Jump to content

Trident

Members
  • Posts

    600
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Trident

  1. They're gone completely, replaced by intake FOD grids like those on Flanker-family aircraft. This has been the case ever since the original MiG-29M.
  2. http://maks.sukhoi.ru/maks2007.htm
  3. I guess that means even the existing portions of the map are receiving at least some attention - thanks for the reply.
  4. Found on this forum a while ago ;) EDIT: Argh, TekaTeka beat me to it :D
  5. There were plenty of advanced SRAAM projects in the West as a whole at that time, none of which came to fruitition. I'm not sure if was complacency, technical difficulties or reluctance to invest a lot of money but these decisions would have had some unpleasant consequences in a NATO vs. WP airwar. I know concerns about fratricide are commonly provided as a reason for this, but I don't really buy it. A furball with IR guided weapons is always going to be an inherently fratricide-prone situation no matter what you do. Does this really outweigh the tremendous benefits in terms of lethality? IMHO it should be feasible to devise tactics which minimise the risk - hell, NATO pilots frequently claim that training against German MiG-29s allowed them to create tactical counters against the R-73/HMS combination! If that's really possible for the enemy there should most certainly be ways for friendlies to mitigate the hazard somewhat reliably too. As for VTAS, the lack of SRAAMs with a decent seeker FOV provides a plausible alternate explanation for its failure to prevail in service (admittedly just my personal opinion). However, as mentioned above, I'm not sure regarding all those missile projects (which, ironically, would have given VTAS proper teeth).
  6. The early Israeli and South African systems were sights as well. Displays were introduced only after the Soviet/Russian system was in widespread service. It is worth mentioning that the USN dabbled with a HMS (VTAS) a short time before even the USSR introduced one, but it only saw service very briefly (fratricide concerns and weight issues are commonly cited, but I think the main reason was that the narrow aquisition angle of the contemporary Sidewinder seekers rendered it pretty pointless).
  7. Hang on - his post doesn't say anything about re-doing existing pieces of the map, IMHO. Just that the new parts will be of higher quality. We shouldn't carelessly start any new rumours that will come back to haunt the community when a supposedly announced feature does not materialise after release. Based on past experience, we'd see months and months of mudslinging due to such a misunderstanding. Or am I missing something? Could you clarify, Wags?
  8. That about says it all! Condolences to all victims of this tragic accident.
  9. Wow, how did I manage to miss this mod? (Actually, the perfectly obvious explanation is university work load, but I digress ;) ). Outstanding work, TekaTeka!
  10. Ok, I get you now. Certainly good points about the amount of effort for navalising the Ka-50, but then again there is no other helicopter manufacturer in Russia with more experience in naval helo production than Kamov. It's not like Mil would find it easier to design a naval Mi-28 derivative, nevermind a clean sheet of paper design by either design bureau. Everything is relative.
  11. Re-read my post, I'm not suggesting that the Su-34 should be navalised and neither was I being completely serious about performing the suggested surgery on the Su-34. It's just a neat idea of mine.
  12. Agreed, I say give the naval business to MiG and let Sukhoi hog Russia's land-based combat aircraft market with the Su-34, Su-27SM/BM and PAK-FA, like they are already doing anyway. RSK MiG OTOH is currently surviving almost exclusively on a steady trickle of minor export orders (hopefully a major one will follow in the Indian MRCA competition, they'd certainly deserve to win that one) and the smaller MiG-29K does seem more sensible for a future Russian CVBG. Put the kit from the MiG-35 in the domestic MiG-29K and you have what amounts to a miniature Super Hornet, with better raw performance. Quite a respectable fighter, but for the love of god, give the single seater a proper canopy again - pretty please :( Although upgrading the existing Su-33 fleet with electronics and engines developed for newer land-based Flankers would still make sense for long-range fleet defence or strike. The ship platform is an interesting topic, I have seen artist's impressions that look exactly like a modified Ulyanovsk CVN (redesigned island reflecting a new sensor fit, no anti-ship missile battery presumably to increase hangar size, no steam catapults for simplicity) and the relative arrangement of the take-off spots did NOT suggest it was smaller than the old design in the slightest. Regarding the Ka-50, I agree with the decision to go for the more conventional Mi-28 to replace the Mi-24. However, like the MiG-29 I see a naval niche for it: it is quite a bit more compact than the bulky Mi-28, so if Russia ever builds an LPH for its amphibious forces an advanced version of the Ka-50 would be an excellent choice for its combat helicopter complement (think Cobra vs. Apache). Also, am I the only one thinking that Sukhoi should put the wet tail fins of the Su-35 as well as the wings (without the fold, of course), canards and tail planes of the Su-27KUB on the Su-34? That thing would almost approach intercontinental range ;)
  13. LOL, landing on trains - shades of Commanche Gold (miserable sim, *outstanding* action game!) :D
  14. The Flanker has toe brakes, while the MiG-29 does not (it has a very visible brake lever on the stick, look at any cockpit photos or even the LOMAC cockpit). Now, it is quite possible that they aren't differential brakes though, the MiG doesn't have that capability either.
  15. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I have modelling skills or access to 3DSmax - because I don't, sorry ;) That's why I said 'we', as in 'the community', and not 'I'. Well spotted about the B-1B, if the belly of the front fuselage was flat and not bulged it would probably look ok. Your Typhoon model looks nice though. One small nit pick: you should get rid of the air data probe on the nose and the camera fairing on the tail fin, both are strictly test equipment and are no longer installed on operational airframes.
  16. Ok, I contacted him today, we'll see what he says. I also found out that his models come with at least some animations in place, namely control surfaces and refueling equipment. OTOH, he is using Lightwave and not 3DStudio for modelling which will necessitate a conversion for our purposes. Nevertheless, these models do seem to be much closer to the state we need them in than most others available from online sources. From what I can tell (and I'm certainly no modeller) it looks like we would be left to do the following in the event that he makes his work available: 1. Convert to 3DS format for further processing & sort out any issues this may cause 2. Make minor alterations for compatibility (Mapping? Materials?) 3. Implement any missing animations (Engine nozzles, flaps, bomb bays, swing wings, refueling boom...) 4. Build & animate the landing gear 5. Create a damage model 6. Export into LOMAC :) I think the biggest hurdle will be getting permission to use his models though, so we shouldn't get our hopes up too high I suppose. Some of them are based on other author's work and technically they perhaps aren't even his but belong to the company (or government body) he worked under contract with.
  17. At the time when the Eurofighter was conceived the Su-37 designation, if it existed at all, referred to a separate canard/delta design that was not based on the Flanker. The Su-37 as we know it today only flew 2 years after the first Typhoon prototype. A generic 'improved' Flanker was used as the yardstick during the Typhoon development, without even specifying exactly how it was improved. The Typhoon won't automatically be better just because they said so. Mind you, I do think it has advantages, but given the likely difference in price 'better' needs to be defined :) Besides, I consider the new Su-35 a lot more potent than the Su-37, to be honest. Its radar is an improved variant of that found on the Su-37 with modern COTS electronics and since it seems to be based on the original Flanker airframe it should have a better thrust/weight ratio (same engine thrust of 142,5kN).
  18. http://www.eclectric-fx.com/gallery/index.shtml All models look very accurate and have realistic proportions. What's more, they already appear to be well within acceptable limits regarding the number of polygons, which could potentially cut down on the effort needed for conversion dramatically. 3 LOD levels are ready and available for each model as well! The only modelling issue I could see is that they may lack some or all animations (this is certainly true for the landing gear, which is non-existant as mentioned on the site). Last but not least, almost all of them represent aircraft that are in dire need of a make-over in LOMAC (E-3A, B-52H, B-1B, KC-10, Tornado) or have been missing from the sim far too long already (F-15E, KC-135R). Unfortunately no A-10A or Mirage2000 are available, same for any Russian aircraft, but if this modeller is willing to cooperate in some form or other we've still got the USAF pretty well covered indeed. Since these models are modifications of existing work and were created for a very specific project (and a government project, no less) getting said cooperation might be tricky, but I think this looks too good not to try. So, is anyone with modelling skills and knowledge of the conversion process willing to have a go and contact him?
  19. It's a South African system AFAIK, but no designation is known (at least to me).
  20. There also seem to be antennae on the sides of the engine inlets, where there are none on the MKIs and other modern (= equipped with the Pastel RWR) Flanker variants. This part:
  21. Gorgeous aircraft, with some notable differences to its Indian cousin already visible: Different EW system with additional antennae on the front fuselage, low-intesity formation lights and what looks like a Westernized IFF system (birdslicers on the nose).
  22. Wow, where did you get the figures for the GE F120 Komarov? I've been looking for the range of its variable bypass ratio for ages but never found any hard info. Thanks for posting that!
  23. Thank you, I'm sure the community greatly appreciates this decision!
  24. Both manuals are correct, this was changed with v1.1 because the real HUD displays KIAS as well. The error is modelled, AFAIK the readout in the status bar when in external view shows TAS.
×
×
  • Create New...