Alfa

R.I.P. :(

Pajeezy asked about the purpose of the MiG-29 TWS mode - you cannot answer that question without referring to the real aircraft. The mode does gather all the tactical information that could provide situational awareness, but like ФрогФут said, the real MiG-29 doesn't have an associated tactical "map"(on HDD) to display it to the pilot - i.e. the system keeps the information "under the hood" and only displays the final result of its internal threat analysis on the HUD(and replicates it on the HDD). The real Su-27 and Su-33 do have such a tactical display function on the HDD, so for these the TWS mode does have a situational awareness aspect as GG suggested. The problem is that while FC3's depiction of the Russian TWS mode itself is good, some aspects of the basic radar code(such as the HDD functionality) are leftovers from previous iterations of the sim(Flanker and Lock-on) and shared by the MiG-29 and Su-27/33.

The MiG-29 basically has three different ways of conducting radar target detection/tracking/engagement. Manual - using search modes the pilot locates contacts and picks a target of choice based on basic information on bearing/range. When the target would appear to be within tracking range, the pilot manually designates it at which point the radar shifts to STT mode and starts tracking it in order to build a firing solution for the missile and support it after launch. Remote assistance - target information is transmitted to the radar from a ground based network(GCI) which assists the pilot in locating relevant contacts by showing the information on the HUD. System assistance - using SNP(TWS) mode the radar scans a selected sector, displays up to 10 of the nearest contatcs and tracks them - based on this tracking data the system automatically identifies the most appropriate target for engagement, computes a firing solution and switches to STT only when it determines that the target falls within missile launch range. Although both the GCI and SNP methods provide increased situational awareness, the advantage has more to do with easing pilot workload and not alerting the target prematurely.

Yeah I realise that mate - just thought I would mention it in case Pajeezy was tackling the 9-12 and got confused about not finding the -ER in the payload options :) .

What?! - thats sacrilege! :D

Yes indeed. I sometimes get that country restriction message too - I wonder what exactly triggers it.

Mind you he did say "MiG-29" and if this is the specific version(9-12) that he is referring to, then the above mentioned TWS functionality isn't available(only for MiG-29S) and... ...the R-27R is the only BVR missile option - i.e. no R-27ER and no R-77 :)

Works fine for me :hmm:

To be honest my insight to AEGIS AD is rather superficial, so I will take your word for it :) . Considering that the system was designed specifically for countering saturation attacks, the fast response time assured via the multiple fixed arrays, the fast launch rate via the MK-41 VLS and the huge number of threats that SPY-1 can process simultaneously, I guess I always assumed that terminal target illumination would be done via this too or alternatively through an associated multichannel director unit - relying on 3 or 4 single channel illuminators seems quite a "bottleneck" for the type of scenarios the system was meant to deal with.

Well the Russian S-300F (Slava and Kirov class cruisers) has multichannel ESA missile guidance radars(one on Slava and two on Kirov) each capable of tracking and illuminating up to 6 targets simultaneously(and control up to 12 missiles in the air). Kynshal(Klinok) and Kortik(Kashtan) missile systems also use multichannel ESA radars although not for terminal SARH illumination(since associated missiles aren't SARH). The only Russian naval SAM system with multiple single channel directors is the Uragan(Shtil), which has 3 per system.

...and the illuminators are usually ESAs.

Well there are some old photos showing a MiG-29S carrying R-77 training rounds(painted red), but whether this involved actual tactical training or merely missile testing is another matter - probably the latter.

Well this is not just a Russian thing - e.g. I recall a case during the cold war where an ammunition manufacturer in West Germany(IIRC - or another Nato country) purchased gun powder from a factory in Czechoslovakia because it was cheaper, but had to stop the practice because some bright head in NATO posed the question as to what would happen to the supply in case the cold war would turn "hot" :) I think for the most part general off-the-shelve electronic components, microprocessors etc, which could be of Japanese or US orign and mass produced in the far east. During Soviet times manufacture of such things was usually directly connected to military production, but with the collapse of the SU and the subsequent "drying out" of military funding, a large part of the "underforest" of suppliers either disappeared or changed their production to civilian goods. So in the case of the R-77 versus RVV-AE(export version) it might simply be that it, at the time, was possible only to produce the weapon using foreign components because no domestic alternatives were available. This in turn would prevent the RVV-AE from entering service with Russian forces due to the import restrictions, but not from being produced for export and thereby keeping arms manufactures alive/providing a much needed source of income. Besides, aside from circomstances surrounding the weapon itself you also need aircraft compatible with it which, aside from the MiG-29S(9-13S), the Russian airforce didn't have until very recently. There isn't much information available on the MiG-29S - how many 9-13 airframes recieved the radar upgrade in the first place, what it actually involves or what the current status is. For all we know the radar upgrade could have been applied to a few airframes only as a test meassure in support of further R-77 development after development of the multirole types originally intended to deploy it was suspended. Well most of the information published on varies equipment comes from the arms manufactures(and state export agency - Rosboronexport) and since it can be difficult to persuade a prospective export customer to be the first to purchase a particular piece of equipment, you can understand why it may be tempting to give the impression that the item in question is already operational or at least closer to IOC than it actually is - in many cases it takes a signed contract to obtain the funding(bank loans/guarantees) necessary for final development, volume testing and certification.

The ship in question(HDMS "Ejnar Mikkelsen") is a Danish inspection ship of the KNUD RASMUSSEN class(carrying a Lynx MK. 90B helicopter), which usually operates high up in the North Atlantic around the Faroe islands and Greenland performing fishery inspections and other practical tasks connected to the enforcement of sovereignty for the Danish Commenwealth in these areas. Given this location I doubt the helicopter in the video was Dutch - I think the author of the description just mistook the "D" in "HDMS" for "Dutch" :) .

Not off hand - I will have to look around . But on the other hand I have never seen any credible source(manufactures or otherwise) claiming that it does have lofting. I think we might just have assumed that it did based on the IMO bogus notion that the R-77 is some sort of Russian version of the AMRAAM("amraamski") based on some superficial comparison regarding overall size, guidance system and being contempory. But I think you will agree that there are many things about the R-77 design that seems to suggest otherwise and also quite a few differences in overall philosophy. As mentioned earlier the AMRAAM was supposed to replace(at least to some extend) both the AIM-7 and AIM-54 - i.e. sort of an all-in-one "multirole weapon, wheras there is nothing to suggest that the R-77 was meant to replace anything but the R-27R.....not even the R-27ER since there were alternate design proposals(involving either a larger two-staged motor and even a ramjet version) for that. Ok I agree - the point I was trying to make was that, as far as I can see, a slower burning second sustainer stage would benefit the missile when coasting(level flight) over longer distances and help to compensate for drag and that since the R-77 doesn't have it while being more draggy, that chances are such an engagement type wasn't envisioned for the missile. Indeed and with the miniturization of components, recent versions of the AMRAAM have "room" for more(and possibly more effecient) propellant, so I am quite prepared to believe they can be "all-boost" and still have better range than an earlier boost-sustain variant, but again I think this is down to technical evolution rather than a change in philosophy - i.e. that the reason why the initial variant had boost-sustain configuration was that at the time this, in combination with lofting, was the best option range-wise. Possibly GG - but again the point was that they(AIM-120 designers) must have had a reason for choosing a dual stage motor, while the designers of the R-77 must have had a reason not to :) Thats because a big "potato-masher" at the tail has recently been determined to be aerodynamically superiour :angel:. Ok. Ok thanks - I will see if I can find the specs for the R-77 seeker for comparision(although I doubt that there is much difference) .

Yes and I was comparing design philosophies - i.e. what the developers initially wanted their weapons to do and why they chose the specific designs they did. No one said it did - the question is how it compares with the R-77 in this regard and in particular "last ditch" end-game manouvrability for a close-in "knife-fight". Which the R-77 doesn't have. Range has nothing to do with rocket motor propulsion? Heh well I would subscribe to that suspicion - how can an R-77 possibly "do as well" as an AIM-120B in terms of pure range....no lofting, more draggy and no second-stage sustainer to compensate. Why then did both the AIM-7 and initial AIM-120 versions have dual-stage motors.......designers didn't know any better at the time or because new types of propellant changed the situation? The type of target dictates the range you can hope to intercept it at - a Tu-95 can be locked at a much longer range than a MiG-21, so it makes sense to have a missile that can cover the distance. I don't know where you are going with the AIM-7 vs. AIM-54.....surely you don't mean to say that they only differ in "shape"? :D . But for what its worth the AIM-120 was supposed to take over for both the AIM-7 and AIM-54, so if anything it would seem to support my initial impression that the AIM-120 was designed to cover the tasks of both these missiles - i.e. fighter-to-fighter and longer range intercept respectively, while there is nothing to suggest that the R-77 was expected to take over for the R-33 :) . It might have - I cannot remember the stats for the 9B1340 seeker off hand though and I don't know what they are for the AMRAAM. But then... ....I think you misunderstood: The "radars the R-77 initially was designed around" meaning the aircraft radars meant to employ it - N010 and N011. So the "HOBS hardware" being those aircraft radars and more in terms of being less likely to loose an off-boresight target. Again I was talking about the initial AIM-120 design(A, B) not newer variants that were practially redesigned.

The question is to what extend the AIM-120 and R-77 really are directly comparable - looking at their designs it appears to me that the two missiles were designed for different purposes. The AIM-120 as a dual purpose weapon for medium range fighter-to-fighter engagements while owing to its two-stage motor, lofting and an aerodynamical config allowing it to double as longer range intercept weapon against "non-manouvering" targets. The R-77 as a dual purpose weapon for medium range fighter-to-fighter engagements while owing to a larger boost-only motor and the aerodynamical config allowing it to overlap with the dedicated "dog-fighting" weapons and remain effective for close-in encounters - in this connection it should also be noted that the radars the R-77 initially was "designed around" had scan limits in azimuth of some +/- 85 deg.

The concept of lofting must be incorporated into the missile guidance system in order to work. Remember that the R-27 is a modular concept, where the R-27R and R-27ER shares the same guidance and autopilot sections - IIRC the two-stage motor was a later addition to the system and it might well be that lofting logic wasn't considered when the guidance section was developed.

Yes indeed an impressive piece of work, but unfortunately there are some rather fundametal errors with the superstructure, which would require quite a lot of work to correct. You could probably put it into the game, but the model is some 900k triangles, so.... :) .

Correct. It goes with the modular nature of the missile system - one common autopilot section, two motor options and three seekerheads(IR, SARH and passive radar). The -R and ER differ only by the motor section. No it has a different motor with more thrust(larger diameter) and added sustainer stage to increase range :) . The SARH seekerhead(9B1101K) has a stated acquisition range of some 25 km against a target of RCS = 3m2.

Except that none of the flyable Russian fighters in the game(MiG-29, Su-27/33) have such a datalink capability in reality. I disagree - the fact is that the MiG-29 was designed to be operated as part of a GCI network, which is reflected in the operating modes of its onboard radar, so for a proper simulation you would need GCI to get the "full picture" of the aircraft. As for the rest - I don't have FC3, so I cannot comment on the individual behaviour of one missiles versus another in the game. Well its N001 for the Su-27/33 and N019 for the MiG-29. But they are not from the same company - N001 is by a company called NIIP, while the N019 was made by another company called NIIR - during Soviet times both these companies(along with other in the same field) were attached to an umbrella organisation called "Phazotron". "Zhuk" is the name for a new line of radars made by NIIR - it includes both slotted array and phased array sets.

Bollocks. All GCI does in combination with the aircraft radar is to provide range and a steerpoint to target in order to narrow down the search area, but the radar still needs to locate the target by itself and acquire a solid STT lock before a SARH missile can be launched. Datalink between fighters does practically the same - just sharing target information. None of the flyable Russian fighters in the game can support each other's missiles - the WCS won't let you fire a missile unless you have a solid STT lock for SARH support. If any of the Russian fighters in the game had Zhuk radars, there would be little point in bothering with SARH missiles in the first place :)

Sounds like an early(or bogus) designation for the new RVV-MD version - at least a couple of the stated specs(head-on range of some 40 km and off-boresight seeker actuisition angle of +-60 deg) fit with this. According to Tactical Missiles Corporation JCS there are three versions of the R-73 - two versions of the original R-73(one with radio fuze and another with laser fuze) and the third being the new RVV-MD.

Its a flight sim :) . Warships are cramped entities stuffed with electronics and stuff that can blow up, so a hit by even a small sized missile can have catastrofic consequences and at the very least seriously affect their fighting abilities. However, in order for that to be replicated, you would need an altogether more sophisticated damage model for ships. Hmm "the Rezky" - this is a Pr. 1135M(Krivak II) class ship and the missiles it carry(Metel system - SS-N-14 "Silex") is primarily an ASW system - it can be used as SSM, but it is quite short ranged and arguably not particulary effective in this role(large subsonic) against modern airdefences. Anyway its not active in the game at all....so :)

Yes but the US navy has a lot more aircraft to deliver those small ASMs and their short range has to be seen in that light as well - i.e. the aircraft provide the range. I think thats a misconcenption - Russian ships are bristling with capable airdefence systems. They are mostly short range ones, but then you have to consider what types of missiles they are meant to counter - no sense in going for long range radar/SAM systems if the missiles you are defending against are small sea-skimming weapons that cannot be detected at range anyway - the few exceptions like the naval version of the S-300 is mostly for countering the launch platforms(aircraft) rather than the missiles themselves.