Leaderboard

I've not voiced any opinion on threads addressing this issue for several reasons: 1) I don't want to give up any classified information 2) I needed to look around the internet for something I could say - if it's in the public domain, I can say it, but I can neither confirm or deny what I'm saying is true. :lol: 3) I don't fly online much except with the guys I like. DISCLAIMER: :noexpression: The following information is given out as my opinion on things that may or may not be true as I can neither confirm the plausibility, reliability or usage of any methods, tactics, techniques I'm mentioning. I merely point out that these techniques exist and are stated in websites carrying RELIABLE AND ACCURATE information on any topics discussed. These topics and OPINIONS do not necessarily reflect the views of the USAF or anyone currently or previously associated with them. They are solely my own views - take them or leave them, I don't give a rat's ass. Guess what? We use ECM blinking! :huh: Now I'm not a noob when it comes to ACBT, as some of you know. So you may wonder why I use it. Well let's get something straight first. I'm not talking about a 3,000 Hz blinker who does this to become invisible in LOMAC. I'm talking about using ECM to deny lock, break lock, or trash a missile solution. There's several types of ECM techniques, and the ones who've taken the time to actually do some research FROM REPUTABLE SOURCES might have heard of the following techniques for protection jammers: Blinking Noise Continuous Noise Doppler Noise Spot Noise False Target(s) Generator Multiple Frequency Repeater Range Gate Stealer Repeater Countdown Blink Stretched Pulse Velocity Gate Stealer Vertical Polarization Terrain Bounce... and many, MANY more techniques including those generated by aircraft in formation blinking their jammers in an asynchronous (not as effective) to syncronous (more effective) manner. Amazingly enough, as you can see, BLINKING is a technique used. Now it doesn't really matter what the little black box is doing inside your plane or on your pylon. The more important thing is that it does what it's supposed to do. IRL these techniques are used to, as I've said, to deny lock, break lock, or trash a missile solution. Now there's a problem with it as it relates to LOMAC. It's extremely effective, and doesn't reflect the ECCM capabilities of the radars on the launching platform or within the missile(s). Nevertheless it forces behaviors that are effective for training and usage of REAL LIFE tactics. As we all know, the Pk of missiles in LOMAC SUCK compared to their real life counterparts. At least for certain missiles. For others, they're overly optimistic (that, believe it or not, I don't really mind, as I'll point out). If all the missiles were slightly overmodelled, then I'd be a happy camper. Why? Because IRL we respect the hell outa any missile guiding on my priceless ass and the jet I'm flying. We defend against the missile BECAUSE THAT'S THE IMMEDIATE THREAT! We lose that fight & it doesn't matter where the launcing aircraft, his/her wingman, or the ground is at the moment we're converted from a human being to a cloud of blood, bones, and aircraft parts. A little more respect for the missiles is missing in any GAME, but is present in a sim. Now, what's the purpose of using this, what do you guys call it, a technique only used by noobs to get kills. It's to increase the Pk of the missile by getting closer to the adversary and decreasing all the "pole" distances. It causes the fight to be brought to the 12nm/22km distance where the missiles are more deadly, and provides for more realistic tactics usage and realistic missile defense, rather than using cranium-on chaff to trash missiles (chaff works best near the beam NOT nose-to-tail). What we've got in LOMAC is overmodeled countermeasures, undermodeled radars, and missiles. ECM blinking brings the fight closer and allows usage of realistic tactics. But my poor (insert aircraft here) doesn't have it! And you in your F-15 have a slammer! BOO HOO! Burn through in LOMAC is around 12nm/22km so ECM blinking in LOMAC provides no edge within these distances. If you're flying US aircraft you're at a decided disadvantage against an Alamo equipped adversary, as it's modeled in LOMAC anyway, since the ET can reach out and touch you without a launch warning from burn through distances, and the ER in LOMAC is an "arguably" better missile than the Sparrow. That leaves the bite off on chaff Adder and Slammer - not much of a threat to you - so called - expert fighter pilots whining about ECM blinking at ranges greater than 12nm/22km. Personally, I hope more potential adversary countries use LOMAC as their method of training. Why? Because you get a FALSE sense that missiles are weak, countermeasures are strong, and there's nothing in between. Real life, Alice, isn't found through the looking glass of LOMAC. If they (adversary air forces) get the above ideas, then when they try to convert these paradigms to the real world of missiles that hit, and countermeasures that aren't always successful, they'll have to suffer for it. Nothing can simulate real life, but real life. Things, however can be modeled closer to real life by forcing you to behave the way you would IRL, using RL tactics, missile evasion techniques, and weapons employment - along with a healthy respect for the guy who fires a missile at you. While the ECM blinking thing, like any (ok I'll use it here) PC simulation of RL isn't perfect, it suits a need, approximates a technique used IRL, and forces RL tactics. The thing that would make it better is modeling of ECCM - both missile and fire control radar - thus decreasing its effectiveness. Just my opinion, thanks for listening :noexpression:

This community generally screams for realism. Realism defines a simulator. LOMAC is a game. As long as it is a game, there will be those that game the game and those that treat it like a simulator. And thus, there will always be this conflict in one form or another. Those that exploit any unrealistic aspects of the modeling to enhance their chances of victory and those that ignore those aspects because they want to treat their flight time as realistically as they can. Unfortunately, LOMAC gives us no option to separate the two schools of thought in a multiplayer atmosphere.

Даже перекрасить проблема?

I second what Rhen said. If it's real life tactic than use it, simple. Here are just two first google search results I found: http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA132595 http://www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/~pacrange/RANGEWEB/sectio12/sect12a.html BTW, I don't fly LOMAC online Cheers :thumbup:

Поскольку ЕД отказалось, и отказывается пропатчить/привести в соответствие с реалиями авионику Су27, китайская сторона обратилась к поставщикам Су27 с просьбой привести показания ИВП и пр. систем Су27 в соответствие с локоновскими, что оказалось не в пример проще :)

No TrackIRs?? :)

What your not understanding is that somethings which are in the game are deemed unrealistic and vilified by some, but then other things which are unrealistic which eveyone does goes by totally unnoticed or accepted as gameplay. Read into that how you like at the end of the day its total contradiction to frown upon one unrealistic gameplay method while using several others.:doh:

Yes, you are right but the yaw-damper in Su-25 is only yaw-damper without SAS function of coordination turn. The system uses only angular velocity sensor to control the surface. It was done so because the rudder has direct control from the pedal like in WW II planes. Generally, all controls are direct driven and only ailerons have additional boosters to reduce stick forces. Elevator has aerodynamic servo-compensators (like trimmers).

The S-3 Vikings are flying in the NTISR role (Non-Traditional Intelligence,Surveillance and Recconaissance). They keep an eye from the sky to protect troops on the ground, e.g. warning for a suspect vehicle ahead of a column etc. With Rover, the troops can see the video-feed of the Lantirn pod directly on their own PC. The Vikings also can target laser maverick AGM-65E with the lantirn pod, or buddy lase with it for other air assets. It must be said that while the raptors are looking for possible alien invaders at 50000ft, some more mundaine work is still happening in the lower airspaces of this world.

Вобщем пожелание такое... см. фото:music_whistling:

I'm not saying that, just keep really personel matters out of here. I do not visit these forums only to see posts like that you've just sworn to 3 people last night ,TK'd some friendly vehicles and now threatening people to show proof next time. . . . It isn't about Lock-On or online gaming, it's just about you.

If you ECM blink, you support communism!!! Remember THAT next time you cheat...

so far i returned all the rep given to me, who wants a free rep! (rep me first):megalol:

There has never been a clear source which states that the frogfoot specially cannot carry the S-300 missile.. so can it? :P

I've said in the past and I will repeat again.. Su25T AFM is not realistic at all. If real Su25T flew like that, it would never been accepted into service. Some aspects of AFM are improvement others are step backwards from the old model. But since most of folks here do not know how real aircraft fly, they are happy with their illusion of having an 'Advanced' FM :) (pops flares and chaff :) )