SwingKid

Get in the queue! I e-mailed him in February. ;) -SK

The Strela-1 should be a sitting duck... at night... Don't you go grouping all SAMs together in the same basket now, either! -SK self-appointed moderator of this thread only :)

Good point. I would counter that it knew the shell was coming ahead of time. -SK

Setting aside the logical pitfalls of equating size with RCS in the first place - from a frontal aspect, the fins contribute almost nothing. Secondly, even if the RCS of the Maverick was half, that difference is only 3 dB. Low-observables need to have their RCS reduced by several orders of magnitude to make a substantial difference, more than "half". A 3 dB reduction is practically irrelevant in this case because (assuming my math is right) it would only reduce detection range by 15%. And we can assume the Harpoon is detectable beyond the radar horizon because it needs to fly a sea-skimming flight profile to avoid detection. 15% closer than the radar horizon would extend the radar detection of a Maverick to beyond the range that would make a difference. So it's theoretically detectable... I don't know about Tunguskas but Patriot operators are definitely trained to engage ARMs... this is now known from declassified incident debriefings. From what I understand, ED also has access to training materials for S-300 crews. This is what I would've expected too, but the Patriot training makes it clear that's no longer the case in modern times. It may have something to do with the new ability to conduct search and track functions against multiple targets simultaneously - a limitation of older systems. This is pure hyperbole for news reporters and book authors to parrot... The truth is it didn't matter how dense were the SA-2s, 3s and 6s, those systems could be effectively neutralized by chaff and jamming. No quantity of them could compare to even a single S-300 guarding Moscow or Murmansk, because they had no multi-target or frequency-agile capability. The double-digit SAMs are vastly more efficient. I agree with your conclusion! Practically, I don't think this is realistic, and I think it's especially tragic that Strelas are now engaging Mavericks as a result. But the particular arguments you've chosen aren't very convincing. Better to acknowledge the true capabilities of modern systems and focus on their own weaknesses in this regard for what they really are - detection time, reaction time, proximity fuze sensitivity, blast radius, etc. Rather than trying to extrapolate SA-2 tactics into Patriot tactics. The modern world is a different ballgame from what we're used to from history books and sims. -SK

If Strelas are shooting down Mavericks, then that's probably a bug that slipped past us. Both Strela-1 and Strela-10 should have too slow reaction time for this and weren't intended to have the capability AFAIK. Although my personal hunch is that even a Patriot is limited to intercepting only the slowest, largest ARMs, and nothing should stop a Maverick, the evidence seems to be that there is some capability. I couldn't even get a Stinger operator who felt the same way at first to say that he couldn't hit a Maverick, after considering its speed and flight profile: http://forums.frugalsworld.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=95013 So, let's approach this topic with research and solid data, it seems to be a difficult one that can't be decided on "gut feelings" alone. Some people also still believe in "burn-through". -SK

How does that make it more likely? It should give it more destructive force but a lower rate of fire, like Russian fighter 30 mm vs US 23 mm. The opposite of what you'd want, I'd think. -SK

Which single player mission didn't work? -SK

Yeah, that sounds like something the beta testers would miss... :P Considering the nature of the problems you're experiencing, it might be helpful to know everything you can tell about your system. Memory, video card, operating system, whether you have/had any mods installed, which version of Flaming Cliffs you installed the patch over (CD or Download), etc. Also, which servers and what missions you were trying. Were these missions from an earlier version of Lock On? If so, you may want to re-test using only missions created with v1.11. You should also check the error.log file to see if that gives any hints. -SK

? -SK

What's his OS? You might try providing a link to the original discussion, and getting him to submit any error log file that might have been generated. -SK

Should be fixed in v1.11 patch. Thanks for help! -SK

Note translation! SHOULD be ok. It's not a guarantee. (In Russian, "must" and "should" are the same word "должен") -SK

one 2 G level turn, two 4 G level turns, one 4.5 G pull-up into a climb, inverted dive at bank angle 135 degrees (?), diving spiral, two or three turns, another climb back up to altitude, and then he started with the improv I think it was one barral and two aileron rolls, some steep turns, no loop, no AB. I started feeling sick at "one 2 G level turn" He tried to offer me control in the middle of the improv part but I was a dead fish by that time. Then he said later he wanted to finish with a loop but I just couldn't handle it anymore. Wish he did that first, and that I was better prepared.. -SK

Groznyy, Chechnya. The battlefield smoke is visible from space... Compare that to our sims! -SK

Why that was nice of you Gazehound, thanks for the plug. Just so you know, hope isn't lost... ED has their own plans, and I've restarted from scratch on an improved version of a project that is alive and progressing on schedule. For an early demo, check our forum: http://lockoncampaign.com:8811/board/index.php?a=forum&f=11 Thanks for interest! -SK

БМПТ, БТР-Т, ТОС-1: http://www.t-72.de/html/bmp-t.html http://www.rbs.ru/vttv/99/Firms/KBTM/efsf/btr-t-f.htm http://www.t-72.de/html/tos-1.html -SK

2. Emergency gear extension 3. Emergency wheel brakes (?) What I would've given to be able to take that O2 mask off... I heard one guy got sick with it still on, described later as "the most unpleasant experience you can imagine" I'm beginning to wonder how many things in my airplane were broken, that I just didn't realize until later... Interesting... We started at 3200, ended at 1000 after 30-40 minutes, no AB. How long was your flight? Were you over the aerodrome, or in a local practice area? Wow... I wonder how many of those sound more fun than they actually feel. (ALL of mine did.) :) Thanks for replies, -SK

Do you mean that something like a dynamic campaign engine could run between missions, independently of the main program, and be more efficiently produced with fewer bugs? Interesting dream... :( -SK

Good question, it doesn't say. It does mention that during testing, the Su-27 was stopped, but an An-26 broke through the nylon mesh and "would have gone overboard" if it were tested on the ship instead of the ground. -SK

From the same book - yes. It is located parallel to the fourth wire, and is named "Nadezhda" ("Hope"). -SK

JonTex and bSr.L()CSta are correct, according to Andrei Fomin's excellent book about Su-33, both the landing gear and the arrestor hook have a pneumatic back-up in case of hydraulics failure: -SK

bump... still hoping for more details -SK

Сегодня, после update, никак... Search for "NATO airbase", "Merzifon"... doesn't work. -SK

I would have liked to help him out with F-15 issues, but I cringe at some of the things he was asking for. ARH missiles don't rely on the launching fighter's lock for terminal homing and they don't carry IFF equipment of their own. For this reason the "rogue ARH" problem is very real. The defecting MiG-29 pilot Alex Zuyev related an example of this in his book. During testing, a launched R-77 ignored the helicopter drone target that the pilot had locked up, and flew instead into a nearby airliner, killing all aboard. The request to increase burn-through range up to the more "realistic" value of 25 nm was also not based on reality, but rather on the previous version of Lock On, which was wrong. Realistic burn-through range is less than 1 nm. -SK

If you're modelling F-15 weapons from 1975... :rolleyes: -SK