Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Seaeagle

  1. The Su-25UTG was based on the Su-25UB which we don't have in the sim, so a mod just adding a hook would be pretty far detached from reality. Moreover, like other "navalised" aircraft, the -UTG has strengthned landing gear to cope with the strain of carrier landings, so... Correct - unlike the Su-25UB, the -UTG has no combat capabilities. Yes.
  2. Lol well I fully agree that it would be cool to expand the experience with a player tanker-task when applicaple. I am just saying that so far no one seems to have found it interesting enough to implement and as long as it remains an AI-only feature, it doesn't matter much whether the refuelling packs are assigned via the payload editor or by selecting a mirror entry with them.
  3. No AFAIK buddy-refuelling packs as such don't currently exist in the sim - rather a case of separate aircraft entries assigned refuelling attribute/connection points. Ideally, but not necessarily - i.e. only if this is intended as a player option. I mean you could have said the same about the Su-33... and for this there isn't even a separate AI tanker entry :) Exactly.
  4. My memory failed me - for some reason I had an image in my head of 3 launch modules on either side of the aft heli pad, but as can be seen on this photo.. : ...there are in fact 4 on either side, so a total of 64x 9M330 missiles is the correct number.
  5. No at least not for the types where the number is excessive - unless there is some double reporting going on in the mission debrief. For the S-300F/FM I guess the missile number appearing short of the actual amount it should have, could also be down to the particular situation in the mission - i.e. that the ship may choose to stop employing the long range systems at some point if the remaining targets are outside their engagement envolupe.....this could also explain the bit you mentioned earlier about seemingly having more of one type of missiles in different missions. Yes there are certainly issues with both. I doubt it. There are a "gazillion" shortcomings(low fidelity, erroneous implementations and bugs) with the naval warfare in DCS, but unfortunately ED doesn't seem to have any interest in this aspect of the sim, so I wouldn't "hold my breath".
  6. Heh there are quite a few things in those test results, that don't make any sense to me; Firstly, this particular vessel of the Kirov class has a combination of S-300F(rear) and S-300FM(front) long range SAM systems and use 48N6 missiles for the former and 48N6E2(extended range version) for the latter. The total amount is 96 missiles(packed in 12x 8-cell rotary launchers at the front of the ship), which IIRC are equally divided between the two types of missiles. 5V55 missiles should not be on the ship at all(only employed by the S-300F system onboard the Slava class cruisers). So for the S-300F/FM there is both a problem with type and amount(too few if depleted) of missiles. Secondly, the Pyotr Velikiy is the only Kirov class vessel employing the Kinzhal short range SAM system and off the top of my head(cannot remember exactly), it has 6x 8-cell launchers, so the total amount available should be 48x 9M330 missiles. Third, over 300x 9M311 missiles fired makes no sense at all - thats clearly a bug.
  7. Well I don't know(cannot test) - do the 4 other modules reload after having spent their initial 8 ready-to-fire missiles? - if not then it could either be what you suggest(total amount not distributed correctly) or simply that only two modules actually have reloading made available for them.....could be a little tedious to test since you would have to count a lot of launches to figure it out :)
  8. Yes . A combat module consists of the dual GsH-6-30K guns, rails for 2x 4 missiles, 2D radar/optics and the below-deck magazine. There is also a command module with a 3D radar and control system that can control and assign targets for up to 6(IIRC) combat modules. "Kortik" is the domestic(Russian) name, while "Kashtan" is the export name for the same system(3M87). Yes thats correct.
  9. I don't know why there seems to be a difference between individual Kortik modules on the ship in the sim, but the real system comes with an under-deck magasine for each combat module from which the missile cannisters are loaded and off-loaded again when not in use. The magasine has storage for 4 loads of 8 missiles, so the total amount available for each combat module is 32 missiles.
  10. I was thinking this too - i.e. if both thrust and drag is too low for the MiG-29, then it could appear underpowered in situations where drag is minimal, about right where one equals out the other and overpowered in situations where drag becomes the biggest factor.
  11. Yes I agree and restoring it as an AI entry should be pretty straight forward, but whether 9.31 or 9.41/9.47 we would need a new 3D model......I doubt anyone would be happy with the fidelity of the old Flanker 2.5 3D model in this day and age :)
  12. No sadly, which is why better damage modelling for them isn't addressed either :) . I understand, but I read your initial post about damage modelling as a realism complaint - which I agree with. But making it easier to disable ships' combat endurance by taking out individual systems, while not giving them the defensive meassures they currently lack and thus proper ability to defend themselves, has nothing to do with realism.
  13. All good observations and suggestions - except perhaps for this little bit: The large Russian missile tubes are armoured, so unlike the other items you mentioned(radars/sensors) they are not particulary "delicate" . Anyway, ships also lack multiple defensive meassures(ECM, countermeassures etc), just as their employment of defensive armament is quite simplistic, so if the aim is for a more realistic naval warfare implementation, better damage modelling is not enough.
  14. Thats not the one on the Indian carrier though :)
  15. A little nitpick on the values there: IIRC the F-18 and MiG-29 have the same empty weight almost down to kilo - some 10800 kg ~ 23800 lb, while the max engine output in AFB is: 2 x 16000 lbf ~ 2x 7257 kgf for F404-GE-400 equipped F/A-18A and F/A-18C(up to Lot 15) 2x 17700 lbf ~ 2x 8022 kgf for F404-GE-402 EPE (F/A-18C from Lot 15 and up) 2x 8300 kgf ~ 2x 18300 lbf for the RD-33 (MiG-29 9.12 and 9.13) So the MiG-29 does have a TWR advantage over the Hornet and for the early ones a significant one. Earlier F-16 versions also had engines with a lower thrust rating (IIRC some 23000 lbf), so maybe this also has something to do with this.. ...i.e. that the MiG-29 performance advantage stems from a time where it was more pronounced compared with contemporary adversaries. The F-15 is a different story of course, but then its also really in a different class.
  16. No the MiG-29K(9.31) was based on the MiG-29M(9.15) - "MiG-33" was an export designation that MIG applied to the MiG-29M for a short while in the nineties. For the new versions it is the other way around - the MiG-29K/KUB came about in connection with the Indian order and then later became the basis for the new version of the MiG-29M -> MiG-35.
  17. They would be able to make provision for it, but for proper employment the WCS needs the missile parameters in order to compute a firing solution for it and these would only be available when the missile was ready. Besides, as I mentioned before, accounts of the R-27 development indicate that only the R-27R was intended for the MiG-29, which in turn doesn't suggest that they made provision for the other versions. But they could of course have changed their minds and backfitted them later. Apparently in the manual FoxAlfa referred to, but not in other MiG-29 manuals - only the R-27R. Exactly - I was not the one claiming this. Yet the Soviet Union exported(if you can call it that) a MiG-29 version practically identical to their own to their Warsaw Pact allies, but a different less capable version to other nations...such as Yugoslavia. Hungary was a Warsaw Pact member, but they only got their MiG-29s after the Warsaw Pact was dissolved(1991) and the version they got was the downgraded MiG-29B. I have no idea why Afghanistan was brought into this discussion, since they weren't a Warsaw Pact member, didn't have any MiG-29s and the Soviet Union only reluctantly intervened militarily after several direct requests to do so by the beleaguered communist regime that ruled Afghanistan at the time, so techically not an "invasion" either. You can reliably distinguish between a 9.12 and a 9.13 that way - 9.12 has no hump, while 9.13 does. Yes it was introduced because it was the only way of increasing the internal fuel capacity on the "baseline" MiG-29 design. It was further employed(bigger hump) for later upgrades like the SMT 9.17(prototype SMT), 9.19 and MiG-29UPG(9.20) for India. But its not really that low cost as it still requires structural changes, which is why not all upgrades have them. Early on there was an export variant of the MiG-29S without the hump(9.12S) and as mentioned earlier, also a more recent SMT (9.18) based directly on the 9.12 airframe as well as countless more or less "indigenous"(with or without MIG involvement) upgrades of 9.12 airframes involving onboard systems and sometimes also expanded weapon's compatibility. Yes the initial MiG-29M(9.15) and MiG-29K(9.31) multirole versions from late 80'ies didn't have a hump nor do their current derrivatives. But these versions were a case of a complete redesign, so the solutions for increasing the internal fuel on those can obviously not be applied to old baseline airframes.
  18. The exterior and weapon loadouts were quite accurate for the 9.31, but the cockpit was just that of a 9.12 with the addition of an AOA indexter on the HUD....which obviously had nothing to do with the real thing, nor did the onboard system's representation. But then we are talking ancient times, where none of the aircraft in the sim were particulary accurate or detailed anyway - the Su-33 certainly wasn't more accurate. The MiG-29K was dropped in favour of the MiG-29S for Lock-on - i.e. long before DCS.
  19. My botom line has not shifted an inch FoxAlfa - you just interpret it that way. My initial posts in this thread was in response to the notion that a picture of a 9.12 with an -ER is evidence that the weapon is "generic" to that variant, because modified MiG-29s always come with a "hump"....which obviously isn't the case. You will also note that I said "..wasn't compatible with.." - i.e. to begin with. I am not just basing this on the absense of T/ET or ER in early- or export manuals, but also on various other historical accounts for the MiG-29, Su-27 and development of the R-27 "family" in particular - the latter clearly indicates that the IR/long burning variants weren't meant for the MiG-29, but developed specifically for the Su-27 in order to support its wider mission requirements. But it also suggests that the R-27R fell short of expectations(to outperform contemporary AIM-7), so if more recent 9.12 manuals list other R-27 variants as part of compatible armament, I am actually not surprised nor would it be a big deal to backfit it, as the deployment routine for an -ER is the same as for the R-27R. But I do not believe that it was there all along as "backward compatible".
  20. The question isn't whether a 9.12 can be made to carry ERs and Ts, but whether it had the capability from the start or whether it was backfitted later. So they removed it as an option from the WCS because their allies didn't have the weapon(why would they do that?) ....or the allies didn't acquire the weapon in the first place because their aircraft couldn't use it. ....yeah right.
  21. I have no idea what you are trying to say.
  22. Nor does it mean that the aircraft was compatible with a certain weapon before it existed without later modification for the purpose. Sure - certainly the case with the 9.12B, but why would the Soviets remove R-27T compatibility from MiG-29s supplied to their Warsaw pact allies, if their own aircraft had it?
  23. The point was that there are MiG-29 variants with upgraded system's complex/expanded weapon's compatibility, while retaining the original 9.12 airframe - i.e. no "humps".
  24. I don't think it was down to weight restrictions, but more a case of general considerations about practical loadout versus intended mission types.
  25. There is more to this than coolant bottles in the APU-470 launcher. The bottom line is that the 9.12 wasn't compatible with the R-27T - just R-27R, R-73 and R-60M.
  • Create New...