That's why the US knew all about USSR air defense technology

[JunMcKill]

 

https://warisboring.com/the-man-who-ruined-the-soviet-warplane-industry-b1bd3527e508#.u0ibkp13v

Edited January 3, 2017 by JunMcKill

[Mtnbiker1998]

Very interesting article!

[javelina1]

Wow, did not know anything about this. Thanks for the link, explains quite a bit.

[Weta43]

That article is a bit gung-ho for US intelligence - even after they admit that in almost every case the opponents were flying downgraded export versions of old aircraft, and in the case of Iraq after years of sanctions and import restrictions, somehow it's the intelligence that sways the fight, not the lopsidedness of the contest.

 

The Russians knew that their systems were compromised, and took measure to correct that problem. That's why the Russian's developed the MiG-31B - because they knew the US had bought information on the MiG-31 radar.

 

Despite the caption saying

Compromised and de-facto obsolete as soon as it entered service — an Su-27SM of the Russian air force

, the Soviet government executed Tolkachev in 1986, The SM started entering service in 2004.

[NeilWillis]

Indeed, it should be taken with a pinch of salt that US forces were effective as a result of intelligence. It is a little bit more complex than that, and superior training, tactics, elecrto magnetic spectrum analysis,and any number of other factors were involved too.

 

Dumbing down stuff to the lowest common denominator is never to be relied on. A factor - possibly, but as the spy they talk about was executed in 1986, I'd say things had moved a long way since then, and to put it down to his activities alone is stretching the truth beyond reasonable doubt.

[probad]

hecka stretched, wib's just another sensationalist content mill

[JunMcKill]

In this case, the spy leak was the one that gave to US, the radar EM pulse frequencies of ground and air platforms, and that's why the american RWR (TEWS) could detect the SARH missile launch from the very first moment, because they already knew the radar guidance freq!, which is a huge advantage in the battlefield in order to take evasive manuevers (and is simulated in DCS either!), beside of the US superior training, tactics and all the technology deployed in the battlefield (AWACS, JAMMERS, etc)

[Oceandar]

Its funny that ED can't make DCS Su-27 because Russian policy forbids them while most of their system already compromised based on this article (assuming its true and accurate)

Edited January 5, 2017 by Oceandar

[Seaeagle]

Its funny that ED can't make DCS Su-27 because Russian policy forbids them.

 

Whats funny is that people keep claiming such nonsense.

[Oceandar]

Whats funny is that people keep claiming such nonsense.

Interesting, please elaborate

[Seaeagle]

Interesting, please elaborate

 

Oceandar - when did ED ever say that Russian law forbids them from making a DCS Su-27 module? :)

[Kuky]

Oceandar - when did ED ever say that Russian law forbids them from making a DCS Su-27 module? :)

 

ED have said a few times that they cannot and will not make a DCS module for any plane that they are not able to get enough information on and of course they need approval to do so as well. The Su-27 is one of those aircraft... that was the case so far anyway, never know if ED will maybe sometime in future get hold of such information and be allowed to create it :)

[NineLine]

Its funny that ED can't make DCS Su-27 because Russian policy forbids them while most of their system already compromised based on this article (assuming its true and accurate)

 

I am not sure someone living and working in Russia would want to use compromised data to create a module, not sure how that still wouldnt get them in hot water ;)

[Seaeagle]

ED have said a few times that they cannot and will not make a DCS module for any plane that they are not able to get enough information on

 

Well of course.

 

... and of course they need approval to do so as well.

 

Do they? :)

 

The Su-27 is one of those aircraft... that was the case so far anyway, never know if ED will maybe sometime in future get hold of such information and be allowed to create it :)

 

I don't believe thats the case Kuky - not when talking about the "baseline" Su-27 or MiG-29 anyway. Its a different story when it comes to upgraded versions(Su-27SM or MiG-29SMT) for which various systems are classified, but then thats always a limitation(not just in Russia).

 

Anyway, there is a difference between being able to get enough documentation for a desired level of simulation and being outright "forbidden" to simulate an aircraft with the level of documentation available :)

[Oceandar]

Oceandar - when did ED ever say that Russian law forbids them from making a DCS Su-27 module? :)

You're right that I never read that statement from ED explicitly but I've seen quite lot of people posted about the restriction from Russian authority. I also read on this forum a rumor that ED actually made Su-35 simulation for RUAF and have asked to be allowed to make it game version but then denied. I merely refer to their posts which you think it was just nonsense. That's all

[Oceandar]

I am not sure someone living and working in Russia would want to use compromised data to create a module, not sure how that still wouldnt get them in hot water ;)

I honestly believe ED could make DCS Su-27 without using compromised data. If there's one software developer that capable of doing that its the only Eagle Dynamics. Just do what RB did with M2K would be enough. Some of its system is just a guessing.

But that's not my point actually. My point is why so restricted with something that you knew it was already compromised which is nonsense according to Seaegle

[NeilWillis]

Chinese whispers regarding what ED can and cannot do with any government's consent is pointless.

 

There are a lot of restrictions regarding modelling aircraft with the accuracy and fidelity demanded in DCS World. Intellectual property is a hurdle, as is access to de-classified data. Above all, there will be huge NDA clauses that will mean ED will probably never reveal what they have been stopped from replicating.

 

But hey, have fun - it'll be conspiracy theories next no doubt!

[Vincent90]

There are a lot of restrictions regarding modelling aircraft with the accuracy and fidelity demanded in DCS World. Intellectual property is a hurdle, as is access to de-classified data. Above all, there will be huge NDA clauses that will mean ED will probably never reveal what they have been stopped from replicating.

Absolute and utter tosh. There is not a single legal hurdle for anyone to make an aircraft computer game.

 

Get a law degree or keep schtumm.

[Weta43]

If you go to the Huey wallpaper in DCS you'll see written in big letters top right that this is an officially licensed product (Bell Helicopter, a Texron company).

That's there because of a legal hurdle.

 

Maybe you should do some revision on your law degree

[Vincent90]

If you go to the Huey wallpaper in DCS you'll see written in big letters top right that this is an officially licensed product (Bell Helicopter, a Texron company).

That's there because of a legal hurdle.

 

Maybe you should do some revision on your law degree

Ok, so what legal hurdle should that be? :music_whistling:

 

Always great, these armchair experts around here...

Edited January 7, 2017 by Vincent90

[Oceandar]

If you go to the Huey wallpaper in DCS you'll see written in big letters top right that this is an officially licensed product (Bell Helicopter, a Texron company).

That's there because of a legal hurdle.

 

Maybe you should do some revision on your law degree

CMIIW, RB didn't get license or something like that from Dassault for M2K. That's why RB wouldn't want call it Mirage 2000C but rather M2000C. So license is not really an issue I guess

[Weta43]

Ok, so what legal hurdle should that be? :music_whistling:

 

Always great, these armchair experts around here...

 

I thought the phrase officially licensed product was a big clue.

 

Licensing means renting or leasing of an intangible asset. It is a process of creating and managing contracts between the owner of a brand and a company or individual who wants to use the brand in association with a product, for an agreed period of time, within an agreed territory.

 

For the purposes of this discussion, the need to enter into a contract could be taken to be a hurdle.

Edited January 7, 2017 by Weta43

[Weta43]

CMIIW, RB didn't get license or something like that from Dassault for M2K. That's why RB wouldn't want call it Mirage 2000C but rather M2000C. So license is not really an issue I guess

 

I think it all depends how aggressive the company is about their property rights.

 

RB may be confident that Dassault are reasonably relaxed about protecting their intellectual property rights.

 

Apparently BST thought that (& I believe history has shown) Textron / Bell to be quite aggressive about defending theirs.

 

Perhaps Texron / Bell feel that the American taxpayer spent a lot of money on the development of that helicopter, and it would be a dereliction of their duty to their shareholders if the company weren't to extract the maximum value possible from that investment.

 

<edit> Question - what does "CMIIW" stand for ? <edit>

Edited January 7, 2017 by Weta43

[Weta43]

Oceandar - when did ED ever say that Russian law forbids them from making a DCS Su-27 module? :)

 

You're knocking down a straw man.

 

E.D. have never said it would be illegal, the question is whether given the current climate, it is a sensible move to attempt to use all the available information (and make informed guesses) to create as realistic an outcome as you would want in a full fidelity DCS.Su-27SM module.

 

Say for instance they get lucky and create a SIM of the Su-27SM that an active service pilot would recognise as 95% accurate to current operation.

 

That might then put the company in a position of having to reassure - perhaps even try to prove in court to - the authorities that they came to that point only through legitimate open sources and guestimation, and were not handed information by well meaning people that shouldn't have...

 

The West (with perhaps the exception of Bell / Texron) have traditionally been fairly laissez faire about depictions of their technology in games (there were Airfix kits of the F-117 on the shelves before Congress knew they were funding it).

I don't think Russia has the same traditions.

Edited January 7, 2017 by Weta43

[Weta43]

You really should get out of your basement, finish high school, change everything about yourself and maybe, MAYBE, you get a woman that is more than a 5/10

 

Thanks for the advice :)

 

I probably should get out of the house - it's a sunny summer afternoon here, but I've got the place to myself for the afternoon so I'm grabbing a bit of computer time.

 

I do get out from time to time though - I went to Bali for a week around August, and Vietnam for 3 weeks in November, and down to the South Island for Xmas / New Year.

 

Looking back - some post-grad study might have been a good idea, but my job is interesting, I've been with the same woman for 16 years, She's definitely better than a 5 ;), we're still happy together which after 16 years is a good & increasingly rare thing, we're comfortable financially, and are thinking about maybe retiring early.

 

I hope your life is as good.

Edited January 7, 2017 by Weta43