Alfa

Funny that you pick the Exocet experience in the Falklands and start comparing warhead sizes to make a point considering that in the most spectacular kills the Exocet made during that conflict, the warhead actually failed to detonate - the ships were destroyed by the kinetic energy of the impact alone and subsequent failure to control the resulting damage(fire).

Damage modelling for ships is simplistic to say the least and I agree that what you describe is way off, but I just wish people would stop making those silly comparisons between missiles based solely on the size of the explosive charge contained in their warheads. Missiles and their warheads are designed for different things and what is devastating against one type of targets may be virtually useless or much less effective against other.

The exact approach speed depends on your return weight(how much fuel and ordinance you are carrying) - the maximum allowed return weight(real life) on the carrier is some 25 tons. 240 - 250 km/h sounds about right for a lightly loaded aircraft - IIRC the minimum approach speed(IAS) is around 240 km/h for the Su-33.

Well I looked around and found the attached image of the WDU-33 warhead and it looks like a fragmentation warhead arranged much like a continious rod type - i.e. rectangular fragments arranged around an explosive core. So it seems you are right, but then it would nevertheless appear that the blast pattern is very similar to that of continious rod and indeed a case of "annular blast fragmentation" - i.e. directional.

Are you sure about that GG? :) The "expanding rod" type of warhead goes under different names such as "continious rod" and "annular blast fragmentation"

Correct. No but a max target G-load of 4 would indicate that the R-33 is limited to "non-manouvering" targets :) .

Well the distance is set according to the kill range of the warhead and the R-33 has a pretty big charge(some 47 kg of HE). Mind you, 20 m is actually not that far - IIRC the AIM-120 and RVV-AE have something similar despite having less than half the charge, but their warheads are of the "expanding rod" type, while the R-33 warhead is "blast fragmentation". Yes but the R-33 is actually meant to kill low flying cruise missiles(target altitude can be as low as 50 m) as well as high altitude bombers.

No it has a radar proximity fuze with a range of some 20 m. Well the R-33 has a maximum target g-load of 4, so probably not :)

The figures I have come by claim along the lines of 12m2 for the Su-27(and I would expect something similar for the F-15), 5m2 for something like a MiG-29/F-18 and 3m2 for an F-16 or MiG-21. Sounds plausible, but how reliable it is ....well :) .

Yup - AFAIK a Flanker(at least initial versions) have an RCS along the lines of 12 m2.

They do :) Thats what I heard too - mind you the AWG-9 also has a larger antenna some 980 mm IIRC. Too high I think - the N019 and N001 have the same output - 1 Kw average, 5 Kw peak. That was the point I was making earlier - that planar slotted arrays suffer less in this respect and phased arrays even less.

The figure for the N001 is not correct though - more along the lines of 90-100 km head-on detection range against target RCS of 3m2.

Point taken in regards to the actual area not being as large as the difference in antenna diameter would suggest. But even if it was I think the difference in antanna tech would still give the APG-63 the edge in range. Of course SNR and processing is a factor too, but as you said yourself, its the sort of thing thats difficult to compare since the information isn't there for the purpose. Yes but then the N001 went though major revisions too - both before and after entering service :) .

What GG said. But then your results actually points to the APG-63(F-15) being "better" than the N001(Su-27) in terms of range too. Radar range is a factor of mainly three things - antenna size, emitter power versus target RCS. The RCS of the Su-27 and F-15 are likely quite similar(quite large) and AFAIK the radar emission power is something similar as well - something along the lines of 5Kw peak. However, the the N001 has a larger antenna(some 1075 mm dia.) than the APG-63(some 900 mm dia.), so you would expect the Su-27 to have an edge in terms of pure range. But then the N001 has a cassegrain antenna, while the APG-63 has a slotted array antenna which is more efficient(losing less power through sidelobes).

That sounds odd :) 1). make sure that the pivot point of the pin is set correctly so that the pin doesn't have a "coaxial" movement when you rotate it :) 2). place the pin through the center of the sphere - i.e. the pivot point of the pin needs to be perfectly alligned with the center of the sphere. Then link the sphere to the pin. When you rotate the pin, the sphere should follow its rotation - you can now animate e.g. heading rotation for the pin and pitch rotation for the sphere itself. NB. in your video it appears that the ADI ball has three axis of motion - pitch rotation, heading rotation and bank tilt. You can animate all three rotations in the way described above - i.e. a horizontal pin for bank, a vertical pin for heading and then pitch rotation for the sphere itself. I have attached a zip file containing a simple ADI ball, that I have set up and animated like mentioned above. The file is made in 3ds max 7 with ED's plugins and animated with argument based rotation for the three axis: Pitch rotation(green) = arg. 0 Bank rotation(red) = arg. 1 Heading rotaton(blue) = arg. 2 I don't know if the animations are done in the way they should for the sim, but should at least give you an idea about how go about it :)

It sounds like the problem is that you are trying to animate rotation in two different axis around the same pivot point. The simplest way to solve this is to add an additional element and link your sphere to that - e.g. a pin through your sphere - then animate pitch rotation for the sphere and bank for the pin.

MiG-29 automatic engine start-up: * Engine start-up mode switch = "both" * APU switch = normal start Pressing the start button: - APU starts and cranks up right engine to 50% rpm - APU shuts down for 10 seconds - APU starts again and begin cranking up the left engine. For manual start up, the order is reversed - left engine should be started first.

How would you translate it then? :)

I know GG, but in the Luftwaffe manual describing the intake ramp system for the MiG-29, they use both "ramp" and "wedge" - i.e. that the system consists of two "ramps"(a forward and a rear) forming a "wedge". Subsequently describing the functionality through varies flight regimes, they refer to "wedge angle" and "wedge extension" ......and the latter is exactly what the instrument in question is indicating :)

No the illustration is incorrect - don't know where the "ПАНЕЛИ" label comes from :huh: . The real instrument is labelled: "КЛИН" (see attached image), which could be translated to "wedge". Inside the intake ducts there is an adjustable wedge that regulates airflow to the engines. The wedge slows down the air flowing to the engines to prevent compressor surge - i.e. basically the faster you go the narrower the passage in the duct. The instrument indicates the position of the wedge in procentage of extension - i.e. "100" meaning 100% extension, which would be in supersonic flight(in the MiG-29 its above Mach 1.5), with 0% at landing/take-off(or taxiing/engines running idle on the ground). So the instrument has nothing to do with the position of the FOD screens. However, in the MiG-29 the instrument has an extra indication above the "100" that reads "ВП"(see second attached image) that indicates wedge/ramp configuration when intake FOD doors are closed and air being breathed through auxilllary intakes(in the LERX) during take-off/landing.

Ok :) No not specifically, but the bit you quoted did say; "In the case of non-Black Sea powers, these terms make it impossible for transit any modern ships carrying aircraft through the straits without violating the terms of the convention." I was just noting that there is no reference to the "carriage of aircraft" or the specific term of "aircraft carrier"" in the treaty - only to displacement which the above bit didn't mention. Anyway, this was not really in response to what you wrote, but rather to some general die-hard misconceptions about the treaty vs. aircraft carriers - e.g. that the Soviet Union should have re-labelled their carriers as "aircraft carrying cruisers" in order to bypass the treaty restrictions....which is nonsense for several reasons: a). because there is no restriction pertaining to the specific term of "aircraft carrier"(so nothing gained by calling them something else). b). because even if there was, it would not apply to the Soviet Union anyway since it was a Black Sea power and therefore exempt from the restrictions. c). because practically all Soviet warship classifications are different from "Western" ones - Soviet "aircraft carrying cruisers" were named as such due to the way they were designed/equipped and meant to operate. Yes, but as mentioned before, AFAIK the US never officially recognised/signed the treaty, so the question is whether the restrictions would be observed if national interests/tactical considerations were to dictate otherwise.....not that I can imagine such a situation though :)

Incorrect. Even quite large US warships(such as Ticonderoga- and Burke class) have regulary entered the Black Sea - making port calls to nations such as Bulgaria, Ukraine and Georgia. If you read through the whole thing, you will find that there is no mention of "aircraft carriers" in the convention. The prohibiting factors(for non-Black Sea powers) would be that: a). a single ship's displacement must not exceed some 15000 tons of displacement(which of course would exclude a modern US aircraft carrier). b). that no more than a total of nine ships with a total displacement of some 30000 tons must pass through the straits. However, although the US has so far observed the rules of the convention, AFAIK they never actually signed it.

Hehe no of course they will show the same and nor would it matter since the threat level(which is what the RWR is about) would be too - just wondering about what label to choose :)

The Su-30MKI has the N011M "Bars" - the "Bars-29" was, as the name suggests, a smaller version proposed by NiiP for upgrading India's fleet of baseline MiG-29s. It didn't materialise though, since India instead chose NIIR's "Zhuk-M"(same as in the MiG-29K/KUB) for the MiG-29UPG upgrade. If identifying two virtually identical radars(N001 and N019) under the same symbol in the RWR database is to be considered unlikely due difference in antenna size, how would doing so for two totally different radars - "Zhuk-M" with a 625 mm slotted array antenna and "Bars" with a 960 mm PESA antenna make any sense? :D

Hehe well I guess, but then the same radar(Zhuk-M) is also installed in India's MiG-29UPG(recently upgraded baseline MiG-29s) :)