TaxDollarsAtWork

Given the popularity of the Su-30MKK and how it's conquered the 'cheap/economy class' Flanker market in the last 20 years I don't see why Sukhoi would be opposed to allowing Deka to make it as a module

I do not believe so For a time (Probably 2001~2011) it was their main long range multi role aircraft and was highly valued for its range and Anti Ship armament and mostly in this time was deployed to coastal bases It seems the type was replaced in this role by either Su-30MK2s or indigenous J-11 variants such as the J-16 Around the start of the 2010s it seems the original Su-30MKK became a training tool instead of a front line fighter, used by the 3rd regiment of the FTTC(PLAAF equivalent of FWS), where it has been used mostly as a Blue Air Aggressor in military exercises abroad and at home. It's for this reason I believe it may be both modern enough to simulate early 2000s PLAAF/Redfor air power but yet also old enough for the PLAAF to not take too much issue with it (Or the Su-30MK2 for that matter) being in the game. I'd also like to point out that even all of the weapons it can use are already in the game even more niche weapons like the Ovod.

Then please substantiate these claims with evidence.

Fox Alpha do you happen to have information on the N001 as well? In the west that information isn't as easy to come by as say APG-63 info

Simple, you knowingly or not put a nice spin on your post to lead people to believe it was an intentional change, which was then undone at the behest of the Russian forum community as a result of their outcry. When that wasn't the case at all. I just felt people should know your post was a red herring is all.

You claimed in this thread https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4497855&postcount=2315 That ED nerfed the AMRAAM as a result of people whining, which was patently false. The reason was that they wanted to revert the CCM effectiveness to what we had seen before. It wasn't a balance related change. GGTharos is a smart feller indeed, I tend to agree with it often. Yet moving the goal post doesn't change the fact that ED reverted the change back to what ED thought was a correct implementation of the AMRAAM. If you could come forward with information proving the previous implementation was correct, please tell Chizh and ED. I take it you know what thread to post it in.

Certainly worth looking into all FC3 aircraft and seeing if their radars stack up Seem to be so neglected though despite all the readily available info

Here is ED's reasoning for rolling it back https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4368210&postcount=8027 In short, it was an unintended side effect of changes to the CCM scale

Being economical with the truth I see. According to Chizh, the change regarding CCM was never supposed to increase its immunity beyond levels we had prior to counter measures, and it also wasn't supposed to become immune to chaff while using its memory mode. You can find his post on that here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4368210&postcount=8027

I do believe seeing images of SFRY MiG-29Bs flying with said load out I can't imagine it being a ferrying load out

Well that gap certainly does exist when one compares something as modern as Link 16 to soviet era TLK, But the gap in game is wider than it aught be as the Su-27 is still missing functions from its data link like peer to peer and fighter to fighter modes that ED refuses to add because its a LOMAC plane sadly. I think first and foremost people want an accurate depiction of the current red (and all) planes' capabilities we have in game, as a sim should. But also people want to have the plane set of a near peer adversary which is a period correct foe, fore realisms sake Would be weird to have a battle of Britain set up with PZL P.11s and I-16s fighting against He-112s and the odd Bf-109g6 if you catch what I mean

That's a shame as DCS can really do the 1980s ~ 2000s well it would be nice to see a PLAAF multirole share in that fun

I really think we will just end up with more or less the same meta as before when all the missiles are reworked with the ranges not so watered down

I saw that some of you have information on the type based on this https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4398960&postcount=173 I was curious if it wouldn't violate any rules if you made a module of the plane at least its 2001 spec

Well if ED wishes to continue this trend of putting missiles where they do no not belong how about allowing the installation of R-77s on hard points 2 and 9 for the J-11A , seeing as it can already use them with the same AKU-170 rail it would use on other pylons. Like on a Su-35SK. But lets also conveniently ignore that the weapons system might not fully recognize what is on that hard point for proper usage, is this the precedent that ED wants set?

Chances are it was indeed IAPO as they had a monopoly on the 2 seat Su-30 design at the time of the airframes being built

I certainly think a Su-27SKM or Su-30MKK could be possible as Deka has documentation on the later and it seems its detailed enough to have at least an FC3 rendition of it Who knows, its been the most popular Export Su-30/27 and pretty dated technology being an MLU programme from about 2000 really I'd also like to say that problems persist with our current FC3 fighters if they wont add FF versions of those they could at the very least fully model their capabilities in the sim

Su-30KNs were the old Indian Su-30Ks if I'm not mistaken that would probably mean Irkut production not KnAAZ Speaking of two seat flankers how about a Su-30MKK? I'd like deka's opinion on making it either FF or MAC grade

There is footage of an AIM-9X pulling such a maneuver Back to the AIM-120 I do not doubt that it has a HOBS capability decent in the 60/70 deg range on a modern one it seems to me that what would be limiting its agility wouldn't so much be the fin layout/aerodynamics but what the INS can handle (as documents have explicitly stated HOBS improvements). An example of this could be found in the AIM-9B through M family of missiles particularly in the 70s where as new components became available the allowable G load increased drastically with it to about 35g even though the airframe itself could go to 40g and the fin set up staying over all the same. It is probably a similar case with the AIM-120, take this with a grain of salt as its my own speculation but I have an odd hunch that an AIM-120A/B would be equal or better than an AIM-9M in relative terms of agility and that a later 2000s AMRAAM would be more comparable to a Python 4 in some cases. Not quite the AIM-9X.

This is amazing, you can not make this up, the government is going to put a gamer up against a state of the art combat AI? The 1980s' called and it wants its B grade movie plot back :lol: How do I place a bet on the amazon delivery drone winning by the way? Yep after reading through the thread right now I've got sooo much faith in our future Doug Masters Christ its too funny

That is a bit of a red herring, the plane did have its data-link systems even in its earliest deliveries in the 1990s as kits and so on. The issue deka alluded to is that in this period there were no ground based stations or even air based for that matter that could infact talk to the plane. And you can still simulate this in the sim as China has no ground units that can talk to the plane currently, the one Chinese unit that can is the KJ-2000 from the early noughties and represents a different era of PLAAF preparedness. In most MP servers PLAAF J-11s fly along side RuAF Su-27s with Russian ground stations and AWACS, which do have the systems to feed DL info to the planes I said before, the systems onboard were never absent, the support infrastructure was and it can be modeled by simply not adding those Russian EWR units if the mission maker wishes to make an authentic 90s PLAAF portrayal. For ahistorical modifications, the M2KC had a MAWS only found on the D model and I've to see much out cry over that... As for the Panda radar if I'm not mistaken no Zhuk radar was ever put on the Su-27SK types in PLAAF service they still use N001Es and based on what another Deka dev said, the Su-30MKKs have N001VEs if I read that right.

Sounds like it takes a lot of time to test these things and you seem thorough, ever consider being a beta tester?

No, a vast majority are still using the older code only a few have been changed to the new system. SD-10s AIM-120s and AIM-54s have had these changes so far if I'm not mistaken and how it affects them seems to vary on a case by case basis

The coefficients were changed originally with the intention of keeping the same effectiveness as before, the change probably stems from a desire to allow the code to handle more worse levels of ECCM/IRCCM like on missiles form the 1960s and 1970s

Those are interesting numbers, one can't fail to acknowledge the impact of crew training and how well the missiles were maintained (As shown by this 1974 report of AIM effectiveness in Viet-nam https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a486826.pdf), the latter being inescapable even for the world's most modern and lethal SRAAM, the AIM-9X, which is going with a Pk 50% at the minute as a result of poor maintenance and was an issue for AIM-54s as well in USN service. If some one could find the numbers for AA-10/11 launches broken up by side in the EE war I'm sure the findings would be very telling.