what to expect from Su-27 module?

[FlankerNation]

in google typed "su-27SM" and went to images.

What i found in less then 5 minutes;

 

 

 

 

 

Surely, you can't make an fully fledged DCS SU-27SM out of this, though it does show you can find more about the MFD's and what they display to the pilot then that first picture GG posted.

 

So an SM variant at FC3 SU-25/SU-25T level may well be possible.

And if were lucky maybe even some kind of intermediate FC-DCS level module.

 

 

ps, to GGTharos and SiThSpAwN

Thank's for your reply's to my earlier post, fair enough i guess.

 

~S~

 

 

I MEAN WOW !!!! IT REALLY BE A WET DREAM TO SEE THIS IN DCS WORLD !!! :cry: made me cry !

[FlankerNation]

z3PhC1NlF0k

 

sooo, how much does it cost to get inside of this?

 

 

Wow ! in this post I came ! :joystick:

[FlankerNation]

Wow

 

A very informative documentary on this famous bird:

 

[YOUTUBE]<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/EkiB8IH6QVk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/YOUTUBE]

 

 

http://youtu.be/EkiB8IH6QVk?t=20m34s

[Teknetinium]

Everyone gets frustrated now and again, the difference is knowing how to convey that frustration in an adult manner.

 

 

LOL, do you feel good about yourself when you help people to not show their frustration? It seems you really don't care about Su-27, why do you even reply to this posts. Its not enough whit spamming aim-120, you are starting to spam threads with your nonsense as well.

If F-15 had as much attention as Su-27 in FC3 those who fly F-15 would be frustrated even more. PLZ, F-15 pilots were complaining because of blinking jammer, saying its not fear I can not take HOJ shots, it seems some just don't know how to play by same rules. At the moment its BIAS BS in FC3 where Su-27 doesnt work.

 

I can feel the shit being in the air for some time now, like 9 months. People do get frustrated when they dont have their favorite aircraft working. Im not talking about the bias approach that I feel there is. The Su-27 aircraft's do not work LOL. And we just sitt and wait while you enjoy your F-15. Thats not what I paid for, I did not pay for having F-15 working but not Su-27!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:censored:ED.

 

I know that DCS have bigger problems then Su-27s EOS, TWS but we did purchase FC3 and not F-15 update.

Edited August 18, 2013 by Teknetinium

[Pilotasso]

Tek stop calling others AMRAAM spammers. It wont do you any good.

 

Respect other community members even those who shoot you down online. Practice sportsmanship.

[Teknetinium]

Tek stop calling others AMRAAM spammers. It wont do you any good.

 

Respect other community members even those who shoot you down online. Practice sportsmanship.

 

Do you feel offended :)Or do you again spamming the thread away from what the real problem is by starting teaching people how to express them selfs.

[Pilotasso]

I held and refrained from teaching others more than you did it appears.

[Teknetinium]

This is what you should face if you want to play by same rules.

Edited August 18, 2013 by Teknetinium

[IvanK]

Tek do you have a HiRes version of the left image ?

[Teknetinium]

Tek do you have a HiRes version of the left image ?

 

Sorry i dont.

[Vecko]

After the video was created, it has decided not to develop the Su-27SM in favor of the Su-27S.

 

Typical...This was so expected!

[Exorcet]

Aye, which is why the seemingly lack of quality/equality control is especially disconcerting. This 'free-for-all-lets-throw-the-kitchen-sink-and-see-what-sticks' approach frankly stinks

The thing is though, it's more than jets that lead to equality.

 

I mean if you want perfect equality, why not just Red or Red all the time? It's happened in real life (Ethiopia vs Eritrea). But I like the asymmetry of Blue vs Red. I'm sure others do too.

 

Online missions should be at least partially asymmetric with Red have home field advantage. Something else that really should be included with AFM fighters or the DCS modules of these fighters is advanced modeling of offboard systems like EWR and AWACS. The Su-27 nested in it's own GCI system should have comparable SA to the F-15 regardless of radar.

 

I think even at the moment, while much is missing, it's possible to have a fair fight between the two sides. The only real complication for Red is that they may need two fighters to work together (Su and MiG) to acquire all the capabilities of the F-15.

[159th_Viper]

The thing is though, it's more than jets that lead to equality.

 

I might have been vague in my original submissions: When I call for Equality/mention the apparent Inequality prevalent, I do not refer to the Jets themselves. Rather, I am referring to the apparent and obvious development trend favouring Western aircraft and neglecting Eastern aircraft.

 

And yes, it's definitely more than Jets that leads to equality, or in this case, inequality. Take the SM as an example: We would have had due regard to the RVV family of ordnance, giving us Reddies a better chance against the UBERAAM's. Alas now we have to rely on the 1980's/Early 1990's tech with the R/ER. Now taking into account that missiles are pretty damned important to a fast-jet, you can see how this hurts just a wee bitty. OK, more than just a wee bitty.......

[Exorcet]

OK, I get you now.

 

Certainly the ER puts Flankers at a disadvantage to F-15's with AMRAAM (C especially). But you still have the MiG and ET's. In a sense, the Su isn't limited to just SARH, unless you want to go buy individual pilot kill count.

 

And the mission can always just be set up such that the F-15 doesn't have AIM-120C for one reason or another, then it's R-77 vs 120B, which are essentially equal. We could possibly also make 1990 missions in the same vein as the 80's missions, only that 1990 was the brief window where the ER was in the field and the 120 wasn't.

[159th_Viper]

OK, I get you now.

 

Certainly the ER puts Flankers at a disadvantage to F-15's with AMRAAM (C especially). But you still have the MiG and ET's. In a sense, the Su isn't limited to just SARH, unless you want to go buy individual pilot kill count.

 

And the mission can always just be set up such that the F-15 doesn't have AIM-120C for one reason or another, then it's R-77 vs 120B, which are essentially equal. We could possibly also make 1990 missions in the same vein as the 80's missions, only that 1990 was the brief window where the ER was in the field and the 120 wasn't.

 

Aye, I hear you :)

 

It's just that having been eating minced beef for years and then been informed that your Fillet Mignon is on order, causing you to salivate involuntarily and copiously until the moment you are informed that the Chef cocked up your steak and that your plate of mince is incoming with added garnish as recompense......

 

Well, the attendant acid reflux sux :D

[Exorcet]

All too true, let's hope the SM makes it in at some point, some how. And then add a Su-35S for good measure.

[Night]

While the R-27ET is effective against newer and unexperienced FC3 pilots, anyone with any amount of skill can easily see the missile coming, turn off their afterburners, and pop off a few flares and the missile is basically going to miss 95% of the time.

 

The R-27ER has similar issues, the launching aircraft must maintain a lock, while the F-15C can pop off an AMRAAM and turn around without having to keep a lock on the enemy A/C the entire time.

 

The first F-15C's came in to existence in 1979, the first AMRAAM's entered service in 1991.

 

The first Su-27SM came in to existence around 2002.

 

If ED is intent on only modeling aircraft in existence in the early 1990's, then I can understand why they wouldn't include the Su-27SM.

[Teknetinium]

While the R-27ET is effective against newer and unexperienced FC3 pilots, anyone with any amount of skill can easily see the missile coming, turn off their afterburners, and pop off a few flares and the missile is basically going to miss 95% of the time.

 

The R-27ER has similar issues, the launching aircraft must maintain a lock, while the F-15C can pop off an AMRAAM and turn around without having to keep a lock on the enemy A/C the entire time.

 

The first F-15C's came in to existence in 1979, the first AMRAAM's entered service in 1991.

 

The first Su-27SM came in to existence around 2002.

 

If ED is intent on only modeling aircraft in existence in the early 1990's, then I can understand why they wouldn't include the Su-27SM.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-35

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-37

 

In 2003 there was secound modernization.

 

"In addition to Su-27 conversions, three production Su-35s were completed in 1996 and delivered to Russian Air Force (VVS) for testing.[20]

During the Su-35's flight test programme, active controls during manoeuvres such as the Pugachev's Cobra and tailslide could not be maintained. The eleventh Su-27M (T10M-11) was built by KnAAPO and delivered in 1995 for the installation of exclusive systems to give it thrust-vectoring capabilities. The resultant Su-37 technology demonstrator made its first flight in April 1996.[21][22] A second Su-35 was modified into an Su-37 in the late 1990s.[23]

In total, 15 airworthy Su-35s (Su-27M) were produced, including an Su-35UB two-seat prototype, along with two static test prototypes.[1][24] The Su-35UB, powered by two modified AL-32FPs with thrust-vectoring nozzles, made its first flight on 7 August 2000. It was demonstrated to South Korea during that country's F-X replacement fighter tender, before becoming an avionics testbed.[25] The original Su-35 never entered serial production due to a lack of funding,[20] and the VVS continued to use its Su-27 fleet. The Su-35's automatic control of canards and the Su-37's thrust-vectoring technology were applied to the Sukhoi Su-30MKI.[26] One of the Su-35s, T10M-10, served as a testbed for the AL-41F1A engine intended for Russia's upcoming fifth-generation jet fighter.[27]"

Edited August 18, 2013 by Teknetinium

[Esac_mirmidon]

Those 90´s Su-35 were very different from actual Su-35S.

 

Same "35" but very different airplane design and capabilities. Sometimes Russian identifications are confusing.

[Pilotasso]

While the R-27ET is effective against newer and unexperienced FC3 pilots, anyone with any amount of skill can easily see the missile coming, turn off their afterburners, and pop off a few flares and the missile is basically going to miss 95% of the time.

 

The R-27ER has similar issues, the launching aircraft must maintain a lock, while the F-15C can pop off an AMRAAM and turn around without having to keep a lock on the enemy A/C the entire time.

 

The first F-15C's came in to existence in 1979, the first AMRAAM's entered service in 1991.

 

The first Su-27SM came in to existence around 2002.

 

If ED is intent on only modeling aircraft in existence in the early 1990's, then I can understand why they wouldn't include the Su-27SM.

 

While you can defeat the R-27ET 95% of the times when you see it launched, 95% of the times you wont see the launch at all. :)

 

Servers were running statistic routines in the background, registered missiles launched and kills and there was a reason why it was a very popular missile.

 

Another reason is because you could effectively fight someone visually at 40km due to graphical issues, and radar modes omissions. You could always poke someone on the eye while he was struggling with the radar to find you.

 

 

Let me tell you a story: Friday I was online fighting this guy down low at 8 miles speeding away, and there was another behind him 18 miles further away and high altitude. The high guy sees me on intercept course and fires an R-27ER at long distance as a bluff.

 

The low guy knows the current F-15 only has one vertical sweep mode (real modern radars can engage both high and low but not in lockon) so he turns right back at me assuming I was now facing the high guy like most people would.

 

Only I was not :), the high guys was further away and I had a few more seconds remaining before having to defend. So as the low guy turns back into me I shot an AMRAAM and switched back to sidewinder as the rate of closure was very high.

 

This kill was perfectly achievable with a SARH missile. In addition it also shows Current F-15 representation in SIM is almost on parity with the flanker.

 

it only takes N+1 Flankers (where N is number of eagles) to succeed in defeating the eagles simply because you cannot monitor more than one bogey on radar if they are at different altitudes when in reality you can. I would have soft locked them both and preoritize the low guy, fired, and then fire at the high guy both. But no. I had to choose one and become blind to the other. The margin to escape was very slim.

 

No magical AMRAAMs at all, only careful calculations makes F-15 pilots survive these limitations.

Edited August 18, 2013 by Pilotasso

[Night]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-35

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-37

 

In 2003 there was secound modernization.

 

"In addition to Su-27 conversions, three production Su-35s were completed in 1996 and delivered to Russian Air Force (VVS) for testing.[20]

During the Su-35's flight test programme, active controls during manoeuvres such as the Pugachev's Cobra and tailslide could not be maintained. The eleventh Su-27M (T10M-11) was built by KnAAPO and delivered in 1995 for the installation of exclusive systems to give it thrust-vectoring capabilities. The resultant Su-37 technology demonstrator made its first flight in April 1996.[21][22] A second Su-35 was modified into an Su-37 in the late 1990s.[23]

In total, 15 airworthy Su-35s (Su-27M) were produced, including an Su-35UB two-seat prototype, along with two static test prototypes.[1][24] The Su-35UB, powered by two modified AL-32FPs with thrust-vectoring nozzles, made its first flight on 7 August 2000. It was demonstrated to South Korea during that country's F-X replacement fighter tender, before becoming an avionics testbed.[25] The original Su-35 never entered serial production due to a lack of funding,[20] and the VVS continued to use its Su-27 fleet. The Su-35's automatic control of canards and the Su-37's thrust-vectoring technology were applied to the Sukhoi Su-30MKI.[26] One of the Su-35s, T10M-10, served as a testbed for the AL-41F1A engine intended for Russia's upcoming fifth-generation jet fighter.[27]"

I am not sure what your point is. I am just saying that the F-15C entered serial production long before the Su-27SM did. Whether or not ED includes the Su-27SM depends on what exact era they are attempting to replicate. The Su-35 never entered serial production.

[Night]

While you can defeat the R-27ET 95% of the times when you see it launched, 95% of the times you wont see the launch at all. :)

I have spent far more time in the Flanker than in the F-15C, but whenever I've had an R-27ET shot off at me, I have never NOT seen it, because I am always carefully looking out for IR or TWS guided missiles.

[lunaticfringe]

Online missions should be at least partially asymmetric with Red have home field advantage. Something else that really should be included with AFM fighters or the DCS modules of these fighters is advanced modeling of offboard systems like EWR and AWACS. The Su-27 nested in it's own GCI system should have comparable SA to the F-15 regardless of radar.

 

Actually, it shouldn't- the primary difference being that GCI to the Flanker/S not being in real time or as accurate and clear as a picture as E-2/E-3 AEW plus RC-135. Mainstay is not comparable in performance to any of those assets.

 

The secondary difference is more difficult to model, being doctrinal/tactical. One can't limit a player to flying a specific intercept profile and methodology unless you've got at least one observer operating as a controller, but this still won't work effectively as a simulation without very specific restrictions that can't be enforced on what amounts to "pick-up" games on multiplayer servers.

 

What needs to happen is purely on the scenario design side. Instead of the normal example of Su-27 vs. F-15 in a pure free-hunting OCA arrangement, the battle area needs to be well stocked with AI aspects to eventually cause an overlap. F-15s need to be forced to support A-10s (for example, operating near airfields housing MiG-29 player spawns) or engage MiG-23s/MiG-27s that are inbound against ground assets, or vice versa, with victory for one side coming based on *those* aspects as opposed to pure AirQuake results.

 

No matter what a Yefim Gordon or a documentary will tell you, the Soviets knew (and the Russians still know) that in a full-scale warfare environment, 1 v. 1 against Eagles doesn't work for Flankers. The intent was always to overwhelm based on numbers; what those numbers are don't *have* to be Su-27s, just more steel in the air than the AEW/F-15 combination can handle. And while in real life that's a *LOT* of aircraft needing to be in the air, given the constraints in DCS this should be possible against normal player-on-server numbers with just a few AI groups.

[otto]

When Lock on first apeared on the market it got my atention because of the Sus and migs.And i am sure lots of peole wold have payed top dollar for a Su-27sm.

 

The new su33 model is great and a DCS su27s.But in the near or distant future there is a big discrepancy between the number of modern western jets and eastern ones that are in project stage.People would pay top dollar even for a Flaming Cliffs stile(semi realistic) Su 34 or 35 "simulation".

 

Also why not build a russian hotas. i would pay even 1000$ for one.Not joking.

[Trainzak]

I would also prefer some DCS level simulation of a modern russian jet (or bomber). It doesn't have to be Su-27SM, it could be something that ED can reproduce. Although I'm looking forward to Project 18, I would also like see a nice aircraft with red star.