Alfa

As mentioned there is already a tanker version of the S-3 in the sim - another "carrier capable" alternative would be the KA-6D(tanker version of the A-6 Intruder).

I believe ED had some contacts at Kamov to help them out with information on the Ka-50 - probably not to the extend of handing over "the blueprints", but nevertheless enough to simulate the majority of systems accurately. I think it may be possible to do an earlier AH-64A to similar standard with the documentation available, but I doubt that would be the case for the Longbow. I don't see how an Apache could be "sorely needed to offset the Ka-50" - it may be desirable for the "rotorheads" to be able to fly a US equivalent, but given their RL mission objectives, such platforms are not likely to confront eachother directly on the battlefield anyway. LOL.

The problem with this discussion is that people(on both sides of the argument) equate "Russian" with the old Su-27 version + R-27 missile family and "US" with later version F-15C + AIM-120 modelled in the sim. The "blue side" seems to think that this is some sort of generic situation - i.e. that "Russian" = outdated technology and that the sim therefore cannot be better balanced without making it unrealistic. The "red side" seems to think that an older generation of Russian aircraft radars and BVR missiles should be on par with later generation US ditto in order for the sim to be realistic. Both impressions are false.

Hmm how so GG? - the AIM-7 engine is two-stage, while the R-27R/T motor is single stage.

As far as I can see the alternative is to miss out on interesting input from people who don't speak English. Besides, I don't speak Russian either, so I don't know who "the rest of us" is :) .

IMO its better to write in Russian than attempting to say something meaningful through Google translate :)

Sniped :D

Yes I know, but it was my impression that the larger two-stage motor section entered production later. You may be right, but are you sure that ER/ET were in production from the beginning - or that the manual just mentioned it as planned?. The reason I am asking is that most footage of Su-27s with armament(even mock-up/training rounds) concerns the R-27R/R-27T and rarely -ER/ET, which would suggest that the stock of these is smaller.....which in turn could be due to a late production start(shortly before 1991). Anyway, what I said in the quote had more to do with the nature of the radars :) .

I did that once(for 3GO's Su-27 model) - made different combos with R-27 missiles/custom made APU-470 and AKU-470 racks(a lot of work), but ran into a problem with the rocket pods, because it wasn't possible to do rack/weapon combos with these(already a combo by itself) in the .lua files. The only solution would be to make new rocket container models with the suspension rack attached, but then these would have to overwrite the stock ones, which in turn would be a problem for other aircraft using the same weapons...so I don't know. Yes but these are different variants to the "baseline" Su-27S we have in the sim now :) . The rack on the inner wing station(first pic) looks like an AKU-58M(universial rack for heavy ASMs) - the next station has a dual rack for rocket pods, which has been displayed on the Su-33 previously(see attached image).

Good catch Hungaro! :) I always thought the launch method was "hardcoded" for each pylon position, but the above simple edit does indeed work. Mind you - if I am right that the ejector rack is needed for the R-27R/ER on those two positions due to their proximity to the engines, then other "straight launching" weapon types such as the rocket pods should probably be made incompatible with these stations. Well not for the Su-27 - that would be unrealistic. For the Su-30 it would be ok since, as I mentioned earlier, the Su-30 version in the sim seems depict as an upgraded one(with guided PGMs), which AFAIK does have those extra wing stations. However, it does present a problem since the original Su-30 3D model comes with fixed pylons, so to make it look right you would also need to make new rack/weapons entries....and a separate AKU-470 model for the purpose.

Yup :). No and because of them those developments weren't put into service at the time, so aside from difficulty in acquiring proper documentation for them, I guess the "realism" aspect has also been a reason why ED hasn't pursued more advanced versions of the Su-27 and MiG-29 so far. No I am sure, but the question is still what fidelity can be achieved with the documentation available.

Well you know a lot more about the F-15 than me, but that was also the impression I got :) . ....and a Hornet :) .

Because RL experience shows that if you are no match in BVR you are unlikely to ever make it to the merge? :) Anyway, as I mentioned above, given the better radar the F-15C would still be superiour in BVR with AIM-7Ms and since such a config is completely contempory with the Su-27 version in the sim, there really was no good reason to add the AIM-120 into the mix. So as far as I am concerned, its not a question of accepting to be inferiour in BVR - only to what extend and why :) .

Perhaps GG, but I still think there is an unnecessary mis-match by design. Remember that the outset(Flanker series) was a simulation of the Su-27 and that one of the main reasons why the F-15 was chosen as the first US addition(for Lock-on) was because it was the closest counterpart to the Su-27. Just as it would have been odd to chose an F-15A introduced to service ten years before the Su-27, it always seemed odd to me to pick a "constructed" config with armament that the F-15C didn't get until ten years after. I think you are right that there is a tendency to look at this squarely from one "side of the fence" and that, from an overall point of view, things may be fairly well balanced in the sim, but again the question is whether its for the right reasons. My point is that I would rather see an earlier F-15C variant(contempory with the Su-27) modelled to its full specs than "sort of parity" through a newer variant lacking(for whatever reasons) varies features/capabilities it actually should have - "game balance" or not :) . But thats just my two cents worth and since neither of the two platforms in question are in my "core interest" I guess I should leave to others to "fight it out" :D

IIRC the F-15A was introduced to service in 1972, the F-15C in 1979 and first MSIP upgrade came in 1985 - i.e. roughly around the same time the Su-27 was put into service. Yes and therefore its really irrelevant when production of the Su-27S started and when the F-15C ditto ended - the fact is that both types remain in service to this day and while the F-15C recieved continious updates, the Su-27S didn't until very recently due to economic/political realities in connection with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The F-15 already had a superiour radar(AN/APG-63) from the outset compared to the Su-27's N001 and I realise that the F-15C representation in the sim is something of a "bastard" and doesn't include all features of the 1985 MSIP upgrade, so I agree that even in a 1985 config with only AIM-7M it would be a supriour BVR platform compared to a 1984 Su-27S with R-27R, But then you could also argue that it would be a better match(superior in BVR, but with the Su-27 holding the edge WVR with EOS, HMS and R-73) to what we have in the sim now....1984 Su-27 vs. ~1992 F-15C with AMRAAMs :) .

Yes proximity fuses are implemented for varies missiles in the sim and they were adjusted for FC2 - IIRC the fuse range set for the AIM-120 and R-77 is ~ 15 meters(50 feet).

"Caution comrade" - I realise that the SPO-15 "Beryoza" is currently the only Russian RWR in the sim, but its not the only Russian RWS around :) . The newer generation L-150 "Pastel" RWS is similar in capability/functionality to "Western" systems. The Su-27SM upgrade has this instead of the "Beryoza", so with the announced module I would assume we will see some representation of the "Pastel" in the sim.

Very nice! :) .

Where have they said that? - as far as I am aware all they said was that they didn't have enough documentation on the aircraft to do a proper representation of it. No of course it doesn't - the plane consists of more than just the radar. Besides, aside from performance stats you also need to know how varies systems are dispayed to the pilot in order to model it.

Ok sorry about that then :) . But the Su-27SM does have a new RWR system(Pastel) with much increased functionality/capability compared with the old SPO-15, so I thought you were refering to that. This is truly modern integrated self-defense system and despite being originally developed in the late eighties(for MiG-29M/K and Su-35) is still surrounded with a great deal of secrecy. If anything I would be much more inclined to think that this would be export restricted than radars. I did understand it Weta - just pointing out that even with the Pero antenna, its essentially still an old radar design. Well again my reason for joining this discussion in the first place was just to point out that the N001VE is an upgrade of an old radar and as such not on par with the more modern sets offered by the same design house. The specs published for it on the NiiP site reflects that, but as far as I can see, you have contested this throughout this discussion - first speculating that the specs were for the original N001, then later that they are for a downgraded export version and as such don't reflect the one installed in domestic Su-27SMs. Because these days its "buyer's market" :) . Look at the Indian MRCA tender for example where aircraft manufactures were falling over eachother offering ever more sophisticated solutions - e.g. Dassault first the Mirage 2000 then the Rafale, Boeing the F/A-18E upping the offer with the AN/APG-79 AESA option, RSK MIG first with the MiG-29M2 then came back with the "MiG-35" sporting all sorts of new "gadgets" including the Zhuk-A AESA although not fully developed yet. I don't know where you got that impression - if you are refering to Su-30MK, then its up to the customer to decide the exact composition of the package including which radar they want.

Historically yes - as in during Soviet times where allies were pretty much dictated what to acquire and client states(who had nowhere else to go) had to take what they were offered....and say thank you :D . No it wouldn't. Immediately after the end of the cold war, lots of countries started to cut down on their military spending causing lots of second hand hardware to enter the market, just as arms manufactures found it harder to secure new contracts. In such a competitive environment post-soviet Russia(which was in a dire economic state) could not afford to miss out on export orders by downgrading their products like previously. Additionally since defense allocations for the Russian military itself had all but dried out and therefore no new contracts awarded to the Russian defense industry, there was a very real risk that without export orders the industry as such would cease to exist - lots of companies went bankrupt, while others reverted to civilian production instead in order to survive. This in turn meant that a large part of the military industry "under forest" no longer existed and developers of high-end military systems had to look to international suppliers for varies components. The irony being that while Russia placed few restrictions on what Russian companies could sell abroad(and to whom) and foreign-made components not being an issue in hardware developed for export, laws against importing military products prevented the same Russian-made systems from entering Russian service. Like mentioned earlier, it seems that these restrictions may recently have been eased somewhat in connection with the Russian re-armament program - i.e. exactly to allow military technology developed for exports to be adopted(with some modification) by the Russian military. But even so - if anything the situation has been practically the reversed of what you suggested :) . "RWR modes" - whats that got to do with the radar? :huh: The "Pero" update doesn't make it a "truly modern 21st century radar" either - if it did they probably "wouldn't have created" the "Bars" and "Irbis" :)

Well I don't know - could just be a coincidence how they chose to describe it. Niip recently changed their web domain and updated their website - on the old version they had nothing about the AESA, but an entire section dedicated to the "Pero" PESA antenna upgrade(for N001), which in turn isn't even mentioned on the new site :hmm: . What makes you think that "export" necessarily means "de-rated" - if anything lots of post-soviet export items were quite "up-rated" compared to anything found in Russian service :) . I still think you are paying far too much attention to this Weta - e.g. while the Irbis-E(note the "E") hasn't been exported yet, it is nevertheless offered as such. I disagree Weta - everything about it as well as the overall approach of introducing new technology already funded by export orders indicates to me that there is little or no difference. There was even some indication that previous restrictions regarding components of foreign origin may have been laxed somewhat for the purpose. Anyway, I think we both are starting to speculate. My initial reason for joining the discussion in this thread was just that I read some really wild claims about the nature and capabilities of the N001VE upgrade indicating that the posters didn't realise what it actually is and, if modelled to actual specs in the game, would end up rather dissapointed. The bottom line is that the N001VE isn't some new super-radar along the lines of the Bars or Irbis, but a "brushed-up" version of an old design. As ijozic explained, the N001 itself is an upscaled version of the N019, which in turn is based on a MiG-23 radar version(cannot remember the name) .

Ok so "a single incident" then :D I am sure they do GG and I wasn't suggesting that the concept as such is "bogus" - just that the level of attention it attracts in forum discussions perhaps isn't really reflecting the RL importance of it considering how seldom it has been employed in actual combat. But anyway, it was just a side remark to the discusson on the N001VEP :) .

On the "dual engagement capability", I was also a little surprised that this is stated as a further option, but then the new extra SNP mode(for RVV-AE compability) is also described(by other sources) as being similar or identical to that of the N019M(MiG-29S). I remember(at the corner of my mind) reading that some exported -SMT variants using an upgraded N019 called "N019MP"(with added air-to-ground modes - i.e. similar to N001VEP) didn't come with "dual engagement" for the RVV-AE. Now this is speculation on my part, but from what I have picked up about this over the years(which admittedly isn't much), there is something to suggest that the basic design of the N019(and N001) is somewhat restrictive when it comes to "dual engagment" - i.e. while looking good on paper the actual circumstances in which it could be sucessfully employed might be very narrow. Besides, AFAIK there isn't a single incident where such a function has been used in actual combat although US fighter radar systems have had this capability for ages. So all things considered its possible that it wasn't considered worth pursuing for the base upgrade, but can be applied at customer's request. :hmm: . I don't understand what you mean by that Weta - as far as I can see its only the new AESA stuff that lack specifications and a reason for that could be that its still in development . The "Irbis-E" which is installed in Russia's new Su-35 has not been exported yet, but is described with specs. The "SUV-VEP" was developed for the Su-30MK, which is a dedicated export item and first installed in the Su-30MKK for China - the Su-27SM upgrade is a "spin-off" of that. So the "SUV-VEP" is very much a "compromised" export item, but then much of the new technology currently being applied to Russia's own upgrades/new purchases was developed for varies export orders :) .

No it does not. At the top right of the table it says: "SUV-VEP" which is the name of the upgraded weapons control system("SUV" is the Russian abbreviation for WCS) and then goes on to list all the weaponry it is compatible with to the left. The original WCS for the Su-27 is called "SUV-27" and obviously isn't compatible with the armament listed in this table. Below it says: "RLPK-27VEP (N001VEP)" which is the name of the upgraded radar itself and then goes on to list all specifications below. For the Su-27S its simply "RLPK-27" (N001) - "RLPK" is an abbrevition for "Radio Location and firecontrol complex"(freely translated) with the "-27" suffix simply denoting which aircraft its for - i.e. it essentially just means "radar for the Su-27", while the "N001" is actual name for the radar set. Anyway, if you know a little about the radar and what it consists of, you can quickly see that the data doesn't concern the original N-001. just to take an example look at the "digital processor: "Baguette 55-04.02" - i.e. not the original Ts100. Which leads me to.. No it doesn't - it says the radar can engage 1 target* (*can be increased to 2"). No mention of "modernisation" here. No offense Weta, but I find it quite incredible that you can look through the table and, aside from it clearly saying which WCS/radar it conerns, miss dozens of things clearly indicating that the data isn't for the original N001 - only to pick up on the "1 target engagement", then disregard all the rest of the information and conclude it must be for the original N001 because we know that: "the Su-27S can track two targets" Do we? - do we know that the Su-27SM has this capability from the outset or just that, as the table says, it is a possibility? I think you should perhaps try your reasoning in revers :) I see - so like danilop you think it better to disregard the only credible source for the N001VEP radar because the privately owned company that makes a living producing radars would willingly portrait their products far below actual specs?....and instead rely on notoriously dubvious web sites, who BTW claim to take their info from the very official Russian manufacurer web sites you don't trust to be accurate? ....great :D