Next DCS (Russian) Fixed Wing Aircraft Wish List

[Alfa]

Can't say I'm big on the MiG-29, mainly due to its massively short legs. I'd prefer a Su-27 variant.

 

He was talking about the MiG-29M and MiG-29K :) .

 

If you aren't big on them due to short legs, you wouldn't be big on the F/A-18 Hornet either(same combat range).

[Alfa]

True, but then again the M (Izdeliye 9.15) and the K both have slightly increased fuel capacity compared to the 9.13. Two additional hardpoints would also be a big bonus.

 

Slightly? - Compared to the 9.12 the MiG-29K(9.31) has 33% extra internal fuel, can carry 3 external tanks(with which it has the same range as an Su-33) and has inflight-refuelling capability too :).

[dartuil]

I prefer mig-29 over su27.

Light fighters AAR and naval. The same I think on the su-33 more multirole.

[Xeno426]

I too would like to see an Su-27 variant, though my only requirement would be R-77 compatibility. The Su-27PU/Su-30 and Su-27M (early variant with N011 radar, based on the T-10S-70 prototype, not the forerunner to the later Su-35 series) would both be good candidates, though given the PVO origins of the former I'd prefer to fly the latter (plus the M flies with the Russian Knights, which is a bonus to the cool factor). And canards are way too good looking on the Flanker...

Or the Su-27SM.

You know, I would love to see what the new Russian RWR looks like that has replaced the SPO-15. I've seen some people calling it SPO-32, but I'm not sure that's the proper designation. Finding images is damn impossible.

 

By the way - forgive me if I'm wrong, but weren't you once the aircraft consultant on Wargame forums? If so then please let me pay my respects, you did a great job turning around aircraft in RD.

Technically i still am. I never gave up that post, there's just no need for any help on AoA (and I have little interest in it anyway), and they've not said anything about a potential Wargame 4. After all the leaks that happened, we'll probably know at the same time the rest of the community does. :(

 

As for the Su-17, I would love to get my hands on one in DCS, not least because of its long service history with Eastern Bloc states. The thought of conducting SEAD missions in a proper supersonic ground pounder armed with Kh-58s gives me the shivers... Though I'd still prefer to fly a MiG-27K with the same armament. ;)

I'm not sure the MiG-27K could use the Kh-58, though it could use the Kh-31. It also had the Kh-27PS, which seems to have been a missile that was developed just before the Kh-25 and fell out of favor over the Kh-25MP.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Xeno426

[_Firefly]

We need a more reallistic poll without PAK FA, MIg-35 and SU-35.

They will not happen too classified.

 

Very true. IMHO mid-90s aircraft are the most we can possibly hope for, hence my suggestion to include the MiG-29M and K with late Floggers and Fitters as lower priority.

 

Slightly? - Compared to the 9.12 the MiG-29K(9.31) has 33% extra internal fuel, can carry 3 external tanks(with which it has the same range as an Su-33) and has inflight-refuelling capability too :).

 

Of course, but I was comparing the 9.15 and 9.31 to the 9.13 (S model included), whose internal fuel capacity is increased compared to the 9.12 because of the dorsal spine (240 litres of extra fuel could be carried internally for a total capacity of 4540 litres) and a total of three 'wet' hardpoints. Having two additional hardpoints (eight in total) on the 9.15 would be a blessing for long range missions in DCS, as you'd be able to carry 3 fuel tanks in addition to 6 missiles (which is the standard amount while carrying a centreline tank in the 9.13S... At least that's how I fly mine). Perhaps the use of the word 'slightly' was misplaced on my part, my apologies.

 

Or the Su-27SM.

You know, I would love to see what the new Russian RWR looks like that has replaced the SPO-15. I've seen some people calling it SPO-32, but I'm not sure that's the proper designation. Finding images is damn impossible.

 

Same here, though frankly I wouldn't expect any major novelties to be revealed in the coming updates. I'll sift through my books to see if I can find anything on this new RWR.

 

Technically i still am. I never gave up that post, there's just no need for any help on AoA (and I have little interest in it anyway), and they've not said anything about a potential Wargame 4. After all the leaks that happened, we'll probably know at the same time the rest of the community does. :(

 

Yeah, those leaks killed any semblance of communication between the mods and the community. That's a damn shame, because Eugen made some mistakes in RD that could've easily been avoided if they'd listened to the community... Not that the latter is not at fault for requesting some frankly ridiculous pieces of equipment to be included in the game ("Gib F-22 nao!!!111oneoneone"), but I digress. Now that the relations are strained I doubt communication is going to improve anytime soon.

 

I'm not sure the MiG-27K could use the Kh-58, though it could use the Kh-31. It also had the Kh-27PS, which seems to have been a missile that was developed just before the Kh-25 and fell out of favor over the Kh-25MP.

 

I think you're right about the Kh-58, I've just consulted a book I have on the subject and it makes no mention of the missile being used on 27s. I can't find any information in my sources on the Kh-31P (the two books I have on the subject are in Russian and I can't for the life of me decipher Cyryllic), but that doesn't mean the plane couldn't carry it - if anything that would be very good news (though this source states the missile was cleared for the K). The Kh-25MP certainly seems like a part of Flogger-J2s arsenal.

[Alfa]

 

Of course, but I was comparing the 9.15 and 9.31 to the 9.13 (S model included), whose internal fuel capacity is increased compared to the 9.12 because of the dorsal spine (240 litres of extra fuel could be carried internally for a total capacity of 4540 litres) and a total of three 'wet' hardpoints. Having two additional hardpoints (eight in total) on the 9.15 would be a blessing for long range missions in DCS, as you'd be able to carry 3 fuel tanks in addition to 6 missiles (which is the standard amount while carrying a centreline tank in the 9.13S... At least that's how I fly mine). Perhaps the use of the word 'slightly' was misplaced on my part, my apologies.

 

Ok point taken - I misread it as 9.12.

 

Even so I would say that the "slightly" bit concerns the increase in internal fuel from 9.12 to 9.13, while it was significant for the 9.15 and 9.31 - increased to 4650 kg(some 5800 litres).

 

 

I'll sift through my books to see if I can find anything on this new RWR.

 

Its the L150 "Pastel" also known as SPO-32 and isn't really new - it was also part of the 9.15 and 9.31 system's suite. It has memory for up to 128 pre-programmed radar types operating in varies modes, classifies and prioritises them according to threat level, display them to the pilot either on MFD or a dedicated display and issues voice warnings for immedeate threats. It also controls electronic and passive countermeassures and can act as target acquisition and control system for anti-radar missiles(can direct multiple missiles against multiple targets simultaneously).

 

I believe the one in the Su-27SM is an upgraded version(L150M?).....anyway, would be strange if it wasn't considering the time that has passed since its initial development in the late eighties.

[_Firefly]

Its the L150 "Pastel" also known as SPO-32 and isn't really new - it was also part of the 9.15 and 9.31 system's suite. It has memory for up to 128 pre-programmed radar types operating in varies modes, classifies and prioritises them according to threat level, display them to the pilot either on MFD or a dedicated display and issues voice warnings for immedeate threats. It also controls electronic and passive countermeassures and can act as target acquisition and control system for anti-radar missiles(can direct multiple missiles against multiple targets simultaneously).

 

I believe the one in the Su-27SM is an upgraded version(L150M?).....anyway, would be strange if it wasn't considering the time that has passed since its initial development in the late eighties.

 

Fascinating stuff, thank you.

 

In the meantime I found a nice little article on the MiG-27K - click me!

 

I have a few questions for Alfa, Xeno and others...

 

- Could the K carry more than 2 Kh-25MLs or MPs simultaneously on four pylons underneath the fuselage? I'm wondering whether a 6x AGM (Kh-25, Kh-27, Kh-29 etc.) and 2x AAM (R-60M) loadout could be carried.

- Could any weapons be carried and launched from these pylons while a centreline drop tank was in use?

 

English sources about the 27 are scarce... I'm having a difficult time finding concrete info on the above.

[Alfa]

Sorry mate I cannot help you with that - I don't know anything about the MiG-27.

[_Firefly]

I'll get back to my books then. :-)

[Xeno426]

- Could the K carry more than 2 Kh-25MLs or MPs simultaneously on four pylons underneath the fuselage? I'm wondering whether a 6x AGM (Kh-25, Kh-27, Kh-29 etc.) and 2x AAM (R-60M) loadout could be carried.

- Could any weapons be carried and launched from these pylons while a centreline drop tank was in use?

 

English sources about the 27 are scarce... I'm having a difficult time finding concrete info on the above.

The MiG-27 had two wing-root pylons, two forward fuselage pylons, two rear fuselage hardpoints, a centerline pylon, and two fix wing hardpoints. The two wing hardpoints did not rotate with the wing (forcing the wings to be fixed), and were only used for fuel tanks on ferry flights. The rear fuselage hardpoints could only carry bombs up to 250kg, and don't seem to have been commonly used. The centerline was mainly used for fuel tanks, leaving four pylons free for various other munition.

 

This meant a maximum of four guided weapons on the two wing root and forward fuselage hardpoints, which includes weapons like the Kh-31, Kh-29, Kh-25, KAB-500L, and R-60. I don't think the fuselage pylons could carry the Kh-29 or Kh-31 (doesn't seem to be enough clearance), and the Soviets/Russians had no multiple-ejection rack for any guided weapons except for the R-60.

 

Thus you'd be looking at a max of four Kh-25s, which would preclude the use of any R-60s.

 

Additionally, if you compare images of the fuselage hardpoint location on the MiG-27 and MiG-23, you'll find that the MiG-27 has them moved under the intakes and further forward. This was to allow weapons to be loaded and used while the centerline droptank was in use.

Compare MiG-27M and the MiG-23ML.

[_Firefly]

Thank you so much Xeno! I wasn't able to decipher much from the Russian books I had, this clears up a lot.

 

Perhaps the Su-17M4 would be an interesting alternative to include in DCS - not only were the late versions fitted with the same Kaira TV guidance system as the MiG-27K, they also came with more hardpoints and multiple loadout options, including movable fuselage hardpoints moved depending on selected weapons, a centreline hardpoint capable of carrying the BA-58 anti-radiaton missile guidance pod for firing Kh-58s and Kh-25MPs, two dedicated R-60 (M included) hardpoints under the wing gloves, two 'wet' outer wing glove hardpoints, and as a cherry on the top the plane was compatible with both the Kh-29T and KAB-500L. It's also a rather unique aircraft, though same goes for the MiG-27. I prefer the looks of the latter, but I would be happy with either one of them in the game. Can't ask for too much right? ;-)

Edited November 4, 2015 by _Firefly

[WinterH]

I would love both Su-17/20/22 series or MiG-27, and linked to 27 is the 23.

 

Fitter because it is an interesting strike aircraft and who wouldn't want a supersonic swing wing Su-25 of sorts :). It has a pretty good payload capacity too.

 

MiG-27, well Kaira system, some pretty good weaponry options, and well, being part of a family. MiG-23 is a very good thing to make for any studio, especially for LN in my opinion.

 

Why ? Well earliest export versions of MiG-23 were widely exported and probably seen combat, and, well they have MiG-21Bis avionics for the most part. So that would make development of first variant that much shorter, they'll be experienced in swing-wing flight models development too. And once that first variant is ready, newer versions can be done, and with newer avionics and flight models are done, with a bit more change, MiG-27 can be another module to sell. While not hottest 3rd gen fighter or greatest attack aircraft, they were still important and ubiquitious in their periods, even lingering at parts of the world today. What makes whole Flogger line interesting for DCS is, this historical relevance and one of them opening a door to multiple, relatively easy to build variants to offer. While Floggers are some of the least interesting 3rd generation aircraft for me, for these reasons even I would still like seeing them made for DCS.

[_Firefly]

A late Flogger variant like the MLA or MLD would be an interesting match for the speculated Viggen and early Tomcat variants (in close combat that is, the Kitty would eat the Flogger for breakfast in long-range BVR). This could pave the way for a late Flogger ground pounder... I like your train of thought WinterH. ;)

[Xeno426]

The Su-17M4 never had the Kaira or any other EO system. Late-model Polish Su-22M4s had a TV installed to guide the Kh-29T and possibly the KAB-500KR, rather like how the A-10A has a TV display in its cockpit for the Maverick but no onboard EO sensors of its own. I don't know if any Russian Su-17M4s ever got that upgrade.

 

There was a post-Soviet Su-22M5 upgrade proposal. I think that included an onboard EO system, but nobody purchased it.

 

The Su-17M4/22M4 had the Klen-PS laser designation system like the regular Su-25, probably with a similar gunsight as well.

 

The only aircraft to use the Kaira were the MiG-27K and the Su-24M (in slightly different versions).

Edited November 4, 2015 by Xeno426

[Frosty]

if the su-22 was added and could do dogfighting and laser guided i would fly the hours out of that

[_Firefly]

The Su-17M4 never had the Kaira or any other EO system. Late-model Polish Su-22M4s had a TV installed to guide the Kh-29T and possibly the KAB-500KR, rather like how the A-10A has a TV display in its cockpit for the Maverick but no onboard EO sensors of its own. I don't know if any Russian Su-17M4s ever got that upgrade.

 

There was a post-Soviet Su-22M5 upgrade proposal. I think that included an onboard EO system, but nobody purchased it.

 

The Su-17M4/22M4 had the Klen-PS laser designation system like the regular Su-25, probably with a similar gunsight as well.

 

The only aircraft to use the Kaira were the MiG-27K and the Su-24M (in slightly different versions).

 

I stand corrected. I read up on this in Yefim Gordon's book on the Su-7/17/20/22 - apparently the designers intended to fit Kaira in the M4, but did not succeed for a variety of reasons (cost must've been an important consideration), so Klyon-PS was used instead. Of course I had to omit the paragraph describing just that... :music_whistling: As for the Polish Su-22s - are you referring to the Series 30 and later aircraft? I'll try to find out if Russian Su-17M4s got the same TV display too (I'd imagine it should be similar to the IT-23M from the Frogfoot).

 

EDIT: Gordon states that Izdeliye S-54 (factory designation for the Su-17M4) did indeed receive the same TV display as the Frogfoot, that is the IT-23M, as well as the VG-17 optical tracker.

Edited November 4, 2015 by _Firefly

[Xeno426]

I stand corrected. I read up on this in Yefim Gordon's book on the Su-7/17/20/22 - apparently the designers intended to fit Kaira in the M4, but did not succeed for a variety of reasons (cost must've been an important consideration), so Klyon-PS was used instead. Of course I had to omit the paragraph describing just that... :music_whistling: As for the Polish Su-22s - are you referring to the Series 30 and later aircraft? I'll try to find out if Russian Su-17M4s got the same TV display too (I'd imagine it should be similar to the IT-23M from the Frogfoot).

 

EDIT: Gordon states that Izdeliye S-54 (factory designation for the Su-17M4) did indeed receive the same TV display as the Frogfoot, that is the IT-23M, as well as the VG-17 optical tracker.

Yes, I was referring to the Polish Su-22M4 Seria 30 and later. Regarding the Kaira, I'm sure the reason was related to the size and complexity of the system; it was so heavy it necessitated the removal of the extra cockpit armor of the MiG-27, and its placement in the nose led to issues of accuracy thanks to airframe bending. The Su-24M placed its Kaira system under its center of gravity, which eliminated that issue. The system's complexity also made it difficult for the MiG-27K pilot, something that the Su-24M was again able to mitigate because there was a co-pilot.

 

Do you happen to have any info on the VG-17 tracker? I'd be interested in where they placed that system on the Su-17; the Klen-PS was housed in the shock cone, and I'm not sure there was enough room in there for another sensor to be added.

A search on my own finds that the VG-17 was installed into the Mi-24V as part of its upgrade over the Mi-24D, and it's called "баллистический вычислитель и визирная головка" or "ballistic computer and sighting head". I'm assuming "sighting head" is basically "gunsight" like the Su-25, so I don't think it's an actual EO sensor.

 

In other news, I know jack shit when it comes to Russian acronyms.

[_Firefly]

Do you happen to have any info on the VG-17 tracker? I'd be interested in where they placed that system on the Su-17; the Klen-PS was housed in the shock cone, and I'm not sure there was enough room in there for another sensor to be added.

A search on my own finds that the VG-17 was installed into the Mi-24V as part of its upgrade over the Mi-24D, and it's called "баллистический вычислитель и визирная головка" or "ballistic computer and sighting head". I'm assuming "sighting head" is basically "gunsight" like the Su-25, so I don't think it's an actual EO sensor.

 

In other news, I know jack shit when it comes to Russian acronyms.

 

I spent the last couple of hours researching this and these are my conclusions:

 

In plain English, Gordon made an error with the supposed 'VG-17' device. Not a single book, neither in English, Russian nor my native Polish, makes a mention of this system. What does appear to be the case is that the S-17VG-1 (note how Gordon twisted the original name, it's probably an editing error on his part) is the upper optical head of the ASP-17BC gunsight, previously used on the Su-22UM3 and Su-25K. This complex ACVU analogue computer was then replaced in the Su-17/22M4 by the Orbita 20-22 digital computer, itself a part of the PrNK-54 Zaria integrated navigation and targeting system which became a standard feature of Soviet and Warsaw Pact Su-17s and 22s. At the same time the S-17VG-1 optical head (i.e. gunsight) was left alone and paired with the Klyon-54 laser rangefinder and target designator for aiming both laser guided and unguided weapons.

 

On a related note, I've done further research on the Kh-29T and it appears that a few of my initial conclusions about the system were wrong. Until now I assumed there was an electro-optical head mounted either in the shock cone or in a pod, which was used to first designate the target and then target the missile in a fire-and-forget fashion just like the Kaira, though simpler and generally less effective (the existence of a supposed 'VG-17 optical head' compounded my confusion). This was partly true, but then I read about how both the Kh-58 and the Kh-29T shared the same guidance and targeting system and I became intrigued...

 

Unlike with the Kaira targeting system, the Kh-29T was most likely aimed using the Klyon-54 laser rangefinder through the aforementioned S-17VG-1 optical gunsight. Upon firing the missile began transmitting the image from its Tubus-2M seeker head with a Granit 7T-M1 TV camera through the Tekon-Elektron (nowadays a Ukrainian company) APK-9 system to an externally mounted pod. This relayed the datalinked image to the roughly 10-inch IT-23M CRT monitor in the cockpit. Having compared that to the Kaira system used in the MiG-27 and the Su-25 the system appears to be much more cumbersome and difficult to use, particularly in any weather conditions other than ideal (this was also caused by the inaccuracy of the PrNK-54's navigation equipment, but that's another story). In other words, while the Kh-29T was the same missile as used on a variety of other Soviet planes, I doubt it had the same levels of accuracy as it did with a proper standoff TV guidance system such as the Kaira (Vympel quoted a circular error of about 2 to 4 metres at the missile's maximum range of 13 kilometres).

 

So in short, while the Kh-29T could be used as an F&F weapon with reasonable accuracy, it most likely wasn't as effective a weapon as it was on other, more technologically advanced platforms. I'm unsure whether a Fitter pilot could make mid-course corrections of the Kh-29T, I need to do more reading on that.

 

Pardon the rather exhaustive post, I hope this makes sense.

Edited November 5, 2015 by _Firefly

[Xeno426]

Strange, I've never heard anything about the Kh-29T being a man-in-the-loop system, working instead rather like the AGM-65A/B. The APK-9 was a data-link pod for the Kh-59 and Kh-59M only, I thought.

 

I find it rather impossible the Kh-58 and Kh-29T would use the same guidance and targeting system, since one is an anti-radiation missile and the other is TV-guided.

 

The impression I got regarding the Kh-29T on the Su-22M4 from talking with some Poles was that it displayed what the seeker head saw and that was how the missile was cued to its target.

[_Firefly]

...and my stupidity strikes again. I was referring to the TV-guided version of the Kh-59 which was intended to use the same basic seeker head and datalink as the Kh-29T, obviously the anti-radiation Kh-58 is a different kettle of fish altogether. Apologies for that. Source 1 Source 2

 

I believe you're right about the Kh-29T's guidance in the Su-22. I'm still unsure how all this works, but my brain is fried at the moment so I can't take in any more information. :P

 

I need a nap.

[Xeno426]

...and my stupidity strikes again. I was referring to the TV-guided version of the Kh-59 which was intended to use the same basic seeker head and datalink as the Kh-29T, obviously the anti-radiation Kh-58 is a different kettle of fish altogether. Apologies for that. Source 1 Source 2

By man-in-the-loop, I meant that I've never heard of the Kh-29 having any sort of data-link to the parent aircraft after launch. Obviously the Kh-29L is still linked to the aircraft by laser designation, but that designation doesn't strictly need to come from the parent aircraft, and my understand was that the Kh-29T was completely autonomous after launch.

 

The Kh-59 and the M are a bit different. They have much greater range, and function similar to the AGM-130. The missile is launched to a pre-determined location (inertial guidance) where the co-pilot takes over guidance. At this point he can lock onto a target and let the missile do the rest of its guidance autonomously. Alternatively, the co-pilot can continue to manually guide the missile using the feed from the missile's camera, rather like the British AJ.168 anti-ship missile. Finally, the missile can be locked onto a target while it's still on the rail and launch it either autonomously or with a man-in-the-loop. Again, this is all rather like the AGM-130 and GBU-15.

 

I don't know for certain, but I'm sure that if the Su-24M only ever launched the Kh-59 in autonomous mode from right off the rail, the APK-9 wouldn't even be needed, though that would make one wonder why you are bothering with the Kh-59 and not just loading up a Kh-29T.

 

Those two sources also seem to mirror each other, so either they're working from the same source or one is basically using the other for its information.

[_Firefly]

I forgot to list this forum post I found, perhaps this is what's causing my confusion...

 

Original Polish text:

 

 

System TSKN z APK-9U zaprojektowała swego czasu ukraińska firma Tekon-Elektron. Ukraińskie przedsiębiorstwa w dziedzinie elektrooptyki zaprojektowały zresztą inne fajne rzeczy, jak choćby głowicę naprowadzania Tubus-2M z kamerą Granit 7T-M1, którą oprócz w telewizyjnych wersjach H-59 i H-59M zastosowano także w rakietach H-29T. W ramach systemu APK-9U powstało między innymi łącze telemetryczne (pracujące w paśmie X) 1DW1-401AMK, za pośrednictwem którego szturman przesyłał rakiecie za pośrednictwem specjalnego pulpitu komendy sterujące.

 

Z obu stron wykorzystywanego w systemie APK-9 zasobnika typu PK-9M (pokrycie przedniej i tylnej półsfery tj. PPS i ZPS) pod kolorowymi osłonami dielektrycznymi umieszczone były stabilizowane w kanale przechylenia i pochylenia anteny łącza. Obraz z kamery TV transmitowany był z kolei za pośrednictwem kanału łącza analogowego SB-1A, wykonującego emisję sygnału w trybie fali ciągłej (CW) przy wykorzystaniu tzw. liniowej modulacji częstotliwości (FMCW). Metodę tę cechuje stosunkowo mała moc promieniowania i tego typu łącze klasyfikuje się jako tzw. LPI (Low Profile/Probability of Interception) - a więc trudno wykrywalnych (dotyczy to również stacji radiolokacyjnych wykorzystujących podobną metodę, ale na nieco innych zasadach).

 

Oczywiście w kabinie samolotu wymagany był specjalny pulpit sterujący, stosowne modyfikacje do panelu sterowania uzbrojeniem SUO oraz znany już skądinąd ekran telewizyjny IT-23 bądź IT-23M.

 

 

English translation via Google:

 

 

TSKN system of APK-9U designed his time Ukrainian company Tekon-Elektron. Ukrainian companies in the field have designed elektrooptyki besides other cool things, such as homing head Tube-2M with a camera Granite 7T-M1, which in addition to the television versions of H-59 and H-59m is also used in rockets H-29T. In the framework of APK-9U was established, among other things speed telemetry (operating in X-band) 1DW1-401AMK through which mate send a rocket through a dedicated desktop control commands.

 

With both sides in the system tray APK-9 PK-9M (covering the front and back of the hemisphere, ie. The PPS and ZPS) in color dielectric shields were placed in the channel stabilized tilt and tilt the antenna connection. The image of the TV camera was in turn transmitted via a link channel analog SB-1A, performing signal emission mode continuous wave (CW) using the so-called. linear frequency modulation (FMCW). This method is characterized by relatively low radiation power and speed of this type are classified as so-called. LPI (Low Profile / Probability of Interception) - so it is difficult detectable (including radars using a similar method, but on some other basis).

 

Of course, in the cabin of the aircraft required a special control panel, appropriate modifications to the control panel SUO weapons and elsewhere already known television screen IT-23 or IT-23M.

 

[Xeno426]

Ok, from that it seems that the TV seeker heads of the Kh-59 and Kh-59M were the same as the Kh-29T (Granit 7T-M1). It doesn't say anything about the Kh-29T having data-link, instead saying the company that made the APK-9 was the same one that made the 7T-M1 seeker.

[_Firefly]

True, but this is also why I thought the two missiles shared their guidance system. I thought this provided the Kh-29T with a similar datalink as the Kh-59 but I read too much into it, hence my mistake. Thanks for the clarification.

[Xeno426]

True, but this is also why I thought the two missiles shared their guidance system. I thought this provided the Kh-29T with a similar datalink as the Kh-59 but I read too much into it, hence my mistake. Thanks for the clarification.

Cool, glad to help out.

 

The Kh-59 is one of the reasons I'd love to see the Su-24M. It's got a really nice diversity of weapons it could employ, not to mention of of its avionics (terrain-following radar system), and I'd love to get the chance to make use of them. It'd be even cooler if two people could work together in it, which is the direction DCS seems to be going. The MiG-27K would also be a really neat aircraft to fly. It has features different from the Su-25T that would make it unique, whereas the Su-17M4 is very similar to the Su-25 already available, which makes it slightly less interesting to me than the MiG-27K.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Xeno426