Skysurfer

Ok, besides the obvious ATC issues, what about the option for the IFLOLS overlay which has been requested since day one almost a year ago? There have been very little to no updates for the SC in terms of QOL features since release. How about the eye-hook distance being dynamically adusted for airframes like the Tomcat? Night lighting and ground crew visibility at night are also big and almost game-breaking issues. Let alone the fact that a cat-spawn after you have already died/despawned spawns you with wheel chocks that you can not remove when flying the Hornet. I think there needs to be an extensive roadmap and statement made by ED regarding the Supercarrier - a lot of people are losing patience.

Depends, a competent player wont die to a Phoenix easily or at all. Try using STT, playing with the MLC filter and maintaining lock until impact.

Might also be a refublishment procedure to refublish older missiles that are running out of shelf life. I.e. domestic electronics and upgrades. Also note how this is an R and not the ER. The 77-1 shown in the latter video is referenced as an anti-radiation missile, which is fairly interesting to say the least. Unless they added some dual mode homing seeker. Th R-27 shown in the first is a bseline R or T respectively, which mostly eiminates any discussion about range advantage and is probably intended for engaging low flying helicopters or drones.

Yeah that article actually confused the Mig-21 with the 29, which only goes tho show the quality of journalism these days.

Right, just watch that doc. and listen to the picture that is being painted. If you don't see what's blatant then that's fine. Like I said, think what you will.

Thanks! Interesting find. Seems rather odd that they'd paint "27-2" in large red letters onto it and specifically mention it and show it. Think what you will I guess.

Would be nice if you can find the video.

The R-33 is a SARH missile so technically if you break the lock by whatever means it should render the missile useless as far as DCS goes.

What else are you going to compare the R-27 to (specifically ER)? The AMRAAM entered service roughly one year after the R-27 and the B model did not take long to enter IOC and high rate production. Th 27ER wasn't exactly available in the thousands from the start either. And sure, there was a short time period where the ER was much superior agianst AIM-7 platforms, a design which originated in the 60's. You can absolutely compare long range missiles with medium range missiles if they are intended for the same type of targets - the same way you will compare a R-27ER to an AIM-7M which clearly have a fairly large gap in their effective range. It's simply what you'd face in combat. The Tomcat and Phoenix had a LONG service history and were ultimately retired because of costs and the fact that after the collapse of the soviet union and advancements in EW and ship based defense systems it was no longer required. This does not change the fact that the Tomcat had the most powerful radar and the longest range A2A missile from the 70's up to the early 2000's. Just the way it was and there is no reason to argue against that. As far as aircraft deisgns go, ideally you want both - just look at the Tomcat, Eagle and F-22. All of them have a very large flight envelope performing equally well in BVR and WVR ACM combat. Same applies to the Flanker-E and now Su-57. So I really don't see your point? Supermaneuverability and post stall maneuverability are great and in the 80's still had their value - it's simply a difference in doctrine and mentality, one side relies on superiour tehcnology and electronics as their primary means of engagement, the other party is still "stuck" in the WWII gladiatorian dogfight era and belives this is what truly wins fights. Both are not totally right or wrong in that regard obviously. But this is another rabbit hole do go down to and would require a profound knowledge of history and combat doctrine during the cold war era. Thus I really don't get what you are trying to say here with broken english except maybe cherry-pick scenarios and slim timeframes to make your argument more valid? I think we sort of de-railed this thread now anyway and if you like to continue this discussion and maybe get your point across better feel free to DM.

Ok? Thanks for the links I guess. There are some contradicting sources on who exactly India bought the last batch from but my point stands notheless for the non so recent past. Those might even be missiles from an old stock, which were in storage. The 77-1 and subsequent developments are obviously entirely Russian - in fact the PL12 has a lot of russian DNA in it. https://www.defence24.com/polish-air-force-acquires-missiles-for-the-mig-29 https://www.defenseworld.net/news/16532/Ukrainian_Polish_Consortium_To_Supply_40_R_27P1_Missiles_For_Polish_MiG_21_Jets#.YG21FegzZPY

Interesting find. However, it kind of seems like russian propaganda to me. The R27 design is old and has clear flaws (central control fins in order to accomodate the modular, fixed wing propulsion section) + was found to not perform well when paired with an active seeker (not saying that this couldn't have changed with more compact and modern electronics) - my only question is, given the analogue nature of the missile why waste money and development resources on this when you have the R-77-1 and its successors which are currently in development? Seems pretty vague and odd but interesting if true, notheless.

Here's one quote from an Ukrainian Flanker pilot after the Clear Sky exercise with the California ANG in 2018. "The maneuvering capabilities of the Flanker are excellent, of course. For example, during air combat maneuvering training at the Clear Sky 2018 exercises—with the F-15C Eagles of the 144th Fighter Wing of the California Air National Guard—we won in three out of four engagements. Naturally, you need to survive long enough to close to visual range, because the Eagle’s electronic equipment and armament are much better. Ukraine has factories that manufacture air-to-air missiles, but we are not quite at the level of modern technology. We need fire-and-forget missiles, because illuminating a target with your radar after launch (with semi-active radar homing) is now a relic of the past. The Russians have the R-77 missile with active homing, while our R-27 is still semi-active." Source: https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/fighter-jet-fights-both-sides-180975834/ Forgot about the Tomcat and Phoenix combo? Especially the 54C was very capable against all size targets. The 15 will also see a Flanker first and have the first AMRAAM shot - against any AIM-7 the ER obviously has the clear advantage if you get the first shot - literally what it was designed for. Not talking about the SU-30 or 35 here, purely S/P Flanker as was appropriate for that timeframe comparison. The Hornet is a strike fighter and carries the 120C/D - which more than changes and makes up for the lack of pure kinematic performance. Nope. Those are the same missiles from the late 80's and were built in Ukraine, which broke ties and supplies with Russia after its independence in 91. There is no evidence of any further developments of the Alamo apart from various concepts by some 3rd party Ukrainian defense companies, which were mainly meant for export. The last customers of the R-27 family were the Indians and the Polish, acquiring the last batch before the plant in Kyiv closed down. The chinese also bought a licence for the R27ER to manufacture it themselves, but have since moved away from SARH and developed their own very capable active missiles like the PL12 and 15. The only known upgrades were done to the T/ET and its seeker as well as the R-73, which still is the bread and butter WVR missile and very capable in its newer iterations. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/what-made-russia’s-deadly-r-27-missile-so-good-173300

False. Ever wondered why Flankers carried so many sticks? From most accounts in baseline Flankers conducting joint exercises with US 15's and 16's the latter have always come out on top in a pure BVR engagement. It is only WVR where it is a much more even fight, be it heaters or guns only. If the russians believed so much in their missile technology they'd build into pure kinematic performance, radar and LO instead of supermaneuverability. You can absolutely not compare the Alamo like that. It was pretty much outdated the moment it entered service. Even though it probably still remains as one of the best SARH missiles - if a relic of the past. US Platforms since the 70's always had the first look and first shoot advantage.

It's on the list but why would you want those anyway?

Every wing bends to some extent IRL. If it didn't flex it'd just break off when loaded.

There shouldn't be any major difference to what you saw in said cruise video. Offset should work the same. Not that our Hornet really is a 2005 timeframe one anyway, despite what ED keep telling us. I's basically a frankenplane with different OFP features mixed together, which is fine for a videogame like DCS.

No, ED had it wrong and basically copied the function over from the LPOD, which again, is a very ancient LPOD version used by the Spanish. El Podo. I trust my sources. Pretty sure @Santi871 and @Jak525will also confirm this.

False, another sim is never a reliable resource. Several SME's have already confirmed that this is wrong for our timeframe Hornet and pod.

There is a known bug with drag/thrust in the current Tomcat versiom which got introduced in a recent update. The team is aware of it and the flight model in regards to drag, acceleration and thrust is very much WIP still.

Yeah currently it is implemented wrong (as per Wags' video) - the offset should be always screen centered and move the entire image with it, rather than just the cursor like a mouse on a computer.

Did you even read what I said? Lift coefficient in the subsonic, incompressible regime is defined by the airfoil and its AOA relation. The total lift FORCE will increase with speed but NOT the coefficient.

Clearly if you reduce the denomintor you'll get a lower value in your book. That's not how fractions work buddy. Don't embarass yourself even more and let's please stay on topic.

You are literally arguing with SME's right now. Educate yourself first before you start an argument. https://www.aero.sors.fr/aerolinks.html

There is a lot more to it than just one equation, buddy. Zero alpha lift coefficient isn't a CL over alpha plot.

CL is coupled with AOA - you can stall or have any AOA at any speed.