what to expect from Su-27 module?

[Steph]

@Dio

 

Viva the SU27 S and his AFM with...Avionics too...

 

You know, it's cool what ED want to do that for us, the simmers!... :)

SU27SM is secret-industrie-Russian military for instant...so what?

 

You prefer a SU27 SM making medium core or SU27 S ultra hight fidelity sim ?

I don't want to play at Starwars... :D

[Pelmo]

As someone who speaks zero Italian, I thought it was a beautiful turn of phrase which got your point across perfectly, irrespective of language :D

 

 

 

I agree :)

[Pelmo]

@Dio

 

Viva the SU27 S and his AFM with...Avionics too...

 

You know, it's cool what ED want to do that for us, the simmers!... :)

SU27SM is secret-industrie-Russian military for instant...so what?

 

You prefer a SU27 SM making medium core or SU27 S ultra hight fidelity sim ?

I don't want to play at Starwars... :D

 

It is clear that if I have to choose between these two solutions choose the latter.

[FlankerNation]

Same here I will go for su27sm or later....

 

Again AFM with Avionics but no Smart A/G, R-VV family missiles, TWS and EOS .....its better to have an Su-25t go against the eagles....:noexpression:

[Pilotasso]

^^^^ No exaggeration of course :D

[volk]

25+ years of Vestnik Protivovozdushnoy Oborony from the early 70's up into the mid-90s, never discussing a change in operational employment for the new types- merely new *maneuvers*. Accessible here:

 

www.dtic.mil

 

If you choose to dig, there's also fun stuff from the era from Aviatsiia i Kosmonavtika, Krasnaya Zvezda, and the like.

 

Soviet type resource manuals on the F-14 and F-15. You can access those here:

 

www.avialogs.com

 

One can cumulatively research these documents and find volumes of information by which to not form a "humble opinion", but instead make informed and factual statements. Otherwise, you'd be stating that the PVO and VVS were feeding their people a line at an official level in the very documents which first order conversations were to be had concerning training, tactics, and doctrine, rendering them all mere propaganda.

 

So, volk- what have *you* got to contrast these facts authored by the Soviets themselves (besides a hollow insinuation)?

lol, how many words and no one direct link, where wrote exactly what you say. No direct links, because you never see this.

Su-27 was made as air superior fighter - that was soviet answer to F-15. Any superior fighter - US, or Russian, or French etc must to fight with any air threat in 1 vs 1 situation according to tactical instructions.

Я никогда, нигде не читал ничего подобного - чтобы в СССР или России кто-нибудь считал, что 1 Су-27 не может сражаться с 1 F-15. Его с самого начала создавали таким, чтобы он мог сражаться, а как оно на самом деле - только бой может показать.

Edited August 20, 2013 by volk

[Maximus_G]

Without going into the newer aircraft, Su-27S vs F-15C any year is already unfair to the Su-27S. I know you don't see this in the game, but the EW battlefield is not at all modeled - you either outnumber or ambush the eagles, or you suffer through having an electronically inferior aircraft in BVR. I wouldn't call that fair. This all without involving 'extra assets'.

EW assets degrade BVR capabilities towards WVR, where Su could well enjoy its maneurability and off-boresight shooting advantage. For example, remember the time when F-15's had a hard time intercepting Bulgarian Su-25's carrying some oldschool EW stuff.

In 2006.

[Pelmo]

Balance is not a goal.

 

Excuse me?! Did I miss something?!

This is your opinion and I respect that, but I certainly do not share it.

 

What is a goal for you?

I'll tell you what I think. For me, the balance of forces in the battlefield, is a key component in a game or simulator. Because it helps to increase the fun.

Each of us can improve only if the face is a worthy opponent and not with an impossible opponent. If you know from the beginning, that you have no or little chance against your opponent, tell me where's the fun? The challenge is nice if there is balance between the parties. And like watching a F1 Grand Prix between machines of different generations. The race result would be obvious, right?

 

 

Su-27SM uses basically the same radar as Su-27S. Regardless of whether it carries R-77 or not, a DCS F-15C will still be an unfair opponent to face.

 

 

I am not entirely agree with your opinion.

 

Give me a chance to have a fighter like the Su-27SM or Su-33 than capable of long range operation, a more powerful radar than the Mig-29S, the ability to launch active guided missiles R-77, which allows me to run once launched, evasive action maneuvers (which is not a detail of little importance ..) and finally give me the EOS system and TWS fully functional and will be able to put you in serious trouble your F-15C or F-18C.

I forgot, of course, in the event that I do wrong BVR tactic and I am obliged to enter into dogfight, I would like that my airplane is able to perform the maneuver of the "cobra".

But I'm sure that the ED will implement this feature, right?! Otherwise, we pilots of the Russian aircraft we get angry!;)

 

Another reason why I prefer the SM version is the ability to perform SEAD missions.

Sure, you can do with the Su-25T but with a limited range, a very low cruising speed and hope to never encounter an enemy, otherwise ..

See, this is not funny and makes the game unattractive.

At least the ED did the version of the Su-25TM, so maybe a chance to defend myself being able to mount the R-77 missiles. Who knows, maybe one day the miracle will happen..

[lunaticfringe]

lol, how many words and no one direct link, where wrote exactly what you say. No direct links, because you never see this.

 

"No direct links"? What, are you incapable of running a simple search on the term Vestnik Protivovozdushnoy Oborony?

 

Or are you scared of what you might find in THEIR own words?

 

Here- let me give you *120* ascension (document) numbers as an index so you can get off your arse. You'll have to excuse me as I choose not to reread every single document (and more- that's less than a third of what I've read; primarily 80's and 90's materials rather than going back into the 60's and 70's) to build a citation list for you.

DTIC ADA Search List.pdf

[GGTharos]

Nope, I don't remember that time - was the EW stuff a factor? Was this some exercise?

 

While the theory was indeed that EW assets will degrade stuff into WVR, it was a nice theory and that's about it. EW adds to the mess, and it's certainly dangerous, but guess what - some ECCM is better than others, especially when you're equipped with more power to handle it. The passivesensor capabilities of an F-15 are nothing to sneeze at either, though as far as IRSTs go, it only got one recently.

 

EW assets degrade BVR capabilities towards WVR, where Su could well enjoy its maneurability and off-boresight shooting advantage. For example, remember the time when F-15's had a hard time intercepting Bulgarian Su-25's carrying some oldschool EW stuff.

In 2006.

[lunaticfringe]

I'll tell you what I think. For me, the balance of forces in the battlefield, is a key component in a game or simulator. Because it helps to increase the fun.

 

"Simulators" by their very nature- as an attempt to recreate reality in a non-physical form, are not intended to be "fun" as a primary goal; *realism* is the first order of business.

 

But this is the argument that goes round and round- "we want 99th% realism, we want maximum fun, and we want maximum balance".

 

With high performance equipment there's an old rule: cheap, reliable, capable - pick two.

 

With software, it's similar, but different: realism, balance, fun - pick *one*.

 

Real life isn't balanced. For those who like realism, perceived balance based on falsehoods aren't fun, and vice versa.

 

So, you want realism, or do you want balance? Be honest, but then don't tell me you want one, then come back here griping about the opposite when it doesn't suit you.

[GGTharos]

Excuse me?! Did I miss something?!

 

You missed the fact that DCSW is not about balance. Modules are not chosen to create balance, they are chosen according to what ED can model - 3rd parties have their own criteria, too.

 

I am not entirely agree with your opinion.

 

Give me a chance to have a fighter like the Su-27SM or Su-33 than capable of long range operation, a more powerful radar than the Mig-29S, the ability to launch active guided missiles R-77, which allows me to run once launched, evasive action maneuvers (which is not a detail of little importance ..) and finally give me the EOS system and TWS fully functional and will be able to put you in serious trouble your F-15C or F-18C.

How are you going to shoot at anything with a blind radar? (Also note: Old F-18 radar was compromised, I bet a russian jammer could jam the daylights out of it :) )

 

I would like that my airplane is able to perform the maneuver of the "cobra".

But I'm sure that the ED will implement this feature, right?! Otherwise, we pilots of the Russian aircraft we get angry!;)

This should be a feature of AFM. I believe they will do it, unless there are problems with modeling it ... are there? I don't know, but I would expect that AFM is not AFM without this ability :)

 

 

Another reason why I prefer the SM version is the ability to perform SEAD missions.

Maybe as a very secondary role. Good SEAD planes usually have very specialized equipment for this job, or are very very very modern.

 

At least the ED did the version of the Su-25TM, so maybe a chance to defend myself being able to mount the R-77 missiles. Who knows, maybe one day the miracle will happen..

You shouldn't even have R-77's (Russia didn't buy many, if any), but carrying on with this thought, you shouldn't have a chance to do squat with those R-77's. You'd be out-detected and launched on before your radar had a chance to do anything useful in terms of air to air. That's in terms of realism of course - which is exactly why you won't see any Su-25TMs flying around with R-77's onboard in RL.

Also, Su-25TM is some sort of experimental platform, it does not really exist in one single form, and there are only a few such aircraft around. Su-25SM is more appropriate.

 

Again, if you want balance, give everyone the same plane with the same weapons.

 

If you want realism, live with the fact that the plane of your choice will be inferior to the other plane, to the extent that ED can simulate the differences accurately - and if your chosen plane is inferior, adapt tactics accordingly. The Soviets had to do it, so can you.

[Teknetinium]

You missed the fact that DCSW is not about balance. Modules are not chosen to create balance, they are chosen according to what ED can model - 3rd parties have their own criteria, too.

 

How are you going to shoot at anything with a blind radar? (Also note: Old F-18 radar was compromised, I bet a russian jammer could jam the daylights out of it :) )

 

This should be a feature of AFM. I believe they will do it, unless there are problems with modeling it ... are there? I don't know, but I would expect that AFM is not AFM without this ability :)

 

 

Maybe as a very secondary role. Good SEAD planes usually have very specialized equipment for this job, or are very very very modern.

 

You shouldn't even have R-77's (Russia didn't buy many, if any), but carrying on with this thought, you shouldn't have a chance to do squat with those R-77's. You'd be out-detected and launched on before your radar had a chance to do anything useful in terms of air to air. That's in terms of realism of course - which is exactly why you won't see any Su-25TMs flying around with R-77's onboard in RL.

Also, Su-25TM is some sort of experimental platform, it does not really exist in one single form, and there are only a few such aircraft around. Su-25SM is more appropriate.

 

Again, if you want balance, give everyone the same plane with the same weapons.

 

If you want realism, live with the fact that the plane of your choice will be inferior to the other plane, to the extent that ED can simulate the differences accurately - and if your chosen plane is inferior, adapt tactics accordingly. The Soviets had to do it, so can you.

 

GG and lunaticfringe I see your point, but when you are talking about total air superiority you need to bring in F-22 or F-35 into the theatre. And if you believe that we should fight F-35 /F-22 in starfighters and Mig-21s thats fine. But In reality you would face a EF-2000 or Su-35.

 

You are talking about the advantages F-15 had when Su-27 and Mig-29 was still in development. With time Su-27 and Mig-29 have steadily outdated F-15 by getting similar missiles and systems while having edge in WVR, F-15 just could not change the aerodynamics.

 

Back then F-15A was like F-22 is today but Russians responded by making Su-27. It seems the story is repeating itself while this time T-50 have even bigger time frame between F-22 then Su-27 had to F-15.

 

Unfortunately F-22 glory days will be over as well when we have comparable aircraft.

 

Today there a plenty comparable aircrafts to F-15E, but not to F-22/F-35. That where the advantage is. Don't mix up F-22 with F-15E.

 

If we have Su-27 and F-15 from same generation I believe it is a fair fight, same as finished t-50 would be against F-22.

 

GG if you want to fight as it would be in RL the ods are on your side. 2xF-15 vs 1xSu-27S, 2xF-22 vs 1xSu-35, 7 carriers vs 1, Should we start count nukes as well.

If we play by your claims, F-15 would be outnumbered by Mig-21s whit retired pilots in them. Thats not how I would measure pilots or aircraft capabilities where F-15 would probably score 5 to 1. GG who is willing to get killed 5 times before getting the chance to score a kill. Even Teknetinium is not that stubborn :)

Edited August 21, 2013 by Teknetinium

[Exorcet]

It's an idea and there are many good ideas but the more complex you make a mission the more DCS 1.2.5 stability issues come into play and right now I have a permanent stinking headache with tweaking missions to suit DisConnect Simulator. :)

Certainly, just one pop up SA-10 or SA-11 must be do able without too much ill effect?

 

IADS are long overdue. I already prefer flying from Batumi in the mission you describe (and I've never played). Add random SAM threats along the ingress route and I could fly into Krasnodar from the US mainland.

 

GG and lunaticfringe I see your point, but when you are talking about total air superiority you need to bring in F-22 or F-35 into the theatre. And if you believe that we should fight F-35 /F-22 in starfighters and Mig-21s thats fine. But In reality you would face a EF-2000 or Su-35.

 

The reality is, there are a lot of possibilities. F-22 vs MiG-21 is perfectly reasonable. In fact I'd like to fly the MiG's in that scenario nearly as much as I'd like to fly the F-22. Would make for an interesting change of pace.

Edited August 21, 2013 by Exorcet

[Maximus_G]

Nope, I don't remember that time - was the EW stuff a factor? Was this some exercise?

 

While the theory was indeed that EW assets will degrade stuff into WVR, it was a nice theory and that's about it. EW adds to the mess, and it's certainly dangerous, but guess what - some ECCM is better than others, especially when you're equipped with more power to handle it. The passivesensor capabilities of an F-15 are nothing to sneeze at either, though as far as IRSTs go, it only got one recently.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=20676&page=5 Intercept capabilities effectively degraded in a simple local scenario involving the mighty F-15 and easy targets.

[GGTharos]

The USAF loads sanitized software for exercises, they never bring all their secret stuff. That includes ECCM, since it would give away methods.

 

The story is interesting, but meaningless. There are a lot of things the APG-63 can do to and with a jammer, not the least of which is not giving that jammer a clue as to wether it's tracking or not.

 

I also find it interesting that Bulgaria actually mounted and used jammers - I find this contrived, since most air forces sanitize everything in such exercises.

 

I like AirTito, and it's not like the APG-63 is immune to ECM, but the story smells ;)

[Maximus_G]

That story came out from at least 2 different private sources in Bulgaria. The other source cited American pilots, so you can dig )

The other question is how it all can be modelled in the game, changing the point of view on a "fair fight" question.

The story is interesting, but meaningless. There are a lot of things the APG-63 can do to and with a jammer, not the least of which is not giving that jammer a clue as to wether it's tracking or not.

At the other hand, the ECM system used is not modern, to say the least.

Edited August 21, 2013 by Maximus_G

[Weta43]

Either stirring the pot, or being all philosophical about it - I'm not sure which, but it seems to me - People want what people want.

 

Some people want the best US gear they can - from patriotism, interest in the technical side of it, aesthetics, whatever ... & if it makes for a one sided fight - well that's either 'good and as the world should be' in that it reinforces their world view, or it's beside the point.

 

Some people want the best Russian gear they can - from patriotism (anti-patriotism), interest in the technical side of it, aesthetics, whatever ... & some of them are sure this will lead to a one sided fight - which is'good and as the world should be' & reinforces their world view, and others see it as beside the point.

 

And some people want to pick and chose the equipment from both sides that leads to the most interesting 'gameplay' - where the skill of the pilot is more important in determining the outcome of an engagement than the coalition that the end up flying on or the particular plane they jump into.

 

It seems to me that the first 2 speak the same language, but want diametrically opposed results, and so understand each other, but disagree about what they should see when they hit 'Fly', while the third group speaks another language, where 'fair', 'interesting', 'fun' and a whole swag of other ideas have meanings that are completely unintelligable to the first 2 groups, and what they want to see in the sim seems a negation of the 'reality' the other two groups want portrayed.

 

There is no mutually intelligable resolution to the argument.

 

Personaly - I'm in camp 3.

 

 

Changing the subject slightly, with regards to the '1 vs 1 F-15C always kills Su-27S' comments...

 

I seem to remember that in the battle to get the F-22 funded, the US published (the airforce or M.D. itself) a study saying that with 2 good pilots of equal skill, 1 on 1, the Su-27S with R-27ER had the advantage over the F-15, because the additional range of the R-27ER (apparently they hadn't read enough of this forum to know that it has no range advantage) meant they could force a single F-15 pilot defensive & then take advantage of that.

 

My memory of the response to the study was that, while people were prepared to accept that 1 on 1 this was true, as soon as there were 2 or more Eagles, the advantage swithced to them, and the Su-27S needed a clear numerical advantage to overwhelm the eagles.

[Night]

Back then F-15A was like F-22 is today but Russians responded by making Su-27. It seems the story is repeating itself while this time T-50 have even bigger time frame between F-22 then Su-27 had to F-15.

 

Unfortunately F-22 glory days will be over as well when we have comparable aircraft.

I would have to disagree with that. While I do not doubt that Sukhoi has the wits enough to develop a fighter that could post a danger to the F-22, I highly doubt that the Russian Air Force could actually afford it.

 

We just don't possess enough information on what a serial-production T-50 will look like to make ANY assumptions regarding it's performance against an already combat-ready F-22.

 

The T-50 cost currently is about $50,000,000 USD.

 

The F-22's current cost is around $150,000,000 USD.

 

I think Sukhoi has to be cutting corners if they expect to actually make a 5th generation fighter for 50 million dollars.

Edited August 21, 2013 by Night

[GGTharos]

That story came out from at least 2 different private sources in Bulgaria. The other source cited American pilots, so you can dig )

 

I talk to USAF people almost every day. In any case, they'll all tell you they never bring their most interesting stuff to these exercises.

 

The other question is how it all can be modelled in the game, changing the point of view on a "fair fight" question.

 

The only problem with that is people yelling at each other about who's ECM/ECCM is better :) And it still wouldn't make any sort of fair fight.

 

At the other hand, the ECM system used is not modern, to say the least.

 

Which is why the story is funny, to say the least.

[GGTharos]

Ding. There is a little more to it, Russian electronic industry is behind the US one, so the components would be playing catch up, but the difference that this would make, with the components and their performance being classified, can't be easily estimated by us.

 

In any case, if they had money to throw at research they could certainly catch up, at least eventually.

 

So yep, quite right - the T-50 was developed with a budget in mind, just as the F-22 was ... except that, for the F-22, that budget ended up going elsewhere.

 

I would have to disagree with that. While I do not doubt that Sukhoi has the wits enough to develop a fighter that could post a danger to the F-22, I highly doubt that the Russian Air Force could actually afford it.

 

We just don't possess enough information on what a serial-production T-50 will look like to make ANY assumptions regarding it's performance against an already combat-ready F-22.

 

The T-50 cost currently is about $50,000,000 USD.

 

The F-22's current cost is around $150,000,000 USD.

 

I think Sukhoi has to be cutting corners if they expect to actually make a 5th generation fighter for 50 million dollars.

[GGTharos]

Yeah, and then you read the F-15's -34 from '88 (with heavily classified sections missing, BTW), and a few supplrmentary things for the TEWS and the radar, and the Su-27SK manual, and you realize that 1v1, that Su-27S better be ambushing the eagle or at the very least, it had better be starting WVR in a fair setup, because a BVR setup will be unfair.

 

Such has also been the opinion of RAAF pilots, UK pilots, and USAF pilots that I've spoken with. Some peeps on the Russian side expressed similar feelings - that doesn't mean they didn't work on tactics to defeat F-15's (and other planes of course, but since we're talking F-15's...) ... but aside from trying to get raptor funding, combat exchange ratios quoted by USAF (rare and difficult to find quotes, too) have always held the F-15 vs Su-27 exchange ratio at 6:1 or 4:1.

 

Real life F-15 exercises had F-15's doing point defense in 2v8 scenarios, 4 fighters, 4 strikers. I'd say that says something about the USAF's confidence in their aircraft and that was before AMRAAM - noting of course, that point defense may be augmented by SAMs etc.

 

I seem to remember that in the battle to get the F-22 funded, the US published (the airforce or M.D. itself) a study saying that with 2 good pilots of equal skill, 1 on 1, the Su-27S with R-27ER had the advantage over the F-15, because the additional range of the R-27ER (apparently they hadn't read enough of this forum to know that it has no range advantage) meant they could force a single F-15 pilot defensive & then take advantage of that.

 

My memory of the response to the study was that, while people were prepared to accept that 1 on 1 this was true, as soon as there were 2 or more Eagles, the advantage swithced to them, and the Su-27S needed a clear numerical advantage to overwhelm the eagles.

[Flying Penguin]

Either stirring the pot, or being all philosophical about it - I'm not sure which, but it seems to me - People want what people want.

 

Some people want the best US gear they can - from patriotism, interest in the technical side of it, aesthetics, whatever ... & if it makes for a one sided fight - well that's either 'good and as the world should be' in that it reinforces their world view, or it's beside the point.

 

Some people want the best Russian gear they can - from patriotism (anti-patriotism), interest in the technical side of it, aesthetics, whatever ... & some of them are sure this will lead to a one sided fight - which is'good and as the world should be' & reinforces their world view, and others see it as beside the point.

 

And some people want to pick and chose the equipment from both sides that leads to the most interesting 'gameplay' - where the skill of the pilot is more important in determining the outcome of an engagement than the coalition that the end up flying on or the particular plane they jump into.

 

It seems to me that the first 2 speak the same language, but want diametrically opposed results, and so understand each other, but disagree about what they should see when they hit 'Fly', while the third group speaks another language, where 'fair', 'interesting', 'fun' and a whole swag of other ideas have meanings that are completely unintelligable to the first 2 groups, and what they want to see in the sim seems a negation of the 'reality' the other two groups want portrayed.

 

There is no mutually intelligable resolution to the argument.

 

Personaly - I'm in camp 3.

 

 

Changing the subject slightly, with regards to the '1 vs 1 F-15C always kills Su-27S' comments...

 

I seem to remember that in the battle to get the F-22 funded, the US published (the airforce or M.D. itself) a study saying that with 2 good pilots of equal skill, 1 on 1, the Su-27S with R-27ER had the advantage over the F-15, because the additional range of the R-27ER (apparently they hadn't read enough of this forum to know that it has no range advantage) meant they could force a single F-15 pilot defensive & then take advantage of that.

 

My memory of the response to the study was that, while people were prepared to accept that 1 on 1 this was true, as soon as there were 2 or more Eagles, the advantage swithced to them, and the Su-27S needed a clear numerical advantage to overwhelm the eagles.

 

You forgot camp 4, happy to fly whatever as long as it's accurate to the N'th degree....

 

:)

[volk]

combat exchange ratios quoted by USAF (rare and difficult to find quotes, too) have always held the F-15 vs Su-27 exchange ratio at 6:1 or 4:1.

US view on subject, not Soviet or Russian.

Before Vietnam action they thought that AIM-7 Pk is 0,7 or like this. Everyone make mistake.

Edited August 21, 2013 by volk

[volk]

"No direct links"? What, are you incapable of running a simple search on the term Vestnik Protivovozdushnoy Oborony?

 

Or are you scared of what you might find in THEIR own words?

 

Here- let me give you *120* ascension (document) numbers as an index so you can get off your arse. You'll have to excuse me as I choose not to reread every single document (and more- that's less than a third of what I've read; primarily 80's and 90's materials rather than going back into the 60's and 70's) to build a citation list for you.

You never find in this or other Russian sources something like this

1 F-15 = 2,14 (5,65, 12,76...) Su-27

or "to defeat 2 mighty F-15 we need 7 our poor Su-27s" with S-300 coverage. Nonsense :) May be in US estimation, or US exercises, not in Soviet or Russian. Or give some link to Russian words about it.