Alfa

The T-72 followed the traditional approach of Soviet tank designs starting with the T-34 during WWII - i.e. a lot of firepower on a relatively simple platform that is easy to mass produce and operate by a large conscript army. The T-80 follows a different philosophy(IIRC starting with the T-64) of more technical complex design with the aim of making the individual tank more capable. The T-90(and other deep modifications of the T-72) was a mixture - i.e. combining the basic chassis and diesel engine of the T-72 with more sophisticated combat systems/armament. As nscode said, I think that main problem with tanks in the Chechen war had more to do with the way they were being used rather than the performance of the tanks as such - i.e. trying to fight what was essentially "insurgence" with tanks(inside towns even). If by the "Georgian war" you are referring to the recent 2008 conflict, this was a more "traditional" army vs army conflict - the interesting thing was that the Russian forces didn't seem to use any modern tanks....all the footage I have seen showed T-72s, T-62s and even T-55s facing the same types on the Georgian side. Anyway, apparently there were some reliability problems with the gas turbine engine(GTD-1000) of early T-80 variants. These seem to have been resolved with the GTD-1250 of the T-80U though. As for pro's and cons - the gas turbine engine is more powerful, but is more complex(shorter service life and harder to fix), is more expensive to produce and has a much higher fuel consumption than diesel(piston) engines.

Ok just checking. It looks good so far - nice detailing :)

Looking good Sniper! :) Just a quick observation: In your rendering it looks like the front panel and HDDs are completely vertical - in the real pit they are mounted slightly angled.

The missile is active in the game as SSM for the "Tarantul III"(the game never made any distinction between the ASM/SSM variant), so the simple fix would be to rename it "P-270"(or "3M80").

Possibly yes. Yeah - its perhaps also indicative that the E-versions were meant to equip Flankers, but not the regular MiG-29.....suggesting that the purpose of the E-missile was specifically to support interceptor tasks.

No you misunderstood what I meant - basically the second-stage sustainer part of the engine only provides enough thrust to compensate for drag when the missile is in level flight(cruise stage), but not for the more radical maneuvering(bleeding more energy) associated with chasing down an agile target, so the R-27ER only has a significant range advantage over the R-27R when used against non-maneuverable targets. I think this is what GG's MiG-29 pilot meant. And again - the only difference between the two versions is the engine section which is some 100kg heavier on the ER, but remember that most of the weight of an engine section is down to the propellant it holds, so at terminal stage of engagement most of that weight has been burned off. Anyway, both the R-27R and R-27RE are stated to be able to intercept a target maneuvering at up to 8 g.

Hehe....opening up that old can of worms :D I agree with GG that the Ethiopia-Eritrean conflict isn't useful for evaluating this missile design - not least because, as I remember it, the information on the incidents involving these missiles seemed very sketchy and dubious. Another matter is that missile performance itself is just one factor out of many affecting the outcome of an engagement - there are other technical aspects such as radar/WCS(attacker), radar warning system(defender) as well as the basic nature of the missile(SARH) - e.g. that in order to hit anything it is necessary to maintain lock on target throughout the engagement......an ability which again is affected by the nature of the launching radar as well as pilot skill/determination on both sides. So we really have to stick to technical specifications in order to get an idea of what a missile is capable of - which in turn comes with its own set of limitations(the amount of data available). I doubt it - the only semi-useful information I remember having seen was from a Luftwaffe pilot(flying the MiG-29) describing the effective launch range of the R-27R as being "disappointingly short", which in turn would be a "detractor" for a missile that is supposed to be a BVR weapon and doesn't have the agility of a dedicated short range weapon(such as R-73). The R-27 "family" is a modular design where different missile sections(seeker-, autopilot,- and motor sections) can be swapped around to form a particular version. In regards to the base R-27R vs. R-27RE-version - these share both seeker and autopilot sections, so the motor characteristics/weight difference is the only difference between them. The R-27R has a single stage "boost-only" motor, while the R-27ER has a larger two-stage "boost-sustain" motor - with more thrust in boost stage to compensate for higher launch weight and a longer burning sustain stage in order to compensate for drag in level flight when coasting over longer distances. Looking at the design differences between the two versions, it seems to me that the E-version was carefully designed in such a way that it would obtain longer range for typical intercept-type engagements(against "non-maneuverable" targets such as bombers and transports) without affecting its general characteristics as compared with the base version(R-27R). The technical data(as provided by the manufacturer) shows identical values for the two missiles except for range. For range two numbers are provided - one "mean range"(against non-maneuverable targets), where its considerably higher for the -ER and another for fighter type engagements(agile targets), where the difference is negligible.....some 5-8 km. This leads me to believe that the -ER isn't actually a worse weapon against maneuverable targets, but just doesn't provide any real range benefit in such an engagement.

...some photos. I have attached some photos of the radars in question :) . First NIIR-N010 "Zhuk", then NIIP-N011 and last NIIP-N011M "Bars"

Not at the time - MiG-29M/MiG-29K and Su-27M were "full spec" developments intended to have all the "wizz bang" in terms of electronics and weaponry. The new N010 and N011 radars were "built around" the R-77 in much the same way as was the case with the N019/N001 and R-27R. The idea to "back-fit" the R-77 to N019 and N001 only came about later(after the break-up of the Soviet Union and the subsequent suspension of the MiG-29M/Su-27M development) as a cost effective way to upgrade existing fighters with a more capable weapon. BTW the upgraded N001 radar is called "N001VE"(it was installed in Su-30MKKs for China and AFAIK also in the recent Russian Su-27SM upgrades).

The Su-33 was also flying operationally from 1994, but only accepted into service officially in 1998.

Development of radars for the MiG-29 and Su-27 were assigned to two different design houses - NIIR and NIIP respectively. At the time they were(along with other design houses) both part of an umbrella organisation called "Phazatron". Apparently the situation was that the initial intention was to develop electronically steered phased array radars for both the MiG-29 and Su-27, but that it proved to be too ambitious at the time to get a working phased array radar compact and light enough for the MiG-29 and NIIR instead reverted to work on an upscaled and "up-tech'ed" version of Saphir radar(MiG-23), which became the N019. Meanwhile NIIP continiued to work on a phased array for the Su-27 until it became apparent that this too could not be ready in time for the Su-27's induction to service and it was decided that NIIR should pass on its documentation for the N019 to NIIP who then made a further upscaled version(N001) for the Su-27......which is the reason why the N019 and N001 are so similar in design and share so many components(IIRC some 80%). Later NIIR concentrated their efforts on developing a slotted array radar called N010 "zhuk"(similar in design to the radars being fielded by varies US fighters at the time) for derrivative multirole versions of the MiG-29(MiG-29M and MiG-29K). The radar NIIP designed for the Su-27M was a slotted array set called N011 - similar to NIIR's N010 but with a larger antenna. This was later modified with a phased array antenna mounted on the existing hydro-mechanical drive for combined mechanical/electronic scanning - i.e. became the N011M "Bars" installed in the Su-30MKI for India.

Not as far as I know - the Malaysian MiG-29s originally delivered were a special version of the standard 9-12 with the addition of a retractable refuelling probe(SMT type) and the radar of the MiG-29S(N019M), but without the jammer. The Indian MiG-29s were standard 9-12s that they IIRC made some upgrades to themselves - I have seen a photo of an Indian MiG-29 with the radome removed and the radar was clearly an N019. However, there is a very recent(2011) upgrade programme being carried out for the Indian airforce MiG-29 fleet, which does indeed include the Zhuk-M radar among other things - the version is dubbed "MiG-29UPG" and is really an SMT upgrade. You can read about it here: http://en.take-off.ru/news/102-feb2011/558-mig-29upg-india-02-2011

Possibly, but I doubt it GG - the sequence with the display symbology at 4:51 is overlayed with an SMT fitted with Zhuk-M radar. The Zhuk-M and associated MIL-1553 standard WCS interface is more recent than the SUV-29S(MiG-29S).

Ok I will do some for you - I am also working on a couple of other similar projects you might be interested in, so I will include some renderings of those too :) Thanks thats very kind of you :) Cheers, alfa

Yeah given the quality of your work(very impressive!) I kind of figured you knew - just checking :D . Yup I can see that - it looks great Wasserfall :) . Yes indeed. Thats also something I am struggling a little with - i.e. what to do and what to leave out, while still arriving at a fairly good representation of the seat as such. They are not drawings mate - I am building a 3D model of a MiG-29K cockpit, so the seat is part of that :) . If you are interested I can send you a couple of renderings. I am going by photos alone since I have no drawings at all....so a lot of trial and error involved :) . Cheers,

Yeah K-36DM :) There is a "lumb" missing in the middle on those chute canisters though. Note also that the headrest "block" has a much more rounded profile at front(where the pillow is attached) than at the rear end. Sorry for the nitpicking, but I just spent the last two weeks battling with this seat(in 3D), so my head is filled with these details :D

Heh or maybe its just a classic example of one party saying the incident occured in international airspace and the other saying it didn't - each to justify their actions :) .

Yeah looks like it. Reading that article they first claim that it was a Pantsir that downed the Turkish plane and, since Syria only got these in recent weeks, that they would have relied on Russian instructors to help them carry out the engagement. Then a litte further down the article they claim that Pantsirs defended the airspace over the Syrian reactor that Israel bombed 5 years ago.... :huh: .

Yes I think so too. But on the other hand, given the talk of possible military intervention, its perhaps also unsurprising that the Syrians would shoot it down - in preparation of such an intervention the very first thing to do would be to map out and assess the strength of airdefences. Possibly yes.

Yes the Russians have a small supply base at a section of the port of Tartus, but at least until recently, this consisted of a couple of births and few warehouses on land, which btw seemed in a pretty sorry state of repair. I know that Russia signed a contract with Syria a few years ago concerning continued access, renovation and possible expansion of this facility in order to support its presence in the Med, but I don't know how much work has been done since. But the "base" is really just a large supply depot and I seriously doubt that it holds much in the way of airdefences. Without going into politics, I think this incident is much more likely to be down to Syrian airdefences being on the edge and over-reacting to the presence of NATO jets close to its territory due to the situation within the country and subsequent mounting international pressure.

Thanks for the clarification gabuzomeu - so the similarity to the danish flag/RDAF anniversary was a coincidence after all :D .

Good to hear you got it fixed - good luck with your project :)

I don't know about this aircraft, but I don't think its a coincidence - as you can see it has like a strip of film painted along the fuselage with the text "100 ans"(100 years) in front. The RDAF is celebrating its 100-year anniversary this year(1912-2012) with an airshow at the Aalborg AFB on June 10......today in fact, so I guess it could have something to do with that :) .

I thought you might be unaware of that, because in your rendering of the probe, the cover extends much too far ahead over the nozzle :) . Anyway, that small door is only open during movement of the probe - it is closed again when the probe is fully extended. Ok I see :) . Did you try to close old holes(using the "cap holes" function)? - it looks to me like you got some "squashed" faces(the dark blurry spots in the large square) in the process. Maybe you could post a close-up wireframe rendering of the trouble spots.

outlaw, In order to get the help you need, I think you need to explain a little better what exactly it is you are trying to do. From your description I cannot figure out whether the problem is with the appearance of the boom assembly itself or integration of this into the airframe. BTW note that the Hornet refuelling boom cover has two pieces - a cover attached to the boom and a separate small door in front(see attached image).