Future Possibilities...

[Manny]

I can appreciate your decision to introduce to Lock-On, Flaming Cliffs, a military helicopter but why the KA-50 Hokum-A / KA-52 Hokum-B :confused: Why may be irrelevant considering the current development of the add-on. Was consideration ever given toward the Mi-24 Hind, a military helicopter that has seen more combat than the Hokum? Perhaps it is the asymmetrical main rotor design that makes the Hokum that much more appealing. :cool:

I ask this question in consideration of the Mi-24 Hind simulation from I-Magic. I always thought the Hind was a formidable machine and especially like the troop modeling in the sim.

Nevertheless, are there plans to introduce additional variants of the Flanker and Fulcrum such as the navalized version of the fulcrum (Flanker 2.5) and perhaps the first thrust vectoring to LO-MAC in the Su-37? How about the Su-39??

I understand the die-hard, NATO f4n8o1s may not appreciate this thread. However, I find the over-simulation of US warbirds enough reason to thank ED for their bold approach to simulating the rest of the world suitable to my taste :icon_jook .

[Yellonet]

To my knowledge the Ka-50 have never been flyable before in any sim, that is surely one of the reasons.

Another might be that it is a true combat helicopter, with a vast (hopefully ;)) array of weaponry, the Hind is somewhat of a compromise with it's troop compartment.

 

I think that the Navalized MiG-29 version aren't really used... prototype stage?

Su-39 is the production designation of the Su-25T.

[S77th-GOYA]

The Hokum shares the Shkval targeting system with the T-Frog. And it is a very popular a/c in Russia.

[Yellonet]

The Hokum shares the Shkval targeting system with the T-Frog. And it is a very popular a/c in Russia.

Yes. That might be a reason ;)

[Manny]

To my knowledge the Ka-50 have never been flyable before in any sim, that is surely one of the reasons.

Another might be that it is a true combat helicopter, with a vast (hopefully ;)) array of weaponry, the Hind is somewhat of a compromise with it's troop compartment.

 

I think that the Navalized MiG-29 version aren't really used... prototype stage?

Su-39 is the production designation of the Su-25T.

 

Are you familiar with the Razaorworks title Enemy Enaged: Comanche vs. Hokum? That was perhaps the premeir (and only) short-lived simulation of the Hokum and Comanche.

 

It can still be bought but no modern PC-simulation of the Hokum, other than that, has been made.

[britgliderpilot]

I think that the Navalized MiG-29 version aren't really used... prototype stage?

 

You can just see Alfa grazing in a field somewhere . . . . all of a sudden, his ears prick up at some unheard sound far off in the distance. He raises his head, sniffs the air, and grins in glee at the appearance of a MiG29K thread . . . . .

 

 

Right . . . .

The MiG29K was a prototype at the time Flanker 2.5 was being developed, but they selected the Su33 and development stopped.

 

Ask Alfa for the reason why they selected the Su33, he has the full story.

 

 

Development for the MiG29K has recently started again - India are buying new and rather more advanced versions for the Admiral Gorschkov (recently sold to India from Russia), which is being refitted with a ski jump to accomodate CTOL aircraft.

[GGTharos]

I think the roadmap is:

 

Ka-50 (very popular in Russia)

AFM A-10 (Tank Killers)

MiG-29 (Some advanced variant like SMT/SMT2) and F-16

[355th_Paulie]

I think the roadmap is:

 

AFM A-10 (Tank Killers)

 

 

 

:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

[Manny]

I think the roadmap is:

 

Ka-50 (very popular in Russia)

AFM A-10 (Tank Killers)

MiG-29 (Some advanced variant like SMT/SMT2) and F-16

 

Lol, G stop hate'n on Russian birds! Why the F-16? For that matter why an AFM for the A-10? (though I do have an aversion for the hog ever since A-10 Cuba )

 

Bahhh haven't we had enough NATO sims to last a lifetime? If one wants to fly the F-16 and have it "As Real as it Gets", then there is Falcon 4.0: Allied Force!

 

I seriously hope Eagle does not go the way of the DoDo Bird and flock to simulating more of the same old thing already out there... sheesh :icon_evil

[355th_Thomp]

:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

 

AFM hog..

 

music to my ears!!

 

:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

[VapoR]

With some of ED's latest choices, you could rename the sim to LO-MANIS (Lock-on: Modern Aircraft Not In Service). :D

[Cobra360]

Su-39 is the production designation of the Su-25T.

 

The Su-25TM=Su-39. The Su-39 is more advanced again and can be armed with R-77 and R-27R/ER missiles along with more advanced air to ground weapons.

[355th_Paulie]

With some of ED's latest choices, you could rename the sim to LO-MANIS (Lock-on: Modern Aircraft Not In Service). :D

 

 

The Hog will be in service untill at-least 2027.

[Cobra360]

In regard to the MiG-29K vs Su-27K (Su-33) issue.

 

Some people believed that the MiG-29K was only ever planned as a fall back in case the Su-27K turned out to be too heavy to operate from a carrier. They believe that the Soviet carriers were planned as pure fleet air defence assest with no power-projection role, and that means no fighter bomber capabilities were needed.

 

It was planned for Russia to have three STOBAR carriers. But the end of the Cold War and break up of the USSR led to the Tbilisi's planned sister ships. Ulyanovsk was scrapped were it lay and was almost finished. Russia and Ukraine fought over who owned Varyag ( formally Riga). The Tbilisi (already named before launch and officially named Leonid Brezhnev) was renamed again as the Kuznetsov.

 

Before the breakup it was planned to have both MiG-29K and Su-27K on all three carriers. But now money was low and one fighter had to be picked. Some speculate that the Su-27K won because of Sukhoi's political influence, or the the Russian Navy hoped that the small batch of Su-27Ks would be augmented by multi-role MiG-29Ks when funding was there.

 

Logic would have dictated that the MiG-29K be picked over the Su-27K as it was multi-role and the Su-27K was a pure interceptor. By selecting the Su-27K the carrier force was now more limited in it's role. The Su-27K was based on the Su-27S as it was thought it would just be used just as an interceptor and was not based on the Su-27M (Su-35) which it could have been. The MiG-29K was based on the MiG-29M which was why it would have been the better choice with the exception of range. And the Su-33 designation only came into use around 1998. The Russian Navy does activly prefare the MiG-29K and are still hoping to get some. Although that is very unlikely.

[GGTharos]

The Su-25TM=Su-39. The Su-39 is more advanced again and can be armed with R-77 and R-27R/ER missiles along with more advanced air to ground weapons.

 

Can be. Don't expect to ever see one running around with those. Leave fighter armament to fighters. ;)

[britgliderpilot]

The Russian Navy does activly prefare the MiG-29K and are still hoping to get some. Although that is very unlikely.

 

This is interesting - where did you hear it?

 

Not something I've heard of before . . . . sure Alfa can throw some light on the 29K situation when he turns up.

 

I'm mildly surprised he's not here already, to be honest.

[Yellonet]

Are you familiar with the Razaorworks title Enemy Enaged: Comanche vs. Hokum? That was perhaps the premeir (and only) short-lived simulation of the Hokum and Comanche.

 

It can still be bought but no modern PC-simulation of the Hokum, other than that, has been made.

That's true.. never got around to play it thogh :(

[Yellonet]

You can just see Alfa grazing in a field somewhere . . . . all of a sudden, his ears prick up at some unheard sound far off in the distance. He raises his head, sniffs the air, and grins in glee at the appearance of a MiG29K thread . . . . .

Ya sayin' he likes it? ;)

 

Right . . . .

The MiG29K was a prototype at the time Flanker 2.5 was being developed, but they selected the Su33 and development stopped.

That's what I thought... that's probably why it didn't make it to LockOn.

 

Ask Alfa for the reason why they selected the Su33, he has the full story.

Would that give me some extra points? :p

Anyway... range and weapon load could have been two major factors in getting the Su-33 instead of the K I guess.

 

Development for the MiG29K has recently started again - India are buying new and rather more advanced versions for the Admiral Gorschkov (recently sold to India from Russia), which is being refitted with a ski jump to accomodate CTOL aircraft.

Interesting... another argument for my suggested India/Pakistan map... It should be possible in the future anyway.. when the rumoured flyable F-16 (Pakistan) becomes a reality :)

[Cobra360]

India are getting 40 MiG-29Ks in 2007. Russia offered updated 9-41 airframes but India went with the 9-31 airframes, they will be fully FBW with mechanical backups. A MiG-29KUB was also offered. The cockpit arrangement will look like the MiG-29M2 slightly stepped and not a like normal UB if it were to be made.

 

As I said above the Su-33 was selected as the cheif Sukhoi designer had a lot of political power at the time and the Russian Navy thought they could operate a high low mix like on US carriers. Where you had one F-14 squadron and three F/A-18 squadrons. But funding ran out and fleet air defence got the go ahead over power projection. Now all the Russian Navy can hope for is an full multi-role upgrade to the Su-33s. If it was like that from the begining the MiG-29K would never have been considered unless the Flanker turned out to be too heavy.

[GGTharos]

Lol, G stop hate'n on Russian birds! Why the F-16? For that matter why an AFM for the A-10? (though I do have an aversion for the hog ever since A-10 Cuba )

 

Bahhh haven't we had enough NATO sims to last a lifetime? If one wants to fly the F-16 and have it "As Real as it Gets", then there is Falcon 4.0: Allied Force!

 

I seriously hope Eagle does not go the way of the DoDo Bird and flock to simulating more of the same old thing already out there... sheesh :icon_evil

 

Feel free to just fly the Russian birds. You're not the only one who plays this game, and many enjoy the ability to pit eastern versus western hardware in this sim. As I understand it, it's the only fairly realistic sim which actually allows you to do so without any hacks.

 

Eagle has a plan, and it's a good plan - it gives options and choices. So, like I said, you go right ahead and stick to flying nothing but Russian planes ;) It doesn't bother anyone else, seriously ;)

[JonTex]

I seriously hope Eagle does not go the way of the DoDo Bird and flock to simulating more of the same old thing already out there... sheesh :icon_evil

 

:D word up brotha well said. Same old games wrapped in a different box is what i say

[Trident]

The situation with the MiG-29K was simple - Sukhoi was faster. They had already started production by the time the Soviet Union collapsed, and so the desicion was made to concentrate on the available Su-33. Which from a simming point of view is a pity, because the MiG-29K was probably the closest Russia came to operating a western-style multirole airframe until the Su-27SM recently ;)

[Cobra360]

The Su-27K prototype first flew in August 1987 and the MiG-29K prototype first flew in June 1988 but carrier trials for both fighters began 1st November 1989 for both fighters. The reason Sukhoi were faster were, The Su-27K was based on the Su-27S where as the MiG-29K was based on the MiG-29M. Work on the MiG-29K began a year before the M made it's first flight.

 

There were 2 test MiGs and 3 test Flankers. And the first Sukhoi carrier landing took place 26 mins before the first MiG carrier landing. But the MiGs had more trouble in the carrier tests than the Flankers which went much better.

 

And Russia have had 2 squadrons of MiG-29SMTs 5 years before any Su-27SMs showed up. The MiG-29SMTs are just as multirole as the Su-27SMs.

[Alfa]

Oh goodie!....

 

Great subject! :p

 

In regard to the MiG-29K vs Su-27K (Su-33) issue.

 

Some people believed that the MiG-29K was only ever planned as a fall back in case the Su-27K turned out to be too heavy to operate from a carrier.

 

Not so :) . Actually if anything it was the other way around ;) . The development of these two designs was the result of a requirement by the Soviet Navy for two adverse types of fighters with a somewhat similar approach as the F-14 and F/A-18 combination for the USN - i.e. a large single-role airsuperiority oriented fighter supplemented by a smaller multirole attack fighter, which in turn means that the idea that they can be in direct competition with eachother isn't really the case.

 

The "Tblisi"(later Kuznetsov) and the "Varyag" were initially planned as "oversized "Kiev-class" vessels intended to deploy the Yak-41 multirole VSTOL fighter, while the intention was to deploy navalised versions of the Su-27 and MiG-29 on two larger follow-on vessels equipped with four steam catapults thought to be necessary for launching them. However, as it became evident that it would be possible to launch these fighters via the ramp method - i.e. without the need for catapults and the Yak-41 development at the same time turned out to be rather problematic and running into a series of delays, the navalised versions of the Su-27 and MiG-29 entered the picture also for the "Tblisi" and "Varyag". In this connection the MiG-29K was by far the most obvious choice because it had the same multirole nature as the Yak-41 and was of similar size - i.e. the Yak-41 could be directly substituted with the MiG-29K onboard these vessels....in similar numbers and performing the same role(s).

 

They believe that the Soviet carriers were planned as pure fleet air defence assets with no power-projection role, and that means no fighter bomber capabilities were needed.

 

The Soviet carriers were designed as multirole cruisers to operate in support of the submarine forces. Their capabilities were divided equally over 3 areas:

 

- airdefence/interception

- antisubmarine warfare

- anti surface warfare

 

The airdefence/interception would be performed by fixed wing fighters supported by early warning assets(EAW helicopters) and main task would be to patrol the airspace and intercept enemy airborne ASW assets - i.e. as a direct measure to protect friendly submarines, but of course also intercept any threats to the surface fleet itself.

 

The antisubmarine task of the ship is facilitated by a extensive onboard sonar capability for submarine detection and a large contingent(some 20 units) of dedicated antisubmarine helicopters for combating them - i.e. a procedure in which the onboard sonar detects the presence of subsurface threats at long range after which "killer groups" of ASW helicopters are dispatched to engage them.

 

The surface to surface capability consists of a large onboard SSM armament - 12x P-700 "Granit" long range antiship cruise missiles - again partly for defending friendly submarines against enemy ASW surface assets and partly for defending the friendly surface group itself from surface threats.

 

In other words the "aviation cruisers" have a multirole nature with the task of protecting the operation of the friendly submarine force by gaining full control over a particular area of sea.

 

In this connection you can argue for and against the need for multirole fighter aircraft - on the one hand you could argue that the intended role of the aviation cruiser is different to the "power projection" philosophy being pursued by the USN, while the ship itself with its heavy onboard surface-to-surface armament has less need for this capability being provided by its airwing.

 

On the other hand you could argue that a multirole fighter fits perfectly with the nature of the ship itself, and the smaller size of the realised aviation cruiser designs(as compared with US aircraft carriers) means that the need to embark more versatile multirole fighter designs is even more relevant for these - i.e. because using this limited space for specialised aircraft designs with a rather narrow range of capabilities is a restrictive factor for the versatility of the ship itself.

 

 

It was planned for Russia to have three STOBAR carriers.

 

Actually the Soviet Union had four larger carriers planned. First the two ~65.000 ton vessels(Pr. 1143.5 "Tblisi" and Pr. 1143.6 "Varyag) and then two larger ~80.000 ton follow-on vessels - the first of which would have been the "Ul´Yanovsk"(Pr. 1143.7) which was about 35% into its construction by the time it was it was cancelled and subsequently scrapped in 1991, while the second was cancelled before construction could begin(the steel for it had already been cut though).

 

But the end of the Cold War and break up of the USSR led to the Tbilisi's planned sister ships.

 

Sister ship("Varyag") ;) - the "Ul´Yanovsk" was a much larger design and as such would have belonged to a different class. Apart from the larger size(some 80.000 tons of displacement vs. ~65.000 tons of the Kuznetsov) the "Ul´Yanovsk" would have had nuclear propulsion and 2 steam catapults for launching the Yak-44 AEW aircraft(similar to the US E2 Hawkeye) in addition to the take-off ramp for the fighters.

 

Ulyanovsk was scrapped were it lay and was almost finished.

 

Well not quite - the hull was about half finished and still in the dry-dock :) . The "Varyag" on the other hand was indeed all but finished(some 80%), had left the dry dock(giving room for the "Ul´Yanovsk") for the outfitting kay and already had some of its weapons systems installed by the time further construction was suspended.

 

Before the breakup it was planned to have both MiG-29K and Su-27K on all three carriers. But now money was low and one fighter had to be picked. Some speculate that the Su-27K won because of Sukhoi's political influence, or the the Russian Navy hoped that the small batch of Su-27Ks would be augmented by multi-role MiG-29Ks when funding was there.

 

I don't think it had anything to do with politics at all :) . Remember that the flight testing of both the Su-27K and MiG-29K had already been completed succesfully by 1991, so what was left was the "tuning" and "debugging" of onboard systems - and in this connection the Su-27K was by far the simpler(thus cheaper) aircraft to prepare for production since it inherited all its systems from the "baseline" Su-27 with virtually no changes, whereas the MiG-29K had the much more sophisticated systems complex of the MiG-29M. So in a situation where there were no funds available at all and the carrier program as such had been all but suspended, I think it was simply a practical decision to pursue the design that still had a chance of entering production.

 

Logic would have dictated that the MiG-29K be picked over the Su-27K as it was multi-role and the Su-27K was a pure interceptor. By selecting the Su-27K the carrier force was now more limited in it's role. The Su-27K was based on the Su-27S as it was thought it would just be used just as an interceptor and was not based on the Su-27M (Su-35) which it could have been. The MiG-29K was based on the MiG-29M which was why it would have been the better choice with the exception of range.

 

Well sort of - the bit about range has to be seen in combination with payload capability. The MiG-29K carrying 3 droptanks has the same range - app. 3000 km("ferry" range) as the Su-33 on full internal fuel load, but then the MiG has its two most inner wing pylons occupied by the fueltanks and thus not available for combat payload.

 

And the Su-33 designation only came into use around 1998. The Russian Navy does activly prefare the MiG-29K and are still hoping to get some. Although that is very unlikely.

 

I don't know if the Russian navy would prefer the MiG-29K over the Su-33 - they did to begin with but I don't know it this is still the case. Anyway, with the contract to sell the modified Admiral Gorshkov + MiG-29K and MiG-29KUB fighters to be operated from it, it doesn't seem to be so unlikely that the Russian navy could acquire some MiG-29Ks for the Admiral Kuznetsov - i.e. with the final refinements, certifications and production line already being set up and funded for the Indian contract, the prospect of seeing the MiG-29K in Russian service is not nearly as unlikely as earlier :)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Cobra360]

Wealth of knowledge up there Alfa. Keep it flowing. :D