what to expect from Su-27 module?

ok fool. THIS IS A SU-27 module thread. Do you handle some Su-27 info to share in this thread?

Actually, #110 did a lovely job of outlining some very specific information concerning the application of the Cobra in conjunction with the R-73/HMS. First paragraph denotes range information, and describes the type of information in comparison to the AIM-9M that a Flanker pilot would use to devise tactics.

What, pray tell, have you brought to the table?

I cleaned up some of the thread. When I said 'you need to stop now', I meant it - next time it's going to be warnings and bans for everyone :P

So is it gonna be Su-27S *with* expanded stinger, or without? And are we prepared to go down to the bort number and pick out which is which?

You know, just clarifying this "exceptional" thing in reverse.

I'm pretty sure that if ED could, they would do 27SM. I really doubt they can get reliable info for it.

That's easy, why didn't you ask.

It's a man's plane, looks like the dogsbollox, makes NATO pilots decimate their underwear, eats Eagles with a dessert spoon and comes in any colour as long as its blue.

Oh and its finishing move is the Cobra.

Simple, now make it so, please.

Do I get a cookie?

... Decimate underwear? That's a new one.

There have been at least two such Su-33 upgrades proposed. I know the first one was never funded, yet it is the basis of all the internet sites that list all sort of cool kit being onboard the Su-33.

A much more recent upgrade proposal may or may not have been funded, I don't know - but the 33 is on its way out anyway.

 

And no, there is no possibility to model an upgraded Su-33 to A-10C level fidelity or even close, as far as I know.

like I told you GG, there is more info on R-27 and R-73 which have more documentation public than for example aim-120A/aim-9. So actually we are making R-27 realistic while aim-120 making guises by how much it would be better. Pure speculations and not all of them do I agree whit. But thats what we all have to live with.

I know your answer GG, If we knew it would appear to be even better, strange that ED didn't make missiles more effective but rather less effective compared to your claims from the past that missiles should hitt even better than FC1 and FC2.

Same approach as you take to explain Su-33s upgrades is the way I would describe F-15s datalink, would be hard to model it.

Actually there's data on those russian missiles that you have not seen, and I know ED has it. Likewise, they have pretty good info on F-15C datalink, and you have not and probably will not see it.

And none of that has anything to do with the Su-33 upgrades.

Actually there's data on those russian missiles that you have not seen, and I know ED has it. Likewise, they have pretty good info on F-15C datalink, and you have not and probably will not see it.

 

And none of that has anything to do with the Su-33 upgrades.

Why I connected su-33 to F-15s datalink is because we don't know anything about when this new upgrades were as standard or what this upgrades were capable of.

You don't know anything about the Su-33 upgrades (and neither do I). ED does have some idea as to whether they were founded or not. ED has a pretty good idea regarding how the F-15C datalink works. Do you understand the difference?

Much like you don't have any documentation about the A-10C datalink or how the MFCDs operate.

Why I connected su-33 to F-15s datalink is because we don't know anything about when this new upgrades were as standard or what this upgrades were capable of.

You don't know anything about the Su-33 upgrades (and neither do I). ED does have some idea as to whether they were founded or not. ED has a pretty good idea regarding how the F-15C datalink works. Do you understand the difference?

 

Much like you don't have any documentation about the A-10C datalink or how the MFCDs operate.

As much as you do on Ka-50s datalink. By the way, you do not prove your point by telling me that ED has the documentation. How would I know that you have access to it.

You don't know anything about the Su-33 upgrades (and neither do I). ED does have some idea as to whether they were founded or not. ED has a pretty good idea regarding how the F-15C datalink works. Do you understand the difference?

 

Much like you don't have any documentation about the A-10C datalink or how the MFCDs operate.

You no, please don't take this the wrong way, but in almost every topic you post you get into a argument about other peoples credibility. All that does is create divisions and put's the Forum, You and other uses in a bad light. For example in the The new Migs are Coolers on page 4 you said "irrelivant" to the fact of 30 Mig-29s beating 4 F-15E. No i don't have a problem with that but then you go on to say that because like 25 F-15s bet 1 Mig-29a in the iraq war the F-15 is a better plane.

If you keep attacking peoples Credibility and being unreasonable to let stuff go man, people are going to leave this forum. For instance a great friend of mine used to fly F-15's in USAF. He does not check this forum anymore because of fan boys arguing about what is better, and pretending no one else in the world knows anything. So please to preserve this thread don't argue attack peoples credibility and act like a know it all. Directed at every on.

Now to the reply. I hate to break it to you but the Su 33 upgrade plan the was issued in 2010 would more then likely just be a upgrade to AA and AS and AG capabilities and modernized avionics along with, thrust vectoring, and improved engines. Although as far as i know this has not been pursued anymore.

Cheers have a good one.

You no, please don't take this the wrong way, but in almost every topic you post you get into a argument about other peoples credibility....

If you keep attacking peoples Credibility and being unreasonable to let stuff go man, people are going to leave this forum.

Unfortunately in the realm of highly classified military technology who you are and what you know is kind of important for establishing whether the things you say are of any value to the discussion. Credibility is important for fact based conversations. Credibility of where you source your knowledge. If its an ad hominem attack on your persona that's different, but if people can't take a little critical analysis of what they're saying by someone who is clearly trying to attack the logic of someone's argument rather than the person himself then they're just not cut out for a rational conversation.

Now to the reply. I hate to break it to you but the Su 33 upgrade plan the was issued in 2010 would more then likely just be a upgrade to AA and AS and AG capabilities and modernized avionics along with, thrust vectoring, and improved engines. Although as far as i know this has not been pursued anymore.

And this is why people like him question why people know anything. You just suggested all sorts of things but your wording alone says you have no evidence to present. You just made assumptions and so any rational person could look at that statement and say "so where is he getting this from", ask you, and if you don't have anything to back up your statement you can either find something, admit you know nothing about it first hand, or just revert to complaining that he's being too hard on you like you're doing now.

This is pretty basic academic thinking we're talking about, its not personal at all.

Sukhoi Design companies statement, "Integration of Su-35 Technology"

I'm skipping the credibility argument because P*Funk already addressed that quite well and I don't feel like stepping into that one anyway.

Moving to your Su-33 statement:

Now to the reply. I hate to break it to you but the Su 33 upgrade plan the was issued in 2010 would more then likely just be a upgrade to AA and AS and AG capabilities and modernized avionics along with, thrust vectoring, and improved engines. Although as far as i know this has not been pursued anymore.

GG's original post:

There have been at least two such Su-33 upgrades proposed. I know the first one was never funded, yet it is the basis of all the internet sites that list all sort of cool kit being onboard the Su-33.

A much more recent upgrade proposal may or may not have been funded, I don't know - but the 33 is on its way out anyway.

You said the exact same thing as GG, so what exactly did you hate to break it to him about? It doesn't matter that Sukhoi said they wanted to make the Su-33 at the level of the Su-35 - GG made no comment as to the content of the systems or bashed the plans for it, he just said that these upgrades had never been funded as far as he knew. Which is the exact same thing you said at the end. I'm not understanding what argument you have with him on his Su-33 comment considering you both said the same thing.

More over Russian Navy is replacing Su-33 with the much more capable Mig-29K.

I think ED will do Su27sm Module otherwise they won't mention it in the DCS Overview Video.

Video posted by Matt Wagner on Youtube:

http://youtu.be/WBGLb98zkFQ

And with that in mind the SM variant payload will be:

Su-27SM armament

• 8 x Vympel R-77 advanced medium-range missile (including R-27 Family)
  
• 6 x KAB-500KR and KAB-500L Guided Bombs
  
• 4 x Kh-29
  
• 4 x Kh-31 both A & P
  
  
• 4 x Kh-35
  

Plus Cobra Maneuver ;) .

Since this thread has spiraled ..

the OP, is regarding what the DCS SU-27 Flaming Cliffs Module will Offer,

Not what DCS: SU-27SM,

The only thing Pertaining to DCS:SU-27SM in the OP, is the question as to wether or not one is worked on.

will ED able to accurately replicate Su-27 flight model?

will we be able to do cobra manouver?

are they actually serious about creating DCS Su-27SM module or was it just a name being thrown to fool us? :lol:

when will the Su-27 Flaming Cliffs module be released?

when will the DCS Su-27 being worked?

For sure ¡¡

What to expect from a Su-27 module? Su-27 goodness.

Without having to Have LockON, :megalol::megalol:

I wish ED/Matt would just come out and say what was meant by DCS Su27SM. Who will develop it?

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

Bummer, but at least its now official then that the SM has been cancelled.

At least for the time being.

Maybe include it as well in an official update? Guess not everyone reads this thread.

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

Oh, it's a pity to hear that. Is the Su27S going to be a new module with clickable cockpit and accurate systems or are you talking about the Su27 from FC3 with AFM??

We are going to miss a russian "hardcore" modern fighter module if so :cry: