Alfa

Don't know about speedbrake operation being blocked by trailing edge flap extension, but there are a number of restrictions in regards to use of the speedbrake: - cannot be deployed with the gear extended. - cannot be deployed at speeds above 540 knots(IAS) - in this case extended speedbrake will retract via airflow pressure. - will automatically retract if hydraulic pressure drops below a certain level(probably to preserve pressure for other more critical control surfaces).

Well then it probably won't be able to intercept it :) Mind you, I don't know how feasible it would be for a land attack cruise missile to fly below 50 m to terrain - such weapons are usually following a pre-planned route through a series of waypoints and use terrain recognition to navigate, the accuracy of which depending on the quality of the planning maps at hand and terrain diversity along the route. The lower the altitude the higher the risk of colliding with terrain or "man made" objects(known or unknown) due to navigation errors.

How could you possibly miss it? :) No I'm not - as a successor to the MiG-25, one of the main requirements for the development of the MiG-31 in general and its weapon's system in particular was exactly the ability to intercept small low flying targets(such as cruise missile) in addition to high altitude bombers. :) . As for a source on the R-33 - this is the manufacturer's page: http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/503/510/

Considering that the MiG-31's Zaslon radar/R-33 missile combo was designed to intercept low flying cruise missiles in addition to high altitude bombers, its likely due to the sim not being very good at representing the MiG-31's capability in look-down situations :D

IIRC it doesn't use compressed gas directly, but rather a catapult system driven by compressed gas to haul the missile out of the launch tube. But anyway, I agree with your suggestion :)

I don't think anyone believes that the Russian aircraft was on a mission to bomb targets within Turkey, so "violations" perhaps yes, but "aggression"....no :) .

There really is no such thing as a "MiG-29G" - its a designation that Luftwaffe assigned to it("G" for Germany) after they inherited a number of former East German airframes(warsaw pact 9.12 version) and modified them for NATO compliance. The corresponding designation for the -UB(two-seat trainer version) is "MiG-29GT". The modifications were rather subtle including: - de-tuning the engines for increased lifetime - modification to the fuel-system(allowing wing drop-tanks) - radio equipment - instrument read-out in imperial units(knots, feet etc) - cockpit labeling, instruments, warning lamps and Ekran in English - voice warnings in German.

Manufacturer's specifications for the R-27R and -ER: http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/503/527/

An aircraft radar tracking a target at 100+ kilometer range is not going to be fooled by chaff :) . But if it was, it would also affect an ARH weapon since it is guided to terminal stage in the same way. No its maximum engagement ranges(some 60 km versus a fighter type of target and up to 100 km against non-manouverable targets). But its for optimal launch conditions, so in most cases it would be considerably less. Well its not really just about being ARH(some ARH seekers actually have an additional SARH mode for increased acquisition range) - the AIM-120(and R-77 for that matter) are simply more agile and newer tech across the board, so I agree that the R-27R/ER isn't on par. But then, as far as I can gather, "people" are questioning the game performance of the R-27R/ER itself, rather than expecting it to be on par with the AIM-120. The seeker is the 9B-1101K made by AGAT - IIRC the published range performance is some 20 km against a target with an RCS of 5m2.

I think you are confused as well - the R-27R/ER is not guided by the aircraft radar beam(beam riding), but by its onboard INS(inertial navigation system) using proportional navigation - updates are transmitted from aircraft radar to missile INS via datalink(radio correction) - i.e. same as with the AIM-120. But at terminal stage the SARH seeker is homing in on the target via the aircraft radar's reflected energy, so if it breaks lock, the seeker has nothing to home on.

I do ;)

No it was a limitation with the old map technology - apparently the number of map objects was limited to a fixed number and it was necessary to remove the Crimean ones in order to further expand the Georgian area(for the Ka-50 Black Shark release). But with the new engine that should no longer be an issue, so I guess it would "just" be a matter of re-doing Crimea to current standards.

Sorry mate I cannot help you with that - I don't know anything about the MiG-27.

Ok point taken - I misread it as 9.12. Even so I would say that the "slightly" bit concerns the increase in internal fuel from 9.12 to 9.13, while it was significant for the 9.15 and 9.31 - increased to 4650 kg(some 5800 litres). Its the L150 "Pastel" also known as SPO-32 and isn't really new - it was also part of the 9.15 and 9.31 system's suite. It has memory for up to 128 pre-programmed radar types operating in varies modes, classifies and prioritises them according to threat level, display them to the pilot either on MFD or a dedicated display and issues voice warnings for immedeate threats. It also controls electronic and passive countermeassures and can act as target acquisition and control system for anti-radar missiles(can direct multiple missiles against multiple targets simultaneously). I believe the one in the Su-27SM is an upgraded version(L150M?).....anyway, would be strange if it wasn't considering the time that has passed since its initial development in the late eighties.

Slightly? - Compared to the 9.12 the MiG-29K(9.31) has 33% extra internal fuel, can carry 3 external tanks(with which it has the same range as an Su-33) and has inflight-refuelling capability too :).

He was talking about the MiG-29M and MiG-29K :) . If you aren't big on them due to short legs, you wouldn't be big on the F/A-18 Hornet either(same combat range).

Yes its just you.

Well you can easily see how other sources could get the radar bit wrong though - Sukhoi did propose the Kopyo radar(both as built-in and podded solution) and published this as part of the upgrade, just as their promotion of the Su-25TM sometimes gave the impression that the Russian airforce was enthusiastic about it and just about to sign a contract for its procurement......although it clearly wasn't the case :).

Yes the last part was a little "sales pitch" for the Su-25TM/Su-39 :D

Not correct though - in the end the Russian airforce rejected the radar as part of the SM upgrade. Here is a better source - an old(from ~ 2001) interview with a Sukhoi representative describing the -SM upgrade:

I am afraid this is yet another one of those forum ideas that has taken a life of its own :D The "restrictive law" in question is the one introduced by the Russian government concerning foreign NGOs having to register with the authorities in order to operate in the country - I could imagine that this could create an atmosphere in which it could be difficult to get people "in the know" about military equipment to talk to foreigners about it and IIRC this issue was mentioned(by someone from ED) specifically in response to a question as to why there aren't more third party developers[read western] working on Russian aircraft. But in regards as to what would prevent ED from developing a "full DCS" Su-27SM, Su-35S, Su-34.....PAK-FA module, I think it is the same that prevents anyone from making an F-35 or F-22 ditto - no documentation available for the purpose :) .

Yes maybe, but I doubt they would :) And even for something like that it would still be a big problem with the information display - I don't know how much can be found, but all I have seen is basic instrumentation(such as ADI, IAS etc) replicated graphically on the LCDs.

Some :) - the radar(N001VE), - the EOS(with TV channel) - the RWS("Pastel" with support for anti-radar missiles) - the information display(large colour LCDs and upgraded HUD) But I am sure also the navigation system and a whole lot of other things along the lines of what was performed with the Su-25SM(for which there is a pretty comprehensive account).

Yes thats what it means :)

I think it was simply down to lack of available documentation on varies systems for the Su-27SM - the "Pastel RWS" for one, how information is displayed on those shiny new LCDs etc. But if you by "restrictive laws" mean classified information, then yes I guess so :)