missile is an R-27R/ER - this is necessary in order to support SARH seeker operation.

Its based on an USN Lot 20(from 1998 ), but the DCS version includes several attributes that weren't standard on any legacy Lots and only came about through retrofitting from 2004 onwards. You may be right about the BRU-55 not being in USN service, but at least the year you quoted(2003-2004) for its introduction to USMC service would not bring it beyond the scope for the DCS Hornet version.

Not arguing on the specific subject(since I know nothing about it), but.. ...neither were the AMPCD and JHMCS, so the Hornet simulated for DCS must necessarily be of a post 2004 configuration.

I have no idea mate. I don't know what the deal is with the Su-33 altimeter.....I guess this is just another mystery concerning "the blue wonder" :D . At first I thought it could have something to do with its naval application, but then the MiG-29K(9.31) had a pressure altimeter with QFE in mmHg(like most russian military aircraft) and so does the Ka-27, while the Yak-141 had the same altimeter as the Su-33.....so :hmm: