Alfa

Of course :) The US has a dozen aircraft carriers in operation and the airpower they bring provides the main offensive capability - defensively the AEGIS/SM2 missiles were developed exactly to counter the threat of saturation attack by surface and air launched supersonic anti-ship missiles. Yes pretty much. The US came out of WWII with a large carrier fleet and experience in operating it. The Soviet navy had no such capability/experience and its doctrine didn't envision the use of aircraft carriers as "force projectors", but instead placed its main emphasis on the submarine fleet for both offensive and defensive capabilities. The Soviet "blue water" surface fleet was mainly tasked with support of the submarine fleet on the oceans and since it couldn't rely on airpower to the same extend as the US ditto, large long range supersonic missiles was seen as the way to go and Soviet ships typically carry alot more SSMs than their US counterparts - e.g. the Slava class, which almost seems like an exercise in seeing how many monster sized missiles you can fit on to a ship before it capsizes :D .

No but nearly - there is a *lot* of stuff thats different ijozic. The the weapon's control panel, the front instrument panel and several instruments, the side consoles(not sloped like in the Su-27)/associated instrumentation, the AOA indexer, varies handles and other bits, externals that can be seen at close range from the pit such as the EOS house and refuelling probe etc....it all adds up. Many of these differences aren't even replicated in the current sim pit, while other are just painted on a texture. But for a new detailed(and accurate) Su-33 3D pit, these things will have to be made and it takes a long time(trust me ;) ) So from the outset of an Su-27 pit, its basically a case of taking the general "tub" and starting over :) .

Too numerous to list. If you mean the station readiness panel, then exactly that shouldn't be different - the real Su-33 pit has the same one as in the Su-27(only 10 stations indicated). I suggest you take a closer look - then you might realise that practically everything is different. - the front instrument panel and varies instruments are different - the side consoles/instrumentation are different - varies handles and other bits that arent properly replicated in the sim's current Su-33 pit. I cannot speak for ED, but the fact that the Su-33 pit is completely different from the Su-27 ditto would seem to have something to do with it.

The external model and basic "cavety" of the cockpit is the same, but practically everything inside it(cockpit) is different though. The Su-27SM has an upgraded version of the N001 radar, which has air-to-surface modes(how else would it be able to deploy the Kh-35), so it would have to be modelled. Another matter is the new RWR("Pastel" which controls Kh-31P), which is totally different to the SPO-15 and difficult to find any information on. Then there is the new OLS with TV channel and the whole information display layout on those new LCDs... So I don't know - at least its not as simple a modification as you make it sound :)

So get cracking! :)

Yes its primarily the pilotlog items and dedicated paint schemes + research thats time consuming - adding the contry entity as such and assigning it existing units is pretty straight forward and relatively quick.

Maybe that was among the reasons why it was cancelled? :)

One reason as far as attack helicopters is concerned could be the danger of blade collission during extreme evasive manouveres - at least some Ka-50s were lost during training due to this phenonomen. The fix was to increase the distance between lower and upper rotor, but then there is the question of battlefield profile - i.e. harder to use terrain features to hide behind between pop-up attacks. For an ASW platform like Ka-27PL(or its civilian Ka-32 version) neither of these issues are a problem, while the compact nature, hover stability, high payload capacity and lack of a tailrotor makes it a perfect design for operating from the confined space onboard ships.

Yeah I know what you mean - an animated switch is really required. You are welcome :)

Oh - didn't try it with guns A proper 3d pit, where you have the switch position as indication :) . Anyway, to be more realistic the function should really be on safe by default. Good question - worth investigating.

No I noticed that Morkva's had a different structure to other similar entries in the weapons section, so I changed it accordingly....it works, but I don't know if thats the cause of your issue :) .

I don't have FC3(no hardware capable of running it), so I don't know the file structure in this, but in FC2 I just edited the "default.lua" located in the keyboard folder for the MiG-29 - this was enough for it to work. More specifically I scrolled down to the "weapons" section and pasted in the line as the first one in that section. The "default.lua" Morkva55 posted looks exactly the same as in FC2, so... :hmm: .

Yes it adds a toggle command to set master arm switch to "safe" by pressing LCTRL+A - pressing it again sets it back to "arm". Yes you need to add the line for each aircraft type you want the command to be available for. Try the modified one I posted above.

Works fine in FC2 too :) Mind you that code line you posted looked a little odd compared with the structure of the other in the same category, so I changed it.. {combos = {{key = 'A', reformers = {'LCtrl'}}}, down = iCommandSwitchMasterArm, name = 'Switch master arm', category = 'Weapons'}, ...this works, but I don't know if thats the reason fitness88 cannot get it working.

Quite possibly. The thing is that while it is very simple to make the actual faction(lua files), it takes a lot of time and effort to research national specifics(especially medals) and make the associated artwork(medals, ranks and patches) for the pilotlog. So if you can make a mod bundle of a sufficiently high quality to be used directly, then I don't see why they wouldn't.

...because you spent the time posting this thread advocating it instead of making it? :D

What I meant was that if the same "spike signature" can be either a MiG-29 close by or an Su-27 further away, then the MiG-29 would constitute the bigger threat simply because its closer :) . Well thats the thing - in the real world both types would most likely be employing the same BVR weapon(R-27R).

Yes but the question was whether the known radar characteristics(EID table) of the N019 and N001 are so similar that they can't be distinguished.

Of course - see attached image.

This is very sad news indeed! :( My condolences to family and friends.

Possibly, but that was the explanation given as to why the RWR shows "29" for both types in the game. Depends on what you mean by it - they are certainly built on the same design and IIRC share some 70-80% of components. The antenna is practically identical apart from size and the emitter output is also the same - whether PRF's are too to the point that they cannot be distinguished I don't know. But at least it seems that whatever difference between them has much more to do with the associated WCS features(which so far isn't replicated in the sim) than the hardware itself.

In addition to what Flankerator said, The Su-27 radar is larger(therefore more powerful) than that of the MiG-29, but their "signatures" are the same, so the reason why the RWR of the F-15 is showing MiG-29 although you are flying an Su-27, is because the RWR cannot determine whether the spike is a MiG-29 or an Su-27 further away and since the former would constitute the bigger threat(being closer), the the RWR always assumes that it is a MiG-29.

In the MiG-29 there is a lock-on button on the throttle and an un-lock button on the flight stick - see attached images.

So am I :) . Yes - hence my "more importantly.." in reference to the total cost per flying hour. No you do not - the current unit price for a SuperHornet is some $55 million. The unit price for SuperHornets has steadily fallen over the years, so you cannot just take the initial 1999 unit cost and adjust it for inflation. With the F-35 the trend has very much gone in the opposite direction, where delays and cost overruns has seen the estimated unit cost spiral. BTW I believe that the official(US DoD) estimated unit price for the F-35 remains at some $110 M, but given the above I wouldn't be surprised if it would end up closer to the figures you mentioned in your last post. Pulling things out of the thin blue air now?. Agreed, but the figures I quoted are the US navy's published cost per flying hour for the SH, while the other is the USAF's estimate for the F-35A which is in line with LM's own. Well I for one would take the F-35 estimates of the USAF and Lockeed-Martin over those of Janes' any day of the week :) . As for Australia's operational costs for the SH I cannot say - maybe the higher figure(as compared with that of the USN) is due to some fixed costs being factored in - i.e. divided over fewer airframes operated.

Does it? :) Last I heard the unit price of a SuperHornet was cut to some $50 million and more importantly the total recorded operating cost of a SuperHornet is some $16000 an hour, while even Lockeed-Martin expects it to be around twice that($30-32000 an hour) for the F-35.