Alfa

Don't worry sobek - I am done here.

:idiot:

Let me get this straight - you consider Carlo Kopp a credible source, but not NiiP who makes the radar? http://www.niip.ru/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13:-l-r-l-r-lr&catid=8:2011-07-06-06-33-26&Itemid=8

Have no idea, but I seriously doubt it.

Well IMHO the best bet would be the manufacturer of the radar in question: http://www.niip.ru/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13:-l-r-l-r-lr&catid=8:2011-07-06-06-33-26&Itemid=8 :) BTW if anyone is interested - here is an overview of radars by NiiP with links to stats: http://www.niip.ru/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=8&Itemid=8 SUV "Zaslon" for MiG-31, SUV-VEP(N001VE/N001VEP) for Su-27SM and Su-30SM, "Bars"(N011M) for Su-30MKI, "Irbis-E" for Su-35, AESA X-band and L-band for T-50.

The N001VE is not a slotted array upgrade GG - it retains the old twist-cassegrain antenna. Indeed :) There is an option(second stage upgrade) for equipping it with a PESA antenna(called "Pero") though, with which one could expect good range increase. But so far there is no indication of any such upgrade having been performed - possibly due to cost. The whole concept with the N001VE is to provide "multi-role" versatility(through the added air-to-surface modes) and compatibility with new armament in a cost effective way, so a more costly PESA antenna replacement might to some degree defeat the purpose.

:D . Look at the chart you posted: - same antenna(twist-cassegrain) - same antenna size(obviously) - same power output Everything relating to radar power is exactly the same as for the original N001 yet, without any plausible explanation, the chart claims nearly double the range for the N001VE[headshake]. Not to mention that the figures themselves are totally stupid - according to the chart a basic N001 should have nearly 100 km detection range against a target of 1m2 RCS, when reality it would struggle to obtain that for a 3m2 target. Danilop, the N001VE is not a new "super radar", but a pragmatic approach to breathe new life into the basic N001 design by providing new "add-on" submodes modes via a bypass channel. In terms of air-to-air the radar is practically the same as the original N001, but has a single added SNP mode allowing employment of RVV-AE directly - i.e. similar approach as with the N019M upgrade for the MiG-29S(discussed earlier in another thread).

The N001V is neither more modern nor more powerful than the old N001 - just improved with a new dataprocessor and operating modes(including air-to-surface). As far as air-to-air capability goes, its more the compatibility with the RVV-AE missile, better RWS(Pastel) and man-machine interface thats significant - the N001V radar was in fact the most modest choice of the options available.

Well for training carrier trapping I guess :) . The AFM would make that quite interesting and as such the Su-25UTG would IMHO have been a more interesting third "Frogfoot" than the Su-25TM. However, the Su-25UTG has uprated landing gear in order to take the strain of carrier landings, so in addition to 3D model and player hook control, the AFM would also have to be modified.

Yeah but it was a mistake, so it was removed from the new model :) .

Yeah I agree with that, but... ....then I don't see any reason to discard dreams concerning DCS level for the "baseline" MiG-29(9-12 or 9-13). The new multirole variants OTOH.. Aren't we all :D

I think people on these boards are jumping to all sorts of wild conclusions on little or no basis at all :D . As I recall the comment in question was in response to a question by a forum member asking why there weren't more "Western" 3rd party developers going for Russian aircraft types - i.e. that this new law might have made it harder for them to find "subject matter experts" in Russia willing to provide information on military stuff to foreigners. But being a Russian company, I don't see how this could be an obstacle for ED. Besides, the "basic" MiG-29 is pretty well documented in public available manuals - unlike some of the previous projects(Ka-50, Su-25T). If you think that ED wouldn't be able to get suffcient level of documentation for the MiG-29 to make a DCS module, then how would a third party developer be able to do it? :) - or did you mean in terms of a lower fidelity level than ED would go for?

I think dumgrunt is right. It does indeed sound like as case of the hinges being dimensioned only to carry the weight of the skirts themselves - i.e. not "up-scaled" to carry the additional weight of the ERA blocks.

I am not so sure about that Flanker - weapon's integration usually involves a whole lot more than one would think. You are of course right that the Pastel RWS provides the required target acquisition and control structure for the X-31P, but that doesn't necessarily mean that this possibility has been realised for the Su-33. Besides, as far as game implementation goes, I think the Pastel system itself would present quite a few problems......not exactly the most well documented(to say the least). There have been many such "reportings" over the years Flanker - whether they actually occured is another matter :) . So far I haven't seen anything to indicate that the most recent Su-33 upgrade involves any meassures towards "multirole" capability - i.e. radar and EOS upgrade for use of guided air-to-surface/ground munitions as such. Rather the upgrade seems more like an effort to improve the effectiveness and safe operation of the Su-33 in its original form as a stop-gap meassure until a full compliment of MiG-29K/KUB is in place.

....if they are integrated into the WCS ;) .

The "Kh-41" was removed from the armament of the Su-33 in the game because it doesn't exist and because the real Su-33 cannot employ guided air-to-surface armament - nothing to do with "game balance".

First, the Russian name for the missile(3M80) is "Moskit"(Mosquito), while the NATO reporting name is "Sunburn" - i.e. same missile. The missile so far only exist as SSM(surface-to-surface missile) and in its current version arms varies naval vessels under the Russian designation P-270(NATO: SS-N-22 "Sunburn"). It cannot - In the early nineties there was a development for an airlaunched variant designated Kh-41 for arming the Su-33(among others), but it was abandonned. The weapon's control system of the Su-33(SUV-33) is practically identical to that of the Su-27 - the only difference being modifications to the navigation system and integration of a more potent EOS. The radar(NIIP-N001) is the same as the one in the Su-27 and has no air-to-surface modes. So to answer the question of the thread starter - the air-to-ground armament of the Su-33 consists of unguided rockets and bombs of varies caliber. No ASMs available.

Even so.

There are really two factors involved when matching up the Russian fighters with the Eagle in the sim: 1). the Su-27 and Su-33 have a large radar, but employ an earlier generation missile which is inferiour to an AMRAAM - and not just because its SARH. 2). the MiG-29S employs a contemporary and capable missile, but has a smaller radar. Hence my suggestion to try with a Hornet vs MiG-29S instead - in reality that wouldn't be an even matchup either, since the Hornet's radar is more sophisticated than the MiG's, but I doubt that this is depicted for the AI in the game.

I did and while I find the results of that scenario more suspect, I don't quite understand your choice of opponents. If you are conducting the whole thing as AI vs. AI anyway, then why not choose more appropriate platforms - e.g. F-18 with 4x AIM-120, 2x AIM-9 vs. MiG-29S with 4x R-77, 2x R-73. At least that way you would exclude the radar range factor - i.e. F-15s possibly enjoying a "first shoot" advantage(more powerful radar).

That on the other hand looks odd - even when taking into account that the F-15 enjoys a radar range advantage.

I am afraid that the whole logic behind your test is faulty - i.e. that leaving out the human factor will help better determine the state of missile modelling. It will do the contrary - AI isn't sophisticated enough to employ tactics necessary to counter the obvious disadvange of using SARH vs. the other side using ARH missiles. An AI controlled aircraft will simply drop everything and start evasive manounvering when a missile is launched at it - this is the case for both sides, but with SARHs a lost lock means a lost target, while with ARHs there is still a good chance that the missiles will find their targets autonomously....especially if fired at relatively close range.

I am not saying that more powerful radars is void and nil due to the lower RCS of the opponents - just that the latter is something to take into consideration as well :) .....and where the Hornet tends to beat the crap out of both :D

F-18 I would say. The Zhuk-M radar, which is standard issue for new and upgraded MiG-29 versions is most comparable to the AN/APG-73 - similar design, dish size, operating modes etc. Well I think that depends on the particular variants of those - if we are talking about AESA or PESA equipped Eagles and Flankers respectively then yes they will have the upper hand in BVR. But given similar technology - F-15C with the original APG-63 not to mention Flankers with upgraded N001, then all they have is extra radar power and then you also have to factor in the much lower RCS of F-18 and MiG-29(not to mention F-16) - i.e. the range advantage may be much less than the difference in "radar power" would suggest.

Yes I agree. But given that rail type launchers are generally prefered on wing stations, I think its a fair assumption that the reason why all the photos of the fourth station shows AKU-470 is because this station is too close to engine inlets for safe use of APU-470.