Alfa

It might - remember that we are talking about missiles optimised for long range and speed rather than agility, so even with midcourse guidance it might be beneficial to get a seeker lock at as long range as possible - i.e. to give the missile more time to manouver "in for the kill" at terminal stage. Yes I would think so - well ARH mode rather(same seeker). Well with an electronically scanned array, moving the beam from one target to the next is virtually instantanous, so I don't think that is a problem. I see :D

Well I always thought it was, but seeing this I am now starting to wonder about father christmas and the tooth fairy too :)

Not a Spitfire, but a Hawker Hurricane.

The AIM-54 mid-course guidance method is the same as with the AMRAAM - i.e. INS with radio correction. However, the seekerhead can operate in both SARH and ARH mode. The advantage of the ARH mode being that you can engage multiple targets simultaneously via TWS, while with the SARH mode you are restricted to a single target via STT(since the AWG9 is an MSA), but can take advantage of the high power output of the aircraft radar to increase seeker acquisition range, which I can imagine could increase PK for a long range engagement. The R-37 missile(slated for the MiG-31M) had a similar SARH/ARH combo seekerhead. The reason why the MiG-31 can engage multiple targets(up to four) with SARH missiles(R-33) is because it has a PESA radar. P.S. whats up with the name change? :D

Note that there is a discrepancy between the tank number indications on the gauge/decal and the small schematic drawing you posted - i.e. the central feed tank is labelled "tank 2" in the latter, while there is no "tank 2" indications on the gauge :) . Since the central feed tank is the last to be emptied, it is clear that this is "tank 5" given the lamp sequence :) . The last light(bottom) is not a tank number reference, but a critical low level warning - i.e. "bingo state". I don't think you can get such an exaxt quantity - on the MiG-29 fuelgauge there are yellow markers pointing to the empty tank lamps indicating a range on the fuel tape rather than a specific quantity - i.e. when an empty tank lamp goes on, the remaining fuel quantity is somewhere between value x and y... ....like that :)

Not a collector either, but I got a Volmax Aviator 45mm(attached photo) that I am extremely pleased with :)

It will pick the closest contact with the highest closure speed and can do this at around 80% of the detection range.

Cannot speak for FC3 since I don't have it, but scan modes only provide the angular position(bearing/altitude) and range of a contact - in order to figure out its heading and speed it needs to be tracked and only the TWS mode can do that for multiple contacts. The only other way you can get that information is if you have an external source(GCI or AWACS) providing it. When tracking a contact, the radar memorizes the angular position and range between sweeps and based on the difference it calculates heading and velocity - i.e. there is more processing going on and therefore TWS is more sensitive to disturbance(jamming) than scan modes. Again I cannot speak for FC3, but it could be down to the range - maximum head-on tracking range is some 80% of detection range in HPRF scan mode(called "Encounter"). In addition to collecting heading and speed of contacts, the Russian TWS(called "SNP") automatically calculates which of the contacts will first enter your selected weapon's engagement parameters based on range/closure speed and only transitions to STT when that occurs - i.e. doesn't prematurely alert the target of an imminent missile launch.

The Ekran display is an integrated part of the aircraft's events/failure indication system, which basically consists of 4 different items: - master caution lamp - varies warning lamps("announciators") - Ekran display - voice warnings The master caution lamp is a general alert that tells the pilot that there is something he needs to check, the individual warning lamps tell him which paritcular part of the aircraft's systems it is and the Ekran can display more information about the problem and store several events.

The Su-27 has had the Ekran display since day one and its present in practically all Russian aircraft in the sim(Ka-50, Su-25T, MiG-29/-S, Su-27 and Su-33).

Oh.....well newsworthy or not, a US analogue to a Ka-52K with Kh-35s would be something like a navalised Apache armed with Harpoons :) .

Eh what?

It does, but with the recent news that the Su-33s will be upgraded and continiue in service for another 10+ years, it would seem a good idea to give them this capability too - especially if the upgrade involves the radar anyway :) . Maybe not directly in connection with the Mistrals - by "money better spent" I was thinking more in general terms :) . Yes but Russian warships aren't exactly known to be short of anti-ship capability ;) and although I would tend to agree that Mistrals might not be operated in places where they could rely on support from the Kuznetsov airwing, I would find it strange if a single frigate couldn't be allocated for escort......even a couple of small missile boats like the Molniya class pack more anti-ship punch than an entire squadron of Ka-52s with Kh-35s would :D AFAIK some exported Seahawks did indeed deploy Penguin missiles, but its an old weapon thats being phased out.

Ok but the article concerned a proposal for installing a radar on the Ka-52 enabling it to deploy radar guided anti-ship missiles - you don't need that for ARMs, since they don't use radar for target acquisition/in-flight control :) BTW there is IMO something fishy about the quoted engagement ranges for the Kh-31AD and Kh-31PD respectively - I mean the two missiles are identical except for the homing heads, so where does the range difference come from? :)

Yes the helicopter compatible variant of the Kh-35 is real enough and no the idea is not new, but the question is how practical/useful a Ka-52/Kh-35 combo would be. The Ka-52K(naval variant) was procured mainly for the Mistral class assault ships - i.e. as a CAS asset for landing operations and although it could perhaps come in handy for them to have the ability to help fend off enemy surface threats with Kh-35s, I think the money could be better spend on more suitable assets for this sort of thing.....e.g. upgrading the Su-33(radar) to deploy the missile instead :) .

Perhaps not, but I was responding to: Which it can't :) . It cannot launch any variant of the Kh-31 due to the required launch conditions(carrier platform travelling at 600 - 1250 km/h) and not the same variant of Kh-35 either(although I guess that could be considered "nitpicking"). Point taken about the updated versions, but the article talked about anti-ship missiles, so I don't really understand why you refer to a new version of the anti-radar variant(?) . The new version of the anti-ship variant(Kh-31AD) is quoted with a much shorter range(120 - 160 km) and again this is for optimal launch conditions - i.e. carrier platform travelling at Mach 1.5 and at altitude of 15 km, which needless to say is impossible for a helicopter. Yes but I never said that a Kh-31 couldn't be launched below 10-15 km altitude - the point was to compare difference in obtainable range at those altitudes - i.e. dropping from 70 km to 50 when going from 15km down to 10 km altitude, which in turn should say something about the kind of range you could expect when launched from a helicopter.....IIRC the sevice ceiling for the Ka-52 is something like 5 km :) . It makes launch from a Su-25TM unlikely(impractical at least) and launch from a helicopter impossible :) Well the Kh-31 is a supersonic missile with ramjet sustainer and built-in rocket booster, which when expended, becomes the combustion chamber for the ramjet sustainer engine(similar in concept to the Moskit). With the integrated nature of the Kh-31's engine design, it would require a complete re-design of the weapon. The Kh-35 is a subsonic missile with a turbojet sustainer engine - the booster is an extra separate section. Again Kh-31....no :D . Kh-35 definately possible, but as mentioned earlier its not the same version as the one used by tactical aircraft, because even this subsonic weapon requires extra boost to propel it to operational speed when launched from a slow moving platform. While technically possible, it nevertheless raises questions about the practicality of it - both in terms of weight penalty as well as realistic engagement range. I think this is just another example of a manufacturer promoting a piece of kit(in this case a radar) without much consideration as to whether the suggested application makes much operational sense - i.e. along the lines of a similar proposal for the Su-25(radar/radar guided ASMs). Yes this has been discussed previously - my take on this is that the R-27ER engine's extra sustainer stage only provide enough thrust to compensate for drag in level flight - i.e. only provide significant extra range over the R-27R when launched against non-manouvering targets(such as bombers and transports) at high altitude.

The article mentions two types of anti-ship missiles - the Kh-31A and Kh-35. The Kh-31A requires the carrying platform to be travelling at at least 600 km/h for launch and the range of the missile against a destroyer type of target is between 50 to 70 km when launched at an altitude of 10 or 15 km respectively. A helicopter cannot meet either of those launch conditions. There is a version of the Kh-35 that can be launched from helicopters, but its not the same as the one used by fixed wing tactical aircraft. The helicopter variant is similar to the one for ships/coastal installations with an extra booster section and is much heavier than the aircraft variant(620 kg vs. 520 kg).

Yes and it may also be that the Su-27 was expected to venture into enemy airspace to gain air dominance and therefore needed extended onboard equipment features to help the pilot build "SA" independantly of ground support.

NP :)

The MiG-29K/KUB currently being inducted to the Russian naval aviation is the new updated 9.41/9.47 version. Ijozic was refering to the older prototype versions(9.15 and 9.31 respectively) from the late eighties. These had two multifunctional CRT displays from which many functions could be accessed, though most combat functions could be controlled directly via HOTAS. Mind you, they were true multirole fighters and their entire systems suite(radar, RWS, navigation, comms etc) and display system was completely different to that of the baseline MiG-29(9.12 and 9.13S) that we have in DCS. As to why this only have HUD repition function on the HDD, I think it had to do with how the MiG-29 was intended to be operated - i.e. with a high reliance on GCI to find the targets, uplink the target information and display it directly on the HUD and even cue the onboard radar to look in the right direction(to acquire them for missile launch)......an aspect thats missing in the DCS MiG-29 representation :) .

A button on the back of the throttle, while the un-designate button is on the stick(see attached drawings). Similar to the MiG-29 btw :)

I believe the footage is from sea trials conducted in the Barents sea prior to the ship being handed over to India. The MiG-29K seen at the very beginning of the video is actually the old 9-31 version(no 311) being used for "mock-up" puposes, while the flight testing of the new 9-41 version involved MIGs own prototypes(hence bort # 941 and Russian markings) flown by MIG test pilots. It is.

Спасибо :)

Like this? :)..

Interesting project there - nice work Makc! :) Well I haven't come as far as Makc (my other pit builds have higher priority), but here is a little newer version of the Yak-141 front panels :) ... ..close-up: