Alfa

No but then the RVV-SD is the new and quite recent version of the missile, so thats not surprising :) . I was refering to the fact that the Su-30SM is compatible with the RVV-AE(which has been around for ages) and the claim by some, that the VVS has stocks of this missile although there is no evidence for this nor any sightings of them having trained with that either.

This question has come up a couple of times in previous discussions - if you look at the stats published by the manufacturer, you get the impression that the R-27ER only achieves a significant range advantage over the R-27R when imployed against a non-manouvrable target, while it is negliable(a few km) against a manouvrable target like a fighter. A more interesting question(IMHO) is why they aren't carrying RVV-AE missiles although the Flankers in question(Su-30SM) are compatible with this weapon - seems to confirm that the RuAF doesn't have any :) . Anyway, air-to-air capability is probably not that relevant for the current mission in Syria, since the primary objective is to conduct airstrikes against insurgents which don't pose any air-to-air threat.

How about I reverse the question. You said that the Soviet 9.12 has a more sophisticated datalink than export versions, then you said that there is no documentation available for it. So how exactly can you know its more sophisticated......source?

Doesn't matter if its export or Soviet in this regard. Whatever difference there is, we know that it doesn't extend to what the Su-27 has...which is what this whole discussion is about - i.e. ED's decision to remove the ability to turn it on for the MiG-29 in the game.

Because he wants to :D

Yes we do :) Which is the MiG-29B variant :) I meant "lack of IFF controls" as in not being visible in your photo - i.e. relocated from the original position ;)

Yes but the datalink system on "baseline" MiG-29 variants is only for connection to GCI with the information displayed on the HUD(which in turn is replicated on the HDD). It does not have the more sophisticated fighter-to-fighter/AWACS system with separate tactical display on the HDD that the Su-27 has, so removing the ability to turn it on for the MiG-29 was the right move by Eagle. If people want to complain about something in this regard, then it would be more valid to address the lack of GCI :) . P.S. I am pretty sure that the cockpit in this photo: ....is of a MiG-29B(non-Warsaw pact export variant) - note the lack of IFF controls.

Its one of the former Luftwaffe MiG-29s now in service with the Polish airforce - note English labelling, radio equipment and the switch for ejection of wing droptanks(just below the G-meter). Ehh what? :)

Boberro is right - the pit in the picture is modified, so there is nothing "default" about it.

Yes it is - aside from the modified radar, its practically the same aircraft. All other features mentioned; the "humpback", ECM, ability to carry wing droptanks, improved FCS etc. are features already introduced with the MiG-29(9.13) "Fulcrum C".

Maybe of interest... MiG-29K(9.31) no. 312 virtual cockpit project(WIP) Click for larger images.

IIRC the Su-27 has had ECM from the outset(entered service in 1984). The initial MiG-29(9.12 from 1983) doesn't have ECM, but the upgraded 9.13 variant, which entered service in 1987 does(built-in Gardeniya-1FUE). The MiG-29(9.13) doesn't exist in the game, but except for the modified radar/R-77 compatibility, it is practically the same aircraft as the MiG-29S(9.13S) - which is from ~1992. So for an 80' ies scenario it would be the same sort of deal as with the F-15C/AMRAAMs - i.e. just strip it of its R-77s.

It doesn't really - e.g. the MiG-29S has practically the same radar as the MiG-29 with only subtle modifications for supporting the R-77. I think you might be jumping to conclusions looking at the modifications made to the Su-27SM's modified N001 radar, but keep in mind that this also involves new air-to-ground modes, while support for the RVV-AE basically consists of an "add-on" radar mode similar to that of the MiG-29S. But you are right that the AWG-9 from the outset is better suited for AMRAAM integration given the existing radar functionality and support for the AIM-54.

The F/A-18C introduced into service in 1987 also had "provision" for the AMRAAM, but didn't get it until 1993. It probably did - having "provision" for it, means that the WCS has been prepared for it, but integrating a new weapon comes with a costly testing and certification process. At the time the trend was going toward multirole fighters and with the advent of the Hornet and discussion about whether to retire the F-14, I suspect it was simply deemed better value for money to try and push the A/G potential of it(range/payload) than to further extend the already well established A/A capability.

Well thats actually a pretty good reason to conclude that it dosen't have datalink :) Basicallly the R-27ET/datalink thing stems from the misconception that the "autopilot" section of the missile common to all variants contains the INS - it doesn't. The autopilot section merely recieves steering cues from the seeker section and operates the control surfaces accordingly - i.e. really performs the same task as the flight control system of an aircraft. The INS is an integrated part of the SARH seeker, so replacing it with an IR seeker means no INS/radio correction.

Thats AFAIK how it should work concerning EOS/radar cooperative mode - i.e. when EOS is the primary sensor used, the radar will be in stand-by with the antenna slaved to the angular position of the target as obtained by the EOS and only "kick in"(start actively scanning) in case the IR lock is lost. There is a similar case(not modelled in the sim) when the radar is operating under GCI control - i.e. where target information is provided by an external source. The onboard radar is cued to look in the direction of a target , but not actively emitting until the target is close enough for a missile launch. As far as I can tell the IFF is a completely seperate system with its own transponders and seperate set of controls(located on the RH console) and as far as I can see only needs some way of linking an interrogation response to the angular position of a contact and display it to the pilot - of course if you don't have any means other than radar to find that position it would be required, but I don't see any reason why it couldn't be achieved with an EOS lock as well. So I am not so sure that it is an unintended feature in the sim - mind you, I don't know and I agree with GG, that just because something appears logical at the first glance doesn't necessarily mean that it is :) ....there are plenty of examples where things were assumed to work in a particular way because it made sense only to be refuted later when more information becomes available.

There are basically two different explanations to this: The first is that the RWR will trigger a lock warning when the enemy radar is changing to STT mode and a launch warning when it detects the radio correction tranmission from launching radar to in-flight missile. The second one(that I find more plausible) is that the RWR triggers a lock warning when the enemy radar goes into STT and a second launch warning when the recieved signal strength is such that you must assume that the enemy radar is close enough for a missile launch. Edit: sniped by GG :D

An IFF system is setup to listen for a pre-set encrypted query and respond with a matching password. AFAIK it cannot determine if something else transmitted on the frequency is an IFF interrogation and as such doesn't react to it at all.

Mind you - is this range-quote describing the actual missile performance(aerodynamics/thrust) or just the practical operational limit? What I mean is that IIRC the maximum "datalink" range from a MiG-29 to an inflight R-27R is some 25 km - if you add missile seeker range(with overlap), you would arrive at something like the 35 km. Yes IIRC the AIM-120A seeker was not re-programmable, while the AIM-120B was? Well "newer radar" :) - its more like the same radar with modifications. Anyway, IIRC the N019M got the new processor from the N010 Zhuk - partly to fix the problems you mentioned and partly to deal with the increased processing requirements for the "SNP-2" mode.

No particular reason except perhaps that the MiG-29SMT retains the mechanical flight-control system, but isn't really "baseline" :) I don't know mate - I have no experience with the DCS Su-27/PFM(my old PC cannot run DCS world) or the stick in question, so I am afraid I can't help you with that.

No its in fact an Su-27S(or a -UB maybe). The footage first shows MiG-29s taking off, but then cuts to in-cockpit view of an Su-27. The sequence showing Russian jets is from a separate video, where the "Russian Knights"(Su-27 display team) fly together with the "Strizhi"(MiG-29 display team) - IIRC the video was recorded with a mix of external(MiG-29 with a Go-pro camera attached to the vertical stabs) and internal(Su-27 cockpit cam) sequences. As Sobek mentioned, the "baseline" MiG-29 has a mechanical flight-control system(no FBW).

Well there could be other reasons than performance issues for that - such as carrying specialised AAM versions for particular purposes making payloads less mission versatile. As I see it, with the development of the AMRAAM the US instead went the "multirole" route with a single weapon for all types of BVR engagements.

No I meant "supplement to the SARH version" as in shooting an ARM instead of a SARH in some conditions(when the radar is being jammed) in the same way as picking an IRH for a receedig target instead of a SARH :) . Personally I think the claim that it was standard procedure to launch a SARH followed immedeatly after by an IRH for increased PK is nonsense - the performance characteristics of SARH and IRH seekers are virtually reversed, so its a little difficult to see a situation where that would work and I suspect the idea might stem from the earlier false assumption that the R-27T/-ET has INS/radio correction. Possibly, but then the -EP version isn't a new entity - we just haven't heard about it until recently.

Well it definately has a passive-radar homing head, but you may be right about it having been intended as a specialised "home-on-jam" weapon in supplement to the SARH version for situations where this is less effective/cant be used - i.e. in much the same way as with the -ET.

According to varies soruces the "200 km" range quote of the R-27EP is actually supposed to be the seeker acuisition range in which case you would be able to aim it like a heat-seeker(LOBL) to the extend the WCS is set up accordingly. Personally I think it sounds a little fantastic that a small passive radar seeker(antenna of some 26 cm in diameter) should be able to home on a radar source at such distances. Mind you the same sources say that even the long-burn R-27E can't take advantage of this range since the aerodynamics(and propulsion I guess)/power reserve of the missile itself doesn't allow it to reach that far. There is also the possibility of aiming and controlling it on route via the RWS(like ARMs) in which case the range quote may sound a little more believable although that would at least require a more modern RWS(made compatible with the missile) than the standard SPO-15 on "baseline" Su-27s. Yes - well in its SARH and IR versions you mean - the proposed ARH version never progressed further than from the idea and as such is a lot less real than the -EP :)