what to expect from Su-27 module?

[GGTharos]

Why would I claim that if you have documentation for it ... or is it because it is exactly what you are trying to do with the F-15 datalink :)

[Teknetinium]

Im talking about that it would be great addition to Su-27 capabilities if it had modeled data link/EOS/TWS/AFM Cobra and missiles that you can not evade by making 60 degrees pincer. If you want to bring in upgraded versions it would be great to face them at least in Su-27SM or even better. Since in my opinion its getting old to say that Russians had only 5 aircrafts of this particular type. The point here is that they had it, same as you try to convince me that F-15 had datalink.

Edited August 11, 2013 by Teknetinium

[SkateZilla]

 

AoA is good XDDDDD¡¡¡

 

Yeah, cuz Pulling the nose up and stalling the Airframe 5 feet above a carrier deck is a good thing to do....

 

He was lucky..very lucky

[GGTharos]

He aborted a bad landing. The Su-33 is designed for this higher AoA performance in order to operate from carriers.

[SkateZilla]

it did look pretty sweet though...

[Teknetinium]

Cant find anything about datalink in Su-27Sk manual, was looking for something called ALM-1, ALM-4/SPK-68, SPK-75

which I belive are the names connected to Su-27S datalink.

Edited August 11, 2013 by Teknetinium

[Esac_mirmidon]

 

 

 

 

i can translate the pics if needed.

Edited August 11, 2013 by Esac_mirmidon

[lunaticfringe]

This switch

 

Up and Down position ( ON - OFF)

 

If a fighter pilot can´t move one switch up and down and pull the stick, better do something else than flying.

 

And you don´t need to turn off the AoA-G´s limiter a second before, you can turn off whenever you want.

 

So beeing able to reach 120º-160º or unlimited AoA it´s not good or better than limited to 24º or 26º because you loose control of the plane. Great.

 

And a fighter pilot, well trained, don´t know how to use his own aircraft getting confused because he needs to select switches and push buttons. Great.

 

If your comment there is in response to mine about the AoA limiter, your inference is wrong: I'm not discussing the Su-27's AoA limiter- I'm referring to the *F-15s* as exists in LO/FC, but *not in real life*. If the AFM is capable of allowing a simulated Cobra, it's more than capable of allowing the Eagle to have it's full pitch authority.

 

Further, more nations than the US and the USSR/RF have performed studies on what happens to a pilot's cognitive ability once engaged, and they've all come up with the same findings- if it's not on the primary flight controls or isn't a handhold, it's not being touched. This is why JETT and WARN switches are so clearly marked, large, and obvious- they must be both seen, and recognized for their purpose, by a neural system running on zero reserve capacity instantaneously. Relatively tiny toggles and their position, even amongst memorized panels, become a distant memory as they run together in the heat of the moment.

 

Otherwise, the concept of HOTAS wouldn't exist.

 

I must say, however, that it's amusing your greatest worry when confronted with the realities of the diagrams you presented is that you're concerned about the functioning of a *switch*, rather than the performance of the Su-27/R-73/HMS combination as shown.

[Teknetinium]

If your comment there is in response to mine about the AoA limiter, your inference is wrong: I'm not discussing the Su-27's AoA limiter- I'm referring to the *F-15s* as exists in LO/FC, but *not in real life*. If the AFM is capable of allowing a simulated Cobra, it's more than capable of allowing the Eagle to have it's full pitch authority.

 

Further, more nations than the US and the USSR/RF have performed studies on what happens to a pilot's cognitive ability once engaged, and they've all come up with the same findings- if it's not on the primary flight controls or isn't a handhold, it's not being touched. This is why JETT and WARN switches are so clearly marked, large, and obvious- they must be both seen, and recognized for their purpose, by a neural system running on zero reserve capacity instantaneously. Relatively tiny toggles and their position, even amongst memorized panels, become a distant memory as they run together in the heat of the moment.

 

Otherwise, the concept of HOTAS wouldn't exist.

 

I must say, however, that it's amusing your greatest worry when confronted with the realities of the diagrams you presented is that you're concerned about the functioning of a *switch*, rather than the performance of the Su-27/R-73/HMS combination as shown.

 

Unfortunately you have not given anything to this conversation then telling everyone that F-15 has it as well, read the thread its about Su-27.

Edited August 11, 2013 by Teknetinium

[Esac_mirmidon]

I´m only answering your questions

 

 

Is it that simple? Where is the AoA limiter? Is it a switch on the front panel? Is it a circuit breaker you have to pull? Have you ever tried glancing down, finding and actuating a specific toggle switch whilst flying a precision maneuver when your life is on the line all at 9G?

 

Doing things in the cockpit starts to become a challenge around the 5G mark for me. That's why they have HOTAS.

 

 

The AoA-G limiter switch can be turned off at any time, not only in the middle of a combat.

[graywo1fg]

This is sorta how I feel about this thread :P

 

[Esac_mirmidon]

Sorry for this poor translation.

 

 

НАСУ its the automatic guide ground based system. It could take control of the Su-27 flight guiding in automatic mode in a interception course. Also this system can take control of the Su-27 radar in automatic mode. ( the pilot don´t need to control de radar ).

The ИПВ is the right MFD. БП mode is when the own fighter use his sensors taking in count the data transmited by HACY post. ( instead of an automatic guiding by HACY system with his own data from ground stations).

 

 

In this pic we can se the commanders fighter "1" without the big circle in the bottom (only the little "friendly circle IFF) and three wingmen. Also we can see three sections with four fighters each "2-3-4" with a 4 in a circle ( number of fighters per section)

Also the circles at the bottom are friendly ones, the triangles at the bottom are enemies and the V symbol at the bottom are unidentified targets. The - at the bottom ar radar followed targets.

 

This complete MFD tactical information is showed ONLY on the commander´s and sections leaders MFD.

 

 

Similar info than the commander´s MFD but this case on the leader´s section. The only change is the fighters leader numeral of the second section "1" , and the commander´s formation numeral "1"

 

 

Wingman MFD. The wingmen don´t see a global depict of all sections in this pic, only tactical info about they own section wingmen and leader.

 

With more time i can translate the Datalink chapter from the Su-27SK manual. taking in count that is for export Su-27 variant. Russian equipment could be more advance but more or less the functionality is the same, also the tactical representation.

Edited August 12, 2013 by Esac_mirmidon

[pepin1234]

Good Job Mirmidon. Amazing capability even been the first Version.

[Frogisis]

This is sorta how I feel about this thread :P

 

 

Right. Call it impractical if you want; it's like those elaborate kicks in martial arts: You'd almost certainly never use it, but if you can do it, just imagine how good you are at the more practical, prosaic stuff.

 

Besides, how is hotdogging and showing off not totally in the spirit of fighter pilotry? Beating your opponent is priority one, sure, but if you can manage, why not do it with some panache? :D

[lunaticfringe]

TTMIWSIGTCBFMF

 

Actually, it *was* about the Su-27, until the OP asked about the Cobra, to which you brought an opinion. Others brought more informed opinions on the subject. OP mentioned the F-15. The cycle began.

 

Me- I then not only bring in a more nuanced opinion on the subject of ACM than yours, I invited *both* types to get their full performance capabilities under the AFM- Su-27 AND F-15, which- last time I checked is in accordance with this concept you continually espouse- "equality".

 

You then proceed to call the discussion of dynamics against employment of the Cobra (by GG, Pilotasso, Skate, and myself) the workings of an "F-15 mafia". Meanwhile, your compatriot mirmidon quotes a couple of pretty pictures that don't actually say what he thinks they say, and he fixates on the wrong aspect of the response- that of a switch, versus the need for a more expansive margin of separation required for a shot by the R-73/HMS combination versus that needed for a "lesser" weapon; were either of you really worth the time, you'd have grasped that.

 

Now you want to claim that I've only brought the matter of the F-15 having an unrealistic AoA limiter to the conversation?

 

Tek- I've got to tell you- not only does your reading comprehension fail to pass muster, but you're a hypocrite. The fact that you are completely incapable of admitting that someone is advocating pluses for both aircraft in the same statement as a way of proving a point (that the Cobra isn't as strong as you wish it were, and an equally-realistically performing Eagle can show this to be true) fundamentally proves that you wouldn't know or understand the concept of "equality" where it concerns the idea of realism if it were an AIM-7 shoved up your can. You don't believe in realism, and you don't believe in equality- you're what you accuse others of being, yet lack the intellectual honesty to admit it.

 

And the fact that you have repeatedly quoted me wholesale calling for what you espouse to prove the point is the height of irony.

 

But that's okay- given the evidence, I wouldn't expect you to catch on to that, either. :lol:

[lunaticfringe]

I´m only answering your questions

 

The AoA-G limiter switch can be turned off at any time, not only in the middle of a combat.

 

That wasn't your inference here:

 

If a fighter pilot can´t move one switch up and down and pull the stick, better do something else than flying.

 

Nice dodge against the legit pilot, though.

[Esac_mirmidon]

I´m spanish not swedish. So "compatriot" ? It´s so funny when somebody post something about some plane automatically you are never more a forum member, you are a country supporter of specific ideological stuff.

 

I talk about Su-27 because it´s the fighter about i know more. I´ve translated from russian to spanish the Su-27SK manual, so for me it´s natural to talk about it. No matter if is russian, ukranian, tayikistan or Eritrean ones.

 

The pics i´ve posted are only examples of maneuvers, not the holly byble. i´m not pretending to take this pics as an absolute truth of nothing, my intention was only "graphical" because my english is very poor to describe such maneuvers in a more technical way.

 

Range, speed, values are not depicted well in those pics, and i think in it´s original use it was not the intention to do so. It seems more like draws, not real manual schemes. So my intention was only show maneuvers in a graphical way, like the Su-33 video pulling so much AoA.

 

And what´s the problem in turning off the AoA-G limiter before entering combat, and then get centered in flying using HOTAS? It´s so difficult for a trained pilot?

 

 

And thanks for thinking for me what´s my intentions or inferences. I´m not able to do it myself.

Edited August 12, 2013 by Esac_mirmidon

[lunaticfringe]

I´m spanish not swedish. So "compatriot" ? It´s so funny when somebody post something about some plane automatically you are never more a forum member, you are a country supporter of specific ideological stuff.

 

Compatriot has a second definition- that of colleague; it's synonymous with much more. You've actually attempted to provide data (albeit faulty) that would seemingly assist Tek's argument, were it not for the realities of what was presented.

 

The pics i´ve posted are only examples of maneuvers, not the holly byble. i´m not pretending to take this pics as an absolute truth of nothing, my intention was only "graphical" because my english is very poor to describe such maneuvers in a more technical way.

 

Range, speed, values are not depicted well in those pics, and i think in it´s original use it was not the intention to do so. It seems more like draws, not real manual schemes. So my intention was only show maneuvers in a graphical way, like the Su-33 video pulling so much AoA.

 

If the original use wasn't to denote a scale of separation, what was the point of the gradations in the first place?

 

This is a funny place: find an image with a scale, but don't include it, and people go crazy (as has taken place in the missile threads) because "it's not useful". Here we have an image with scale, and you're saying that it's likely not indicative of anything.

 

How about this then: what's your source for the image? Gordon book? Jane's? Schiffer? Midland? Website? Let's look to what *their* purpose was, and keep in mind that it was indicative of something rather than nothing (some attempt to give context), otherwise the scales wouldn't have been there.

 

It doesn't actually matter what *you're* taking them for- what matters is that they infer something that negates the underlying premise being made. The solution to Cobra/not to Cobra/defend against Cobra is right there- it amounts to "under these terms you *might* get a potential shot, but everything else is useless if the numbers don't match". And it may not even work under *those* terms for a given airframe based on available radial G at the unknown speed.

 

And what´s the problem in turning off the AoA-G limiter before entering combat, and then get centered in flying using HOTAS? It´s so difficult for a trained pilot?

 

What makes you believe that the pilot will always have the choice before engagement starts?

 

LPI/IRST shot, weapon may or may not ever go active- and if it does, the only indication that the pilot has that something is going wrong is a response on their RWR gear or MAWS. At that point, his head has to be out of the cockpit attempting to sight the weapon or threat- not feeling around the cockpit for a switch. Depending on fuel and loadout, flipping the switch without a jettison is certain death for both the pilot and airframe, and he may not have the option to do both based on the time factor- yet the switch was on for a specific reason to begin with.

 

And thanks for thinking for me what´s my intentions or inferences. I´m not able to do it myself.

 

Then what's with the sarc'ing with the "Great"s?

 

"Oh yeah, trained pilot doesn't know how to use his plane. Great. Trained pilot doesn't know how to flip a switch. Great."

 

But nah, man: you're not dropping sarcasm- you're telling us how much fun it sounds.

[Exorcet]

Sorry for this poor translation.

 

 

НАСУ its the automatic guide ground based system. It could take control of the Su-27 flight guiding in automatic mode in a interception course. Also this system can take control of the Su-27 radar in automatic mode. ( the pilot don´t need to control de radar ).

The ИПВ is the right MFD. БП mode is when the own fighter use his sensors taking in count the data transmited by HACY post. ( instead of an automatic guiding by HACY system with his own data from ground stations).

 

I really hope that for the DCS Fighters (doubt it will happen for FC3), a good deal of offboard systems are modeled. It may have to happen incrementally like AFM missile and ATC, but I think it should have a pretty high priority. Right now the aircraft themselves are spot on, but we're missing a few bits of how they're actually used in combat.

[johnv2pt0]

This switch

 

 

Up and Down position ( ON - OFF)

 

If a fighter pilot can´t move one switch up and down and pull the stick, better do something else than flying.

 

And you don´t need to turn off the AoA-G´s limiter a second before, you can turn off whenever you want.

 

So beeing able to reach 120º-160º or unlimited AoA it´s not good or better than limited to 24º or 26º because you loose control of the plane. Great.

 

And a fighter pilot, well trained, don´t know how to use his own aircraft getting confused because he needs to select switches and push buttons. Great.

 

Thanks for the pic, it's good to know. That being said your follow on commentary proves my point exactly. I'm reading here that you know a lot about the SU-27 manuals/systems...correct me if I'm wrong. Are you a SU-27 pilot? Spent any time pulling G's? If you have let us know...if not, then what you "think" happens doesn't really matter because as has been stated before your guess is as good as anyone else's.

 

I'm not saying that to poke your eye or anything, I'm saying it because their is a gap in the operational side of the house in this thread. That's not in itself a bad thing...pilots know flying a lot better than the ins and outs of systems, and engineers the opposite. However, you need to realize that there is a difference between what goes on paper and what happens in the real world.

 

Operating that switch, for example, is a VERY simple thing to do according to you. Flipping it off before a fight...sure very easy. Turning it off whilst pulling Gs...it becomes harder. Doing that while your life is on the line...even harder. See how there are three very similar toggle switches right next to that AoA limiter? Do you think pilots are perfect? Think that under all that stress and violent movements in the cockpit a pilot could possible flip the wrong switch? The answer is yes in case you don't know.

 

Do a little research on how real life humans deal with the rigors of air to air combat. Look up terms like "helmet fire" and "tunnel vision" or "target fixation." You think it's implausible that a pilot faced with, let's say, two options might choose the wrong in that split second he has to make it? How many training hours do they get these days? How much of that amount are they dedicating to dogfighting? ...not all of it! And even experienced pilots make mistakes.

 

And then there's the part about the switch in the first place. I'm not familiar with Russian training, tips, or tactics on how to operate the 27, so who knows, maybe turning it off before a brawl is common, but I doubt it. WHY is there an AoA limiter in the first place? Because it's something that can get you in trouble (dead) a heck of a lot more than it can save you. Highly maneuverable airframes are by definition more unstable. Do some crazy stuff in a 172 and the plane will practically fly itself out of it. Do it in an aerobatic plane and there are fifty different ways you can put yourself in an unrecoverable situation. That's the price you pay for that extra maneuverability...and the reason for things like AoA limiters.

 

And then there are other aspects of flight powered in jet engines like the possibility of compressor stall. Engines don't like it when the relative air is going the wrong direction...Can these engines do it? Obviously yes but there is still the risk of crapping an engine. Do you want to plan on doing that in a life or death dogfight? And compressor stall is just one aspect...what about g limitations on the missile systems themselves...etc etc.

 

By your statements it is clear you don't understand what happens in the cockpit when flying an airplane like this. Assumptions you're making about the ease of flying and the infallibility of pilots are no doubt based off of fighter pilot propaganda and playing simulations like DCS.

 

Not trying to rag on anyone, just trying to get people to look at the usefulness of maneuvers like the cobra in a different light.

[lunaticfringe]

Wish I'd held back that earlier rep, cause that's deserving.

[FlankerNation]

Sorry for this poor translation.

 

 

НАСУ its the automatic guide ground based system. It could take control of the Su-27 flight guiding in automatic mode in a interception course. Also this system can take control of the Su-27 radar in automatic mode. ( the pilot don´t need to control de radar ).

The ИПВ is the right MFD. БП mode is when the own fighter use his sensors taking in count the data transmited by HACY post. ( instead of an automatic guiding by HACY system with his own data from ground stations).

 

 

In this pic we can se the commanders fighter "1" without the big circle in the bottom (only the little "friendly circle IFF) and three wingmen. Also we can see three sections with four fighters each "2-3-4" with a 4 in a circle ( number of fighters per section)

Also the circles at the bottom are friendly ones, the triangles at the bottom are enemies and the V symbol at the bottom are unidentified targets. The - at the bottom ar radar followed targets.

 

This complete MFD tactical information is showed ONLY on the commander´s and sections leaders MFD.

 

 

Similar info than the commander´s MFD but this case on the leader´s section. The only change is the fighters leader numeral of the second section "1" , and the commander´s formation numeral "1"

 

 

Wingman MFD. The wingmen don´t see a global depict of all sections in this pic, only tactical info about they own section wingmen and leader.

 

With more time i can translate the Datalink chapter from the Su-27SK manual. taking in count that is for export Su-27 variant. Russian equipment could be more advance but more or less the functionality is the same, also the tactical representation.

 

Wow really Esac_mirmidon ! Really ED has downgraded flankers in the series. Thanks for letting us Flankers Fans know what this jet is capable of even in its earlier variants.

 

Thanks you... :')

[FlankerNation]

I was going through this post and found out that FC3 flankers don't do cobra's and on the other can't use Smart A/G weapons... I m a bit surprised about this that why didn't ED upgraded them ? at least to some modern variants ?

 

Anyway this is the case I should wait for Eurofighter or some other country jet module, really don't like playing with Western jet thinking they are the best. Big fan of Flanker I wish someone could make one module for a modern flanker.

[Teknetinium]

Actually, it *was* about the Su-27, until the OP asked about the Cobra, to which you brought an opinion. Others brought more informed opinions on the subject. OP mentioned the F-15. The cycle began.

 

Me- I then not only bring in a more nuanced opinion on the subject of ACM than yours, I invited *both* types to get their full performance capabilities under the AFM- Su-27 AND F-15, which- last time I checked is in accordance with this concept you continually espouse- "equality".

 

You then proceed to call the discussion of dynamics against employment of the Cobra (by GG, Pilotasso, Skate, and myself) the workings of an "F-15 mafia". Meanwhile, your compatriot mirmidon quotes a couple of pretty pictures that don't actually say what he thinks they say, and he fixates on the wrong aspect of the response- that of a switch, versus the need for a more expansive margin of separation required for a shot by the R-73/HMS combination versus that needed for a "lesser" weapon; were either of you really worth the time, you'd have grasped that.

 

Now you want to claim that I've only brought the matter of the F-15 having an unrealistic AoA limiter to the conversation?

 

Tek- I've got to tell you- not only does your reading comprehension fail to pass muster, but you're a hypocrite. The fact that you are completely incapable of admitting that someone is advocating pluses for both aircraft in the same statement as a way of proving a point (that the Cobra isn't as strong as you wish it were, and an equally-realistically performing Eagle can show this to be true) fundamentally proves that you wouldn't know or understand the concept of "equality" where it concerns the idea of realism if it were an AIM-7 shoved up your can. You don't believe in realism, and you don't believe in equality- you're what you accuse others of being, yet lack the intellectual honesty to admit it.

 

And the fact that you have repeatedly quoted me wholesale calling for what you espouse to prove the point is the height of irony.

 

But that's okay- given the evidence, I wouldn't expect you to catch on to that, either. :lol:

 

You have to accept that I dont agree whit your nonsence that you dont have any documentation on. Take your F-15 mafia attetude to anothere thread. you have been insulting people since you started.

Edited August 12, 2013 by Teknetinium

[FlankerNation]

I agree with this Guy Teknetinium speaks right

 

As it is now in FC3, Russian birds have to fly whit handicap in all departments.

 

I agree with you pal... I m sorry to say but you really have to make an effort to play with flanker in multiplayer which is a bit frustrating for us Flanker fans.

 

Every ones knows the capabilities of this jet.

 

Really what I expect from Su-27 module addition to the current features that this jet have in FC3 is :

 

1. Cobra move (a must have which is signature to this awesome plane which also have advantage in close dogfight )

2. In-flight Refueling ( like in the old days flanker dos version)

3. Sead strike capability ( like in the old days flanker dos version)

4. Anti-ships strike capability ( like in the old days flanker dos version)

5. Pinpoint Strike capabilities ( like in the old days flanker dos version)

 

If you see and learn from the first version of Flanker till now ED is downgrading the jet in its simulation instead of improving it ?

 

Please ED I hope you understand what the fans want ? the flankers fans I mean. But it seems that ED is more interested making Western fans happy.