Cobra360

Yep, thats what it says. If anyone else has F4, any version check the tac ref for yourselves. The 110ft would sound about right for a Mk-82 though. I found this link http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/bombs.htm It also states that 100ft is the radius for a Mk-84 against infantry and it does say it is relativly small. ''Blast is caused by tremendous dynamic overpressures generated by the detonation of a high explosive. Complete (high order) detonation of high-explosives can generate pressures up to 700 tons per square inch and temperatures in the range of 3,000 to 4,500º prior to bomb case fragmentation. It is essential that the bomb casing remain intact long enough after the detonation sequence begins to contain the hot gases and achieve a high order explosion. A consideration when striking hardened targets is that deformation of the weapon casing or fuze may cause the warhead to dud or experience a low order detonation. Approximately half of the total energy generated will be used in swelling the bomb casing to 1.5 times its normal size prior to fragmenting and then imparting velocity to those fragments. The remainder of this energy is expended in compression of the air surrounding the bomb and is responsible for the blast effect. This effect is most desirable for attacking walls, collapsing roofs, and destroying or damaging machinery. The effect of blast on personnel is confined to a relatively short distance (110 feet for a 2000 pound bomb). For surface targets blast is maximized by using a general purpose (GP) bomb with an instantaneous fuzing system that will produce a surface burst with little or no confinement of the overpressures generated by excessive burial. For buildings or bunkers the use of a delayed fuzing system allows the blast to occur within the structure maximizing the damage caused by the explosion. Fragmentation is caused by the break-up of the weapon casing upon detonation. Fragments of a bomb case can achieve velocities from 3,000 to 11,000 fps depending on the type of bomb (for example GP bomb fragments have velocities of 5,000 to 9,000 fps). Fragmentation is effective against troops, vehicles, aircraft and other soft targets. The fragmentation effects generated from the detonation of a high-explosive bomb have greater effective range than blast, usually up to approximately 3,000 feet regardless of bomb size. The fragmentation effect can be maximized by using a bomb specifically designed for this effect, or by using a GP bomb with an airburst functioning fuze. The cratering effect is normally achieved by using a GP bomb with a delayed fuzing system. This system allows bomb penetration before the explosion. Since the explosion occurs within the surface media the energy of the blast is causes the formation of a crater. This effect is most desirable in interdiction of lines of communication (LOC) and area denial operations ''

In the F4:AF tac ref it says that the lethal blast frag radius for infantry out in the open is 110ft for a Mk-84, which seems small to me.

It's an AI Su-30, I just custom armed it myself you don't need any mods to do that.

The first Aim-120 kill was made in December 1992 when a F-16D block 40 was patrolling a no-fly zone which was crossed by an Iraqi MiG-25. Then in 1994 there was a triple kill by a single F-16CJ, 3 Serb G-4 Super Galebs were downed in under 2 minutes by 2 AMRAAMs and an AIM-9. And over Kosovo there were 3 MiG-29s shot down by F-15Cs, each by a single 120. A Dutch F-16AM also got a MiG-29 kill with a single 120 and a USAF F-16CJ got a MiG-29 kill but required 2 AMRAAMs to bring the MiG down.

It was in 1.02 but I think it got a bit better in 1.1.

Any word on the Su-27 flaperons. On the AI Su-27s, 30s, 34s they move to the correct RL position but the player Su-27 flaperons deploy too far down. I have only ever seen the flaperons move down that far when the fighter is shut down engines off. Me in lockon AI in lockon

Yeah the USAF held some tests with the AIM-7M about 2 years before ODS. They fired 88 sparrows and only 23 hit.

The Hog is famous for it's low level agility, that and it's massive 30mm cannon RL. It should stay similar even if they AFM it.:D

It's not really set in any year. It's just a collection of equipment that are against each other fighting over a digitial battlefield. Take a look of some of the things that are in it. The AGM-154 and Mica only entered service in 1999 IRL. The Su-34 is still in testing in Russia IRL. The A-10 in the game has no NVGs. And then in V1.2 there will be the Ka-50 which is not in service yet. And the Predator recon UAV will be in it also. The F-16 that is planned is the F-16C Block 50D otherwise known as the F-16CJ. The ones in lockon right now are Block 40s.

We want to know how the N-019M does it, and how.

I believe it operates like the latter option you stated. I have even heard of what I think to be unrealistic claims that the radar switches between the tracked targets very quickly. It illuminates on for a few seconds than quickly changes to the other and continues on in that system. I don't believe it could possibly work that way.

In a World Aircraft publication I have from 1999, it says that When the MiG-29S were first fitted with N-019M radar they could not do simultaneous target tracking. This was latter added in a small scale upgrade that improved software and greater processing capacity. Futher later improvements brought R-77 compatibility and simultaneous dual target engagement capability was added. And it goes on to state that there are as of 1999, 2 squadrons of MiG-29S with this standard in Russian front line service.

The Tor M_1 and Tunguska M-1 vids are good also. Is it just be or are those vids speeded up slightly. The radars dishes rotate very quickly.

Yep it is with the new X1800 cards. http://www.ati.com/products/RadeonX1800/index.html

I think once the AIM-7 is gone it will 6 120s and 2 9s that will become the standard. US tactics is to destroy the enemy at BVR first, and a dogfight is a last resort option. And as far as I am aware, the current standard is 120s on the outside, 9s on the inside, 2 7s up front and 2 120s in the rear. That's the most common config that I see F-15Cs in.

Well I'm glad India are on this spending spree. Otherwise we'd never get to see any advanced Russian fighters. What are they planning with those Su-30MKIs and MiG-29Ks.......hmmmm...I wonder........maybe if .....

I did not realize that they went for the 9-41s in the end. I think I remember you telling me this before and I was trying to remember if they did or did not go with it. And do they (India) not at least have options for up to 40 K/UBs? Never mind, thats the F-15K order for Korea that I'm thinking of.

The problem I heard was that the closure rates of the missiles and their targets were so great that by the time the MIM-104 missiles proximity fuses detected the target and then detonated the warhead, the SCUD was outside of the effective blast radius of the warhead.

Maybe when the JAS-39C/Ds get the new IRIS-T and Meteor missiles. :D

Wealth of knowledge up there Alfa. Keep it flowing. :D

The Su-27K prototype first flew in August 1987 and the MiG-29K prototype first flew in June 1988 but carrier trials for both fighters began 1st November 1989 for both fighters. The reason Sukhoi were faster were, The Su-27K was based on the Su-27S where as the MiG-29K was based on the MiG-29M. Work on the MiG-29K began a year before the M made it's first flight. There were 2 test MiGs and 3 test Flankers. And the first Sukhoi carrier landing took place 26 mins before the first MiG carrier landing. But the MiGs had more trouble in the carrier tests than the Flankers which went much better. And Russia have had 2 squadrons of MiG-29SMTs 5 years before any Su-27SMs showed up. The MiG-29SMTs are just as multirole as the Su-27SMs.

India are getting 40 MiG-29Ks in 2007. Russia offered updated 9-41 airframes but India went with the 9-31 airframes, they will be fully FBW with mechanical backups. A MiG-29KUB was also offered. The cockpit arrangement will look like the MiG-29M2 slightly stepped and not a like normal UB if it were to be made. As I said above the Su-33 was selected as the cheif Sukhoi designer had a lot of political power at the time and the Russian Navy thought they could operate a high low mix like on US carriers. Where you had one F-14 squadron and three F/A-18 squadrons. But funding ran out and fleet air defence got the go ahead over power projection. Now all the Russian Navy can hope for is an full multi-role upgrade to the Su-33s. If it was like that from the begining the MiG-29K would never have been considered unless the Flanker turned out to be too heavy.

Thanks for all your suggestions. My big problem is the board. I have a MSI K8T Neo and it has only three slots. Right now I have 2 512mb sticks of the same brand but it's a unknown budget brand, I'm afraid. Money was a bit tight at the time. So i was either going to get a 1Gb stick of said unknown brand and just shove it in or, or pay a lot more and get two Corsair matched 1Gb sticks, leaving me with two 512 sticks gathering dust on a shelf some where.

In regard to the MiG-29K vs Su-27K (Su-33) issue. Some people believed that the MiG-29K was only ever planned as a fall back in case the Su-27K turned out to be too heavy to operate from a carrier. They believe that the Soviet carriers were planned as pure fleet air defence assest with no power-projection role, and that means no fighter bomber capabilities were needed. It was planned for Russia to have three STOBAR carriers. But the end of the Cold War and break up of the USSR led to the Tbilisi's planned sister ships. Ulyanovsk was scrapped were it lay and was almost finished. Russia and Ukraine fought over who owned Varyag ( formally Riga). The Tbilisi (already named before launch and officially named Leonid Brezhnev) was renamed again as the Kuznetsov. Before the breakup it was planned to have both MiG-29K and Su-27K on all three carriers. But now money was low and one fighter had to be picked. Some speculate that the Su-27K won because of Sukhoi's political influence, or the the Russian Navy hoped that the small batch of Su-27Ks would be augmented by multi-role MiG-29Ks when funding was there. Logic would have dictated that the MiG-29K be picked over the Su-27K as it was multi-role and the Su-27K was a pure interceptor. By selecting the Su-27K the carrier force was now more limited in it's role. The Su-27K was based on the Su-27S as it was thought it would just be used just as an interceptor and was not based on the Su-27M (Su-35) which it could have been. The MiG-29K was based on the MiG-29M which was why it would have been the better choice with the exception of range. And the Su-33 designation only came into use around 1998. The Russian Navy does activly prefare the MiG-29K and are still hoping to get some. Although that is very unlikely.