Alfa

The Russian Su-27S is still using the N001 just like the export version(Su-27SK). The recently upgraded Russian version(Su-27SM) is using an upgraded version of the N001 called N001VE with added Air-to-ground modes and compatibility with the RVV-AE. The N011 was a newer slotted array design for the Su-27M(Su-35) prototypes developed in the late eighties, but these didn't enter service due to the collapse of the Soviet Union. The N011 first formed the basis for the N011M "Bars" radar(currently operational with the Indian Su-30MKI) which had the slotted array antenna replaced by a PESA antenna - the "Bars" in turn formed the basis of the new Irbis-E PESA radar installed in the Su-35S(new version in service with the Russian airforce). Yes the Su-27S in the game is the initial version from ~ 1984. It is - at least in its un-upgraded form.....mind you, the APG-63 from the same age wasn't as capable as current iterations either(and didn't support AMRAAMs back then). The radar alone(upgraded N001 at least) should not be a problem, but the Su-27SM has a lot of other new gadgets that might be, so I think its more an issue of modelling a newer Flanker version as such.

Well which tanks are emptied first is one thing, but which you decide to jettison first(e.g. in preparation for a turning fight) is another :) . Since the wing drop tanks are offset from centerline, heavier(combined) and produce more drag than the centerline tank, it would be logical to get rid of them first. In the real aircraft there is one button for jettison of the centerline tank and another for(both) wing drop tanks. In the game there is just one toggle command, so the routine for automatically dropping the wing tanks first is probably just a simplicity issue. Well in reality the aircraft cannot fly with just the CL tank and 0% internal fuel - so if the game is forcing some minimal internal fuel per default, then thats probably not a bad idea :) In the real aircraft(9.12) the refuelling process is selected on a panel in left main gear bay and has three options: - 50% - tank 2 and partial filling of tank 1 and 3 - 100% - all internal tanks filled - 130% - all internal tanks + CL drop tank.

Except that it isn't - the Su-27SM has an upgraded version of the N001 radar(the one in the basic Su-27) developed for the Su-30MKK(exported to China). So all the stuff about the Bars and Irbis has no relevance to the Su-27SM - at least not the ones currently in Russian service. Incorrect - the Su-27M(aka Su-35) was the first prototype for a multirole Flanker(several prototypes were built) and initially had a mechanically scanned slotted array called N011. In connection with the development of the Su-30MKI for India, an updated version of this radar(called N011M "Bars") with a PESA antenna was developed and tested onboard one of the Su-27M prototypes.

In the game perhaps, but thats not how it works IRL :) - remember that wing drop tanks were not part of the original MiG-29 fuel system, but rather a later modification introduced with the 9.13 version. The fuel flow is not a simple matter of emptying one tank after another in sequence, but a rather complex system in which fuel is being re-distributed between internal tanks via a series of pumps in order to maintain the balance of the aircraft as fuel is being depleted - this is especially the case with internal tank no 1 and and 3. Explaining this in detail would be a little too much to go into here, but in basic terms the sequence is that the external centerline tank(which is connected to the internal tank no. 1) is emptied first, then as fuel starts to be taken from internal tank no. 1, the system starts to compensate by pumping in fuel from internal wing tanks, which in turn is compensated for by drawing in fuel from external wing drop tanks(which are connected to internal wing tanks). So: - external centerline tank - external wing drop tanks - internal wing tanks - internal tank no. 3 - internal tank no. 1 - internal tank no. 2(engine feed tank) - engines die :) The internal tank no. 2(engine feed tank) is not represented directly on the fuel gauge, but the capacity of this(some 550 kg) corresponds to critical level("bingo" state) as indicated by the red line at the bottom of the fuel tape. Now as far as the game goes, I don't understand ED's implementation. I can understand that full replication of the fuel system(s) and its features such as the business with the switch between meassured/calculated fuel level, is something that will have to wait for a "study level" MiG-29 module. But IMO there should at least be a clear distinction between the MiG-29 and MiG-29S - i.e. the MiG-29(baseline 9.12) should have the old version of the fuel gauge and no the ability to carry wing drop tanks, while the MiG-29S should have the new fuelgauge + ability to carry wing drop tanks.

Honestly? :) Here is one attached - and another with the 9.12 gauge for comparison.

The real fuel gauges are different between the MiG-29 and MiG-29S. In the gauge for the MiG-29(baseline version) there are 4 lamps for empty thanks: - the top one indicating end of transfer from the external centerline tank(which in RL doesn't necessarily mean that it is empty, but just that transfer has been cut off by a flow sensor). - the second one indicating that the internal wing tanks(in LERX'es) have been emptied. - third one for internal tank no. 3 - fourth one for internal tank no. 1 In the gauge for the MiG-29S, there are 5 lamps: - top one again for external centerline tank - second one for external wing drop tanks - third for internal wing tanks - fourth for internal tank no 3 - fifth for internal tank no. 1 Correct. The external tanks don't have sensors in them, so the remaining quantity cannot be meassured directly - with the switch in question set to the "T" position, the fuel gauge only shows the meassured fuel(i.e. only in internal tanks). With the switch set in "P" position, the fuel system calculates the entire remaining fuel quantity based on a manually pre-set initial value and rate of consumption as a function of the flowmeter. The gauge for the "baseline" MiG-29 has an additional switch at the top of the gauge, which selects flowmeter readout(remaining flight time) based either on optimal flight regime or current one - this switch was deleted on the gauge of the MiG-29S(and MiG-29 9.13) and IIRC the flowmeter always shows remaining flight time for optimal conditions. Anyway, a lit empty lamp only tells you that a particular tank(s) is empty and not how much fuel you got left although the triangular yellow markers give you a rough estimate - i.e. each pointing to a lamp and with the "flat end" indicating a range on the fuel tape within which the remaining quantity should be when that lamp lights up.

Good work trietnguyen! - interesting project :)

Thanks! :) I actually have several pit projects(at varies stages): - MiG-29(9.12) - MiG-29M(9.15) - no. 155 and 156 - MiG-29K(9.31) - no. 312 - F/A-18A - F/A-18C "Night Attack" - Su-33 I intend to make a combined thread for them once they are at least representative of what I am aiming for(I hate showing stuff that isn't quite there yet) and at this point its really only the 9.12 pit that is starting to reach that stage - I only showed the 9.31 pit renderings in this thread because Slebedeff seemed interested in this variant :) It sounds like Zei has his own plans for the -UB and, if I have understood correctly, also for 9.41/9.47 versions of the MiG-29K/KUB.

As Svend_Dellepude said, the risk of the IR version homing in on the exhaust plume of the earlier fired SARH is rather marginal and only really plausible if they are fired in quick succession, which in turn I don't see the sense in if employing the missiles according to their performance characteristics. In a head-on engagement the radar guided versions will outrange the IR ditto several times - according to manufacturer specs, you can engage a fighter type target at up to some 60 km(roughly the same range you can expect the radar to lock the same type of target) with the SARH version(s), while you would be lucky to get a solid IR lock at much more than 10. In a rear-aspect engagement the situation would be pretty much reversed - doppler radars don't like things that are moving away from them and both aircraft radar and missile SARH seeker have drastically reduced performance in such a situation, so it doesn't really make sense to use them if you have an ET at your disposal. As far as I can see, the only practical way of using them in combination would be to launch the radar guided variant as soon as the WCS lets you, then observe the reaction of the target as you are closing in and, if need be, follow up with an IR if the target's evasive manouvering provides the oppotunity to do so(change in aspect).

Yeap :D Anyway, as I understand it, the Su-27's datalink is an expansion to the pure GCI one of the MiG-29 - i.e. the ability to share target information directly between members of a flight - each having the "big picture" displayed on the HDD and the ability to make indepedant tactical decisions rather than relying on a remote radar station doing it for them.

Possibly, but I think you would be hard pressed to get a solid IR lock at anything approaching head-on range of the SARH - except in tail aspect. No and I would be 99% sure that it can't - doesn't sound plausible with a SARH weapon/WCS technology dating back to the early eighties. Whether it is possible with newer Flanker iterations/missiles I don't know - supposedly its part of the feature set of some 5th gen aircraft(F-22 - F35?).

You mean "bigger glass" but same sensor? :) - in such a case I think it would be a better idea to upscale the whole unit and gain increased range performance instead(along the lines of the EOS of the Su-33 vs. that of the Su-27) to take advantage of the range potential of the missile itself. It was in its day, but these days there are newer designs that match or exceeds it. Not really :) - if its the same technology, the only way to increase sensitivity would be to increase the size of the apparatus.....I think :D

Well I did a quick search and found this on the new R-27ET seeker from Arsenal: http://www.asian-defence.net/2010/09/ukraine-develops-modernised-seeker-for.html ....it doesn't indicate the date of the article, but its clearly quite recent and therefore this particular IR seeker cannot have anything to do with the existing unit of the R-27ET......sorry :) Mind you, the info about the wider FOV dates much further back too, so I don't know.... Well I heard that too but cannot really see how that would be feasible considering that the two types of homing have virtually opposite characteristics - at least not in a sort of "ripple firing". But if it means firing an R/ER head-on and then follow up with a T/TE as the target turns tail, it sounds a lot more plausible IMHO :)

No mate I don't and I am not possitively sure that its correct either - just something I seem to remember from the dark corners of my mind :D It is possible that its an updated design by a Ukrainian company(called "Arsenal" IIRC) and may be the same unit slated for an updated version of the R-73 - now known as "RVV-MD".

Not sure thats correct Rage - IIRC the R-27ET has a different seeker with a wider FOV(+/- 60 deg versus +/- 45 for the R-73).

The seekerhead is all-aspect, but as the -T/ET don't have INS/midcourse guidance, they are limited to the range at which the IR seeker can lock the target prior to launch and although it is "all-aspect", this range is nevertheless going to a lot shorter head-on than in rear aspect - i.e. the reversed of the missile itself - hence the idea of sticking an IR seeker on a large missile body for chasing down receeding targets where agility is less of a concern. For a head-on engagement there would be little reason to pick an R-27T/ET since it would be limited to practially the same range(seeker limitation) as an R-73, while being a lot less agile.

Thanks! :) Well the cockpit renderings above are for the MiG-29K 9-31 prototype(the 312 in its original layout from around 1990) and, as you probably know, there were no two-seat version of that. However, I am also working on a cockpit project for the "baseline" MiG-29(9.12) that I suppose could be used as basis for an -UB(9.51) pit. The problem is that the fidelity/detail level of my pits is such that even the single-seat pit will probably end up around twice the polygon count that I understand is the current limit(some 250k?) set by ED. So I don't think it is feasible for the forseeable future - but we will see :). Some W.I.P images(max screenshots) of my 9.12 pit so far - click for larger images. Front view/canopy: Left to right: Topview:

Gorgeous model!

It was proposed as an upgrade for stock R-27 missiles, but as Lucas said, rejected in favour of the new R-77 design, which apart from the ARH seeker has many superiour features over the R-27 design - it is more agile and lighther, which in turn means that it can be mounted on more suspension stations allowing for more versatile loadouts. Mind you, the R-27 "family" is not really a line of individual missiles, but rather a system of different missile parts that can be assembled for different purposes. The "EA" proposal really boiled down to a new seeker module with an ARH unit in place of the SARH and although this ARH seeker(9B-1103M) is no longer being pursued for the R-27 line, it is still around and being offered as a universial seeker in various sizes - the upgraded 200mm version of it may in fact be the one used in the new RVV-SD.

Yes the RVV-AE is an export item, but its made in Russia by Vympel(now part of the "Tactical Missiles Corporaton" umbrella organisation). AGAT is a Russian company(located in Moscow) that produces radar seekerheads - including the 9B-1348E for the RVV-AE. I know Pilotasso :)

No there isn't - the R-27 missile system comes with SARH, IR and passive radar homing heads. A variant(-EA) with an ARH seeker was proposed some time in the nineties, but didn't materialise.

I don't think so either I think its a mix of several things - with the exception of the Su-34 the tactical aircraft deployed don't have much in the way of "self escort" capability, so the Su-30SMs might simply be there for the unlikely event that they would need such as well as discouraging anyone from interfering with the operations of their strikers. I suspect that another task could be to enforce some degree of national sovereignty on behalf of the Syrian government - at least there have been reports(don't know about their accuracy) of Russian fighters turning away military aircraft of other nations entering Syrian airspace.

I don't think having a missile with slightly longer range is really going to scare anyone away - if anything you would "scare" them by locking them up with your radar(which you can do at longer range than the missile can cover anyway). Yes I think so too - but mostly going by the account of Luftwaffe MiG-29 pilots, who IIRC said something about the radar having good enough performance(range wise), but the range of the R-27R being "dissapointingly short".

Thats my guess as well :) Yes I believe it was although I cannot think of any source for this right now.

Not quite the same though is it? :) . The R-27R is a medium range radar guided AAM just like the RVV-AE - just less capable. Anyway, the French and Brits use their multirole fighters directly for the bombing campaign, whereas Russia has sent several dedicated strike types covering all aspects of the same mission. So when they send an air-to-air oriented multirole fighter type along with them, its presumably because they feel the need to cover that aspect as well, in which case it would seem odd not to arm them as well as possible for the task.