Cobra360

The Su-25TM=Su-39. The Su-39 is more advanced again and can be armed with R-77 and R-27R/ER missiles along with more advanced air to ground weapons.

Pilots prefare the AIM-9s on the out side and the 120s inside because when the AIM-9s are on the inside the seeker FOV is slightly blocked by the F-15s airframe. But for weapon loaders it is easier, so they say to put the 9s inside and the 120s outside, especially on the F-15E because of the CFTs give lees room to position the 120 even though the missile is held in place on a jack until its fixed to the rail. While three people are needed to lift and fit a winder.

I am considering getting another gig of RAM. I currently have a gig and I think I saw someone saying a while back that ot makes a big difference in Lockon. I was looking at benchmarks of FEAR and the extra gig of RAM made no difference to that game but is lockon different? I currently have: AMD 64 3200+ (754) 1 Gig PC3200 (DDR 400) 6800GT 256Mb (AGP 8x) I just want a short term upgrade for the time being as I need a new motherboard (939 and PCIe) and a new everything if I want to upgrade further. Is it worth going up to 2 gigs of RAM?

What happened is the T-10S has normal size tail fins with flat tops. They were latter cropped on the production models. All two seaters have the tail fins increased by around two feet in height and are still cropped. When the Su-35 came along with it's fully digital controlled canards the designers felt taller tail fins were needed to compensate for them. These new tall tail fins have flat tops and have internal tanks. In the Su-30MK the tail fins are now changeable. The Su-30MKK for China has tall tail fins and canards, but no TV. The Su-30MKI have TV and canards from the latter delivery batches which will be retrofitted to earlier deliveries and standard size two seat tail fins.

They are the test airframes that Alfa was on about. I was wrong. In the photo notice this Su-30MK has the tall tailfins they hold extra fuel and were developed for the Su-35. These are options that the customer buying can choose from along with the choice of canards or TV engines.

''Indeed and you know which I prefer . As far as I am concerned it is a choice between the beauty or the beast(humpback of Notre Dame )'' The MiG-29K would be better gameplay wise, I agree but the MiG-29SMT can be based on either the 9-12 or 9-13 hunchback. It's the customer's decision much the same as the Su-30MK can be customised but to a far lesser extent, but if they do go for the 9-12 airframe they are missing out on the extra fuel and jammer. On another point if the MiG-29K was flyable, to keep things realistic that would mean flying in Indian Navy markings. Unless ED just go ahead and have MiG-29Ks flying from the Kuz along with the Su-33. I perssonally would like the choice of have two Navy fighters so long as at least one Flanker variant is carried over or introduced in ED's next sim.

Yeah, we all have our favourites and everybody has there own suggestions. My thoughts on it are, ED said they are strongly thinking on an advanced MiG-29, most possibly the MiG-29SMT. As far as I know, a lot of imagination will be needed there. The Su-30MK and not the MKI is in the same situation of the SMT. Yes a bit of imagination will be needed but it's a new Flanker and far more combat cabable than a SMT. Maybe ED are thinking the MiG-29SMT will be a more ''equal'' partner to the F-16 in combat ability. The Su-30MK is not as advanced as the MKI and there are a handful, maybe 7 or less in Russian service. Keep in mind there only 5 Su-30s in service in Russia yet it is still included in the game. I would say there would be just enough documentation to model them and only a very very slight change in the flight model will be needed due to slightly extra drag. Plus it's a heavily armed multi-role fighter with long range and mid-air refueling ability. Sounds better than a MiG-29SMT IMO.

The only thing is the Russian market is ED's first target. Thats why the Su-25T addon came along instead of the F/A-18 addon although the fact of Ubi pulling out of the deal was also part of the reason and now the Ka-50 is on the way. It has already been said the F-16 has been done so many times but only Falcon has got it close. Then you have Fighter Ops coming up with an F-16 in it along with other flyables. I'm not against the F-16 idea but I wouldn't be complaning if was not made either. If had to pick a new pair of fighters for EDs next sim it would be the Su-30MK and the F-15E. But what ever the next sim eventually turns out to be I'll be looking foward to it and hopefully we won't have to wait too long, (< 5 years) maybe....

The MiG-29 needs to be constantly trimmed to get the best out it. It is even stated in the 1.1 manual that the MiG-29 needs to be trimmed to perform at it's best in dogfights. Rest assured it's not a flaw or bug with the game, joystick or controll settings. I remember reading an interview of an ex F-4 pilot who had moved over to the F-15 and apart from the obvious praises over the F-4 he stated that he used to always wear out the right thumbs in his flight gloves because of always having to trim the F-4. The F-15 has auto trim and only needs to be trimmed for battle damage and asymetrical loadouts, like putting a drop tank and 2 120s on one wing and just 2 sidewinders or nothing on the other.

The next big upgrade for the F-15E is the new APG-63V3 AESA. The entire USAF fleet of 224 Strike Eagles will start getting the new radars installed from 2006. The the good thing about the AESA is that it will allow both air to air modes and air to ground modes at the same time. Along with the new GBU-39 SDB and the new version that can target moving objects the F-15E is set up very well for the future. It's only downside is that it is going to need better and better ECM systems as its radar and IR signature are relativly high by modern fighter standards. It will become the case that the F/A-22 and F-35 will have to clear out the high threats first and make the combat area safe before a Strike Eagle can come on the sceen.

Just one piece of info I have. IRL the MiG-25P cannot reach 70,000ft when armed with 4 R-40 missiles. The MiG-25P Foxbat A is also limited to M2.5 to prevent the engines from accelerating out of control. But the MiG-25s are known to have exceeded Mach 3 a number of time to escape Israeli SAMs. But after doing this the engines are useless and have to be scrapped. However the MiG-25RB can achieve M2.83 for five minutes without damaging the engines. The official ceilling for the MiG-25PDS is 67,915ft (20,700m). And time to achieve 20,000m (65,615) is 8 mins 54 secs.

The TOW missile is wire guided. The gunner actually steers the missile to impact via a small thin wire connecting the missile to the helo. They are aimed at the target and the gunner then makes the fine course adjustments for a good hit.

And it's a bit too bright if that was 38km up.:D

Rockets are not very accurate, thats why they are usually launched in vollies. They are even effected by wind just like bullets. But some rockets can be accurate, take the Russian S-25 rockets for example. I'm not exactly sure how the accuracy is achieved but I belive it has something to do with the rocket spinning like a bullet as it leaves the chamber and the pop out tail fins which are larger than the little ones on a Hydra.

Much nicer than the old one. Unusual to see a Foxbat that is not grey. This will serve it better at 65k. You can upload it to lockonfiles.com

You didn't mention the AGM-65F anti-ship version. Used mainly by Hornets, it has a large warhead like the G and it is designed that it aims for the waterline of it's targets.

Or how about the AGM-65G IIR. It has a large warhead, around 300lbs of HE I think. I think it was designed to especially for SAM sites and radars. With the large HE blast frag warhead spreading the damage instead of concentrating on anti tank penetration like the other Mavs. And with the IIR seeker you can lock a target and then designate a point within that lock.

Well for a start it's the YF-22 and I doubt it would be much use seeing as the two YF-22s don't fly anymore and are in a museums. And to which new Flanker are you refaring to, the Su-30MKI Mk3, Su-35UB, Su-27SM/BM? Besides this topic is about the World Series. Although I am sue there are some ''other'' forums which deal with fictional topics as to who would win if x vs y etc. :D

The default setting is 50%. A lot of servers use 100% to help rookies out. But ED has stated that the 50% value is the ''realistic'' value.

It is a known bug that the flaps will not visually lower sometimes in MP but they actually do flight model wise.. But you should be able to tell by the flight charateristics eather they are deployed or not.

It's just that if you watch any Flanker related video from patricksaviation.com you will see that the AI in Lockon are visually correct with their flaperon positions. I just find it strange that it is different for the player Su-27. IRL the Su-27 have one flaperon position for takeoff and landing after that the FBW computer has the control to deflect the flaperons all the way should the need arrise. It just that seeing as ED have access to the flight manuals and the odd test pilot, well..... am I barking up the wrong tree here?

And you should not be even able to see the F-15s turbines unless you stand at the intake with a good torch looking into it, same goes for the MiG-29. But on the A-10 they would be nice.

Oh, I see. The UFO caught the F/A-18 in a tractor beam and then abducted the pilot. :D

I think he ment 533 meters and not 533 feet otherwise I would not want him flying with me. Never seen that one before :D

I know I keep bringing this up but have a look at the two screenshots below. Me set up for takeoff and...... The AI set up for takeoff. I know I'm in the 27 and the AI is in the 30 but it's still the same wing. I can only move my flaperons full up or full down. They also automatically go full down when the gear is deployed. Yet the AI can still get this mid position at of around 15 degrees. I press the F key, shift+F, ctrl+F and alt+F trying to get the same flap position, thinking these commands might do it, lol. I know the flaperons are automatically controlled by the FCS during flight and the flaperons position themselves acordingly. I have even posted a pic of a real Su-27P with this mid flaperon position and I have watched many Su-27 videos and have seen this position also. What I have never seen however is real Su-27 using the full down flaperon position for takeoff or landing, only when maneuvering in the auto positions. So I have come to the conclusion that it is a similar bug to the F-15 intake error where the AI F-15 intakes go down all the way while the player intakes move only very slightly up and down. And I know for a fact that when an F-15 is on the ground with the engines running the intakes must always be deflected in the full down position and not almost fully up like the player aircraft except in the case when the engines are switched off. I know the intake error is a long running issue and that ED will never fix it but can the flaperon issue with the Flankers except the 33 be confirmed. And also, if anyone can post a pic of the player Su-27 with the flaperons in the mid position and not a screen captured while the flaperons were in transit, I'd love to see it.