Next DCS (Russian) Fixed Wing Aircraft Wish List

[Exorcet]

You are wrong DCS market is mostly European and China. I have seen many people always go for non-US aircraft in MP's Gaming and even players from US choose non-US jets.....:pilotfly:

 

I was referring more to the fact that the EF-2000 is a NATO plane designed to shoot down Russian planes and work with US ones.

[Alfa]

It should have almost double the range of basic N001.

 

: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).

[Alfa]

There aren't any that are publicly available, and APA is pretty crappy. He doesn't even list the V in there, because he knows what the deal is: It's a slotted array antenna upgrade and processor upgrade for the N001.

 

The N001VE is not a slotted array upgrade GG - it retains the old twist-cassegrain antenna.

 

50% more range ... haha :D

 

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.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Alfa

[Cali]

I think he is grasping at straws there. This just goes to show that you have to look at more then 1 source on the internet and you can't trust everything you read from it.

[Alfa]

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.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Alfa

[Xeno426]

Doesn't the Su-27SM3 have the Irbis-E as well?

[Alfa]

Have no idea, but I seriously doubt it.

[danilop]

: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).

 

Well, any other credible source, beside your well educated guessing, then? :)

 

You may be right, but then without credible source we really don't know whats under the SU-27sm hood, do we? I wouldn't be surprised if they have some new, revolutionary DSP algorithm going on - loads of bright people over there. But, hey, I'm guessing now as well :D

 

It would be stupid to update whole bunch of SU-27 to lower standard than '90s F-15c, especially in current economical climate in Russia, which is not bad at all.

 

There is only one public source ATM, and it is disputed with very strong arguments. There are no other sources on which you, me or anybody else could claim F-15c or SU-27SM superiority with any credibility.

 

Without direct NATO-Russia conflict (which will never happen BTW) we would never know. So, I'm amused with all this mine is bigger than yours thing :D, hey I'm getting good at it! :megalol:

 

Have no idea, but I seriously doubt it.

 

There you go ... :megalol:

Edited January 19, 2013 by danilop

[skouras]

+1 :)

 

+2

all of them

[Alfa]

Well, any other credible source, beside your well educated guessing, then? :)

 

You may be right, but then without credible source we really don't know whats under the SU-27sm hood, do we?

 

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

[Alfa]

There you go ... :megalol:

 

:idiot:

[Xeno426]

Instead of double posting, have you people considered using the Edit button?

[GGTharos]

It would be stupid to update whole bunch of SU-27 to lower standard than '90s F-15c, especially in current economical climate in Russia, which is not bad at all.

 

Why? They're not expected to fight F-15C's.

[danilop]

It would be even more stupid not to plan for possibility ...

 

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

 

Yeah, it's very likely that they will post top secrets on their web site ... :)

 

:idiot:

 

:music_whistling:

Edited January 19, 2013 by danilop

[sobek]

Guys, take it easy, i don't want to see this turning into a flame war.

[Xeno426]

Yeah, it's very likely that they will post top secrets on their web site ... :)

I like how you dismiss any and all sources, even good ones, that don't agree with you.

 

I also like how you seem physically incapable of using the "Edit" button.

[danilop]

Sorry for the posts. ...

 

My point was that no one knows exactly what's going on in a such a vital system as radar on the last generation military aircraft.

 

Web sites, although useful cannot be the source to base definitive conclusions.

 

I don't dismiss the source, I'm only saying that it could be deceiving.

Edited January 19, 2013 by danilop

[Xeno426]

But very unlikely they would be that deceiving. If anything, those numbers are exaggerations.

[Alfa]

Guys, take it easy, i don't want to see this turning into a flame war.

 

Don't worry sobek - I am done here.

[sobek]

Sorry for the posts. Moderators could you please join my previous three posts in to one? Thanks.

 

You can do that yourself, aquaint yourself with the forum functionality. Use edit post to insert the text from your second and third post in your first. Then edit your second and third post and choose the option "delete post".

[danilop]

Thanks Sobek, not used to vBulletin. SMF guy here ...

[Weta43]

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

 

To be fair, the NiiP site does seem to be specifically talking about the radar for the Su-27S in that table.

The table says the radar can engage 1 target* (*2 with modernisation)

 

Then at the bottom it says :

 

"Modernization

Provision of new types of UA:

 

TSA "air-to-air":

- Close combat missile with infrared homing RVV-MD;

- Medium-range missile with passive radar homing R-27P1 (EP1);

- Medium-range missile with an active radar homing RVV-SD.

 

TSA "air-surface" - guided aerial bomb of satellite guidance KAB-500S-E.

 

Enforcement of the new TSA (470UTE-RT, X-31P, UL, X-31A-UL) for to improve quality aviation training.

 

Introduction of a state of simultaneous attack of 2-air targets.

Modernization of avionics."

 

If the default target engagement given is for the pre-upgrade, it would be reasonable to expect the other figures to be for the same. As the Su-27SM can track 2 targets (and launch active missiles - plus satelite guided bombs apparently), that would imply that the modernisation package that takes the S to SM isn't included in the data in the table above...

 

The upgrade may be primarily a software upgrade (though my understanding from overscan's guide to Russian radar is that there was also another signal processor added that works in parallel with the previous processor and takes over for new modes), but software upgrades (& new signal processors) can have very significant impacts on the range at which a radar can detect, track and engage a target even if the antenna and power output are unchanged.

 

I think to use that data as the basis for modelling the capabilities of the Su-27SM would be to knowingly under-model it.

 

That said - anything that Kopp says is going to be at the outer envelope of credibility... (or maybe in the envelope of a whole other package :-)

 

The capabilities of US radars seem to be more in the public sphere, applying the same increases in detection / track / engage ranges that were claimed for a similar software / processor upgrade on a contemporaneous US radar would be reasonable wouldn't it ?

 

For example :

 

let me throw in another thing I know from memory.

Changing the APG-66 signal processor changes it into the APG-66V2A, giving the same 30% range boost without changing power output. :)

 

 

 

(Don't they only give detailed tables of data for radars that the west already have copies of ?

MiG-31 : "Phazotron radar division engineer Adolf Tolkachev had sold information on advanced radars to the West. Tolkachev was executed, and a new version of the compromised radar was hastily developed. Many earlier MiG-31s were upgraded to the new standard, designated MiG-31BM".

 

The new version is again listed under "Modernisation", but no actual data is given.

 

Su-27S - so many drifting around in the West now there's no secret about them.

 

SM Modernisation mentioned, but no data given.

 

Су-30МКИ, Су-30МКА, Су-30МКМ (All commercial, de-rated export versions) data given

 

Su-35 - no table, just general claims )

Edited January 19, 2013 by Weta43

[danilop]

... but software upgrades (& new signal processors) can have very significant impacts on the range at which a radar can detect, track and engage a target even if the antenna and power output are unchanged.

 

...

 

+1

 

Advance in DSP software and hardware is something which is highly classified - no way that even the end users in their own military would have any clue about it. The only way to learn the innards of the modern military radar is good old espionage and deflection of the pilot and aircraft.

 

We can't find that kind of info on the net, university and/or popular military books, declassified manuals etc.

 

P.S.

Same for DSP part of Active missile head (radar & IR)

Edited January 19, 2013 by danilop

[karolus]

Mig-21, Mig-23, Mig-29A, SU-22 with clickable cockpits!

[Xeno426]

MiG-21Bis is already being done.