Alfa

Hmm what makes you think that? If you are refering to the image posted by Weta43, then I think this is just some very early experimenting with thrust vectoring that later lead to the system first installed on the "Su-37" demonstrator.

LOL....did he try to steal it?

Yes but by "a good addon for DCS", I think alex1 just meant a good external 3D model addition/swap(which is what we are discussing in this thread). An actual third party DCS aircraft addon(with 6 DOF cockpit, flight model and systems) is of course an entirely different matter. But then the level of interest would also be on a different scale, so my earlier point about pricing/number of potential sales still applies - i.e. despite the mammuth development effort required, pricing it at say $50 instead of $100 may still be more profitable in the end :) .

Not really new - the MiG-29K(9-31) prototypes were already painted in this colour some 10 years ago. The colour looks like the dark grey/blue'ish colour that Russian warships are painted in(see attachements). But nice to see it catching on - that Su-35S looks stunning in those new colours instead of those blue "circus" paint schemes the Flankers traditionally were painted in :D

Exactly! :)

But not "staggeringly cheap" compared with the price of FC3 now is it? I have been a member of that place for some ten years, so I know what the price level is and how it works, but you clearly don't understand economics - a computer model is quite unique as a product in that there is no extra cost what so ever whether you produce 1 or 1000 units. If you consider the amount of working hours you have spent on a model and then come to the result that the overall "production" cost is say $10,000, then to you can either put the model up for sale at that price hoping to sell a single copy or you can price it at $1 hoping to sell 10,000 copies - obviously neither of those extreme options are particulary realistic, so the trick is to find the right balance between price/sales. John_X's price level obviously fails in that regard - how many people do you honestly think would pay over 3 times more($130) for a single aircraft model than they paid for the whole sim? vs. the amount of people who would be willing to pay say $20 - and in reflecting on this, which of the two price examples do you think would realistically provide the biggest end-profit?. I found John_X's price "announcement" amusing because it is out of touch with reality and because he shooting himself in the foot -will be making less than he could. But then thats of course its entirely up to him :) . What I found most amusing though was the bit concerning the price difference between an external model and "external model(+cockpit)" :D . I have been working on three 3D cockpit projects for about 3 years now.....and they are pretty far from completion, so I would say that I have some idea about the effort involved and if that should be reflected directly in the price, then his price examples should at the very least be the other way around :) Well I am glad to hear that - both in terms of the aircraft cockpits you are interested in as well as the price you are willing to pay for them(though I think you are in a very small minority) ;) .

LOL.....100 euros. Good luck trying to charge 3 times the amount of the whole game for a single aircraft model. I also find it amusing that you apparently feel that the extra price for a virtual cockpit should only be half that of the external model, which makes me suspect that you haven't done any cockpit modelling at all.

Thanks :) .

Well the R-77 and AIM-120 are both supposed to be able to intercept targets maneuvering at up to 9Gs, while the published maximum target G-load for the R-27 is 8.

Yes I believe so - it sounds like lofting is implemented as a fixed feature for certain missiles. Well its difficult to compare ranges based just on burn times - i.e. the R-27ER surely has a much bigger engine with more thrust, but is also a much bigger(more drag) and heavier missile. But as I mentioned earlier, the burn time of the R-27ER itself looks very low compared with the other missiles - especially the R-77, which according to your findings has slightly longer burn time despite having a smaller single stage "boost-only" engine. Of course the R-77 is a later design and there could well be a difference in the propellant. But then I read in another post(think it was frostie) that an R-27ER when launched straight at high altitude would "start to fall out of the sky" after some 60 km - thats clearly not right. According to manufacturer's data the 60 km corresponds quite well with their figures against a maneuvering target, but it should be able to achieve a range of some 100 km against a non-maneuvering target, which in turn means that "kinematic" range must be some way beyond that.

I don't know Kuky - thats why I said it looks suspect :) . But it does look strange - both when compared with the burn time of the US weapons(also two-stage), but in particular with the R-77, which has a single stage engine.

Doesn't look too far off as far as ranges go - the only two things in your findings that look a little suspect IMO is the burn time of the R-27ER, for which only 9 sec sounds very low for a two-stage engine. The other is the lofting logic, which from your decription sounds porked.

What kuky said :)

Tek, A SARH seeker does the same as an ARH in this respect - i.e. homes on radar returns, so if there is chaff between the target and missile seeker, it affects its operation as well. I think you might be confusing this with ECM :)

No that was me and I am glad you managed a little laugh on my expense in return for all the fun I have had reading your insightful and informative posts in this thread :) .

Yes I was, but considering that the R-27T in your photo seems to have them too(didn't recall that being the case) they can't be what I thought they were. Possibly yes.

Yes. Kuky the R-27R/ER use INS + radio correction(datalink) after launch - inertial guidance without command update would be pretty useless as the INS at no point could take any post launch target manouvering into consideration, which in turn defeats the purpose of proportional navigation. So the radar does initiate an M-link at the point of launch and the R-27R/ER does have antennas(rectangular vanes on the seeker section) to recieve updates :) .

Yup that was my point too - the only actual launch warning(separate from radar switching to attack mode that is) that I can think of would be something like what some dedicated ground attack aircraft/helicopters have - i.e. optical sensors detecting incoming heat sources(missile plume), but that is obviously very range limited and not an RWR function anyway :) .

"SNP" is the Russian word for TWS(Track While Scan) - scanning only provides simple information such as target bearing and range, while tracking also provides target heading and speed, which is necessary for calculating launch parameters. So its impossible to guide a missile in a scan mode. What I mean is scanning a sector for contacts, while tracking multiple known contacts to figure out which of these will first be "eligable" for engagement. :) The possibility of attacking multiple targets simultaneously from TWS mode is basically down to the type of missile being used - its possible with ARHs, but mechanically scanned radars such as the N019 and N001 can only engage one target at a time(via STT mode) with SARH missiles and since ARHs wheren't available at the time the basic N019 and N001 were developed, there is no weapon's deployment function in SNP mode. The MiG-29S has a modified version of the radar(N019M) that apparently has an extra SNP mode where two targets can be "bugged" and from which launch of R-77 can be performed directly(no need to enter STT). I don't know about launch warning, but the opponent will get a lock warning on his RWR because the N019/N001 needs to enter STT in order to launch an R-27R/ER and in that respect it really doesn't have anything to do with inertial guidance. To be honest I don't really know what triggers a launch warning - if its down to the radar starting to transmit command update to the inflight missile, then this should also affect ARH weapons since they employ the same guidance method at initial stage of flight.

IvanK the R-27R/ER does have an actual INS, which is being fed target info prior to launch and updated via radio command after launch. Its using proportional navigation to guide the missile into engagment zone. What you suggested sounds like an early AIM-7 system :)

Radar guided versions of R-27 missiles(R-27R and R-27ER) have INS with radio command update. IR versions(R-27T and R-27ET) do not - they are "LOBL"(Lock On Before Launch) and their seekers must lock on to the target before they can be launched. Err what? - RWR warning comes from the aircraft radar switching to STT in preparation for launch of a SARH weapon. The missile itself doesn't emit anything neither at the point of launch nor at terminal stage SARH operation. Yes although slight correction - when in terminal SARH operation, the R-27R is not "guided" by the launching aircraft radar. Its homing on target via its own radar seeker - the reason you need to keep lock on target is because SARH seekers don't have their own emitter and therefore needs the aircraft radar's target returns to home on.

Teknetinium I think you have misunderstood a few things in regards to TWS operation. The TWS("SNP") mode does what its supposed to do in FC2 - the purpose of it is to ease pilot workload by automatically analising the tactical situation, pick the most appropriate target and prepare for its engagement. In SNP mode the radar scans a sector and can simultaneously track up to 10 detected contacts. Based on the track data it determines which of the contacts will first enter its engagement parameters for the R-27R(and -ER in the case of Su-27/33) and starts to prepare for a missile launch - once the target falls within launch parameters, it will automatically switch to STT mode necessary for missile launch. The advantage of the SNP mode is that it both scans and tracks at the same time unlike the pure scan modes("Encounter", "Pursuit" and "Automatic") and unlike with the pure track mode(STT), the opponent will only get warning on his RWS that you are preparing to attack him when the radar eventually switch to STT immedeatly before launch.

Thats what he's doing HungaroJet - the "helpers"(or "dummies") he is talking about are point connectors(named "pylon1" etc.) linked to the outer wing panels at each pylon position, but from the sound of it they no longer work because the required naming conventions have changed....or maybe there is some setting in the EDM plug-ins that needs to be assigned in order to identify the helpers as a connectors in the game?.

Yes that was the point I was trying to make :) . Sorry if I jumped the gun a little with your call for a new theater - its just that in the past exactly this question seemed to be the excuse for not doing anything at all. I would be equally reluctant to buy a "DCS: Fleet" title involving an F-18/nice looking Nimitz carrier and nothing else - whether placed in the Black Sea or elsewhere :) .

The doctrine didn't change at all nor did the focus. The Kuznetsov, Varyag and even the projected larger "Ul'yanovsk" all carried the same project designation(1143) as the Kiev class and had a significant "ASW focus" as you call it(very capable sonar suite and huge number of ASW helicopters onboard) - gradual increase in size and capability, but nevertheless all designed for the same task under the same doctrine. Again there was no shift at all - Soviet carrier designs from the very first 1123 to the very last non-realised 1143.7 all conformed to the "aviation cruiser" philosophy and if anything the onboard ASW and anti-surface capability/armament ony increased with each new design. You couldn't be more wrong. Soviet naval doctrine relied very heavily on the submarine fleet with a breath taking development of new designs for varies purposes, while Soviet naval planners only very reluctantly pursued aircraft carriers as a necessary evil, which should be evident when looking at early designs - i.e. an attempt to provide naval airpower through smaller purpose-built and cost effective designs rather than trying to mimic the much more expensive and complex US style supercarriers. In particular complex systems like catapults and arrestor gear were considered a "no-no" as these would inevitably drive up the size and thus cost of the ships. It was the realisation that endurance as well as the modest airwing size of the smaller ships would be inadequate that eventually lead to a gradual increase in size. Even then they continued to pursue VSTOL aircraft to avoid the necessity of catapults and arrestor gear and instead tried to improve the capability of the VSTOL aircraft through the development of the supersonic Yak-41. It was really only when this development proved problematic(constant delays and set-backs) and when Sukhoi and MIG demonstrated the feasibility of launching more capable horizontal take-off jets from a ramp that the carrier designs started resembling more traditional aircraft carriers. But if you look past the superficial resemblence and closer at the configuration and armament, you will see that the basic philosopy remained. It is only in the most recent published intentions by the Russian MoD in regards to the operation of aircraft carriers that there is evidence of a change of doctrine and even then those intentions involve smaller sized vessels(of some 50.000 tons displacement), although without the previous heavy cruise missile armament.