Cobra360

Try a free file hosting site like photobucket.com and llink the image to the fourm.

LOL an exact mirror image. History repeats itself.

I heard there was a U-2 there this year. Anybody get a pic of it?

Yes it has been noted that IRL the launch sequence of the R-27 is far less user friendly than for the AIM-7 or AIM-120. Cant comment on setting up for a guns shot or dogfight mode as I don't know. One thing Russian HUDs need is a FPM like US,UK and French fighters have. I know Russian HUDs don't have them IRL but it would help a lot. Sorry for going OT Mods.

Yep, you said it. It takes a better pilot than most to constantly beat a Su-27 WVR.

Yeah, I know. It would be a nice thought. It would really even up the F-15 and Su-27/33. It's the Su-27/33 dogfighting ability with range advantage over the F-15 that make it my favourite fighter to battle in.

I guess the it would be about the same. The USAF has fully evaluated the MiG-29 as they bought a few in 1997 that were ment to be sold to Iran by Muldova. A few were even built to MiG-29S standard. USAF F-15 pilots have only flown a few mock dogfights against the Flanker family fighters. But USAF pilots will always choose to fight the MiG and Flanker from as far as possible. A lightly fueled Su-27 has a higher T/W ratio than a MiG-29 and could easily follow a F-15 into a vertical fight. Thats why the AIM-120D is in development with 50% more range than the current C model.

Same goes for if your turning at really slow speeds as well. The missile will you get you even easier since you are flying so slow and can't turn into it to try and avoide it my cause the missile to overshoot. Let see what happens if ED ever give the F-15 in LOMAC a midlife upgrade and add the AIM-9X JHMCS.

Thats the approach the USAF teaches it's F-15 pilots when fighting MiG-29s. Just shoot straight up and come bearing down on them while they are trying to re-gain speed. It leaves the MiG-29 with very few options if they let that happen. Strange that tactic didn't work for the F-15Cs that went up against the Indian Su-30MKs, not the MKI with T/V. Even though there were restrictions in place on the usage of the AMRAAM and the JHMCS with the AIM-9X. The F-15s could not better a 1:1 exchange ratio against the Su-30MK. Although some say it was staged to get more funding for the F/A-22, but enough on that topic. Anyone see the video of German MiG-29s up against F-16s. The F-16 let the fight get slow. The F-16 HUD tape show speed down to 180kts and a 4G loading but they can still manage to get inside the trun radius of the MiG for a few seconds and take the shot. But yet again in that exercise the MiG-29 won overall to the F-16.

It more keeping the F-15 in the flight envelope it performs best in. The high energy turning fight. This negates the Fulcrum and Flankers low speed turning advantage and makes them fight on your terms.

Classic Tornado ADV approach. At least they got ASRAAM to help out in that area now. Typical F-15 load out for me is 6x120s and 2x9s after that I'm running unless its a MiG-23 or something in that league. May challange a MiG-29 into a dogfight and run him outa fuel for the laugh. Then gun him down when he's running for home. BTW. what you think of ED's F-16 and MiG-29 idea BGP, good to see you back around here again.

Kinda puts 940 20mm rounds to waste, doesn't it. Just strap on the slammers and let 'em rip.

I thought the ACTIVE was powerd by the 229s. One of the down sides of the canards was that there was no room for the gun

Anyone remember the F-15 ACTIVE programme. If there was enough funding available and the F/A-22 was not so feckin expensive some feature from that may have filtered down into an F-15 upgrade programme. Canards and T/V engines. A US equivelent of the Su-30MKI.

Didn't Microprose try this with Gunship2000 and a tank sim they were making at the time. If they had pulled off the project you would have had two sims in one. Apache, Havoc and Tiger choppers up against M1A1s, Lepord2s and T-80Us. So if Lockon was melded with the new Flashpoint game you would have a proper air and ground war. If you eject you could go to a first person mode and try and survive until a rescue chopper come to pick you up and fly you back to base. Nice idea in theory but imagine trying to get all that to work properly online. Its a developers worst nightmare waiting to happen. Another idea could be if you in an infantry squad and under heavy attack, you could call in air support from other people flying A-10s. You could lase the targets for them and in return you knock out the SAMs in the area. All the possibilities. Maybe in 10-15 years time.

All I can find on the net is this. http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:9vfEcYo6p7YJ:f6dsh.free.fr/Missiles_in_NATO_service.doc+Improved+warhead+and+directional+doppler+fuse&hl=en&start=8&client=firefox-a BTW. I'm not basing my claim on the link above, it's the only example I can find. I origonally read this in a publication of 21st century air-to-air weapons with a name I can't remember off hand. It does not give too much away as I guess this technology is classified on how it works exactly. Some reports suggest from back in 1999 that this ability has beed added to the AIM-120C or was very close to being introduced on the then brand new C-4/5 upgrade being planned at the time. And about the F-16 test report, I miss typed my sentence. It should have said the first AIM-120 fired by an F-16. As the F-15C was the primary launch platform for the AMRAAM at the time.

The middle section of the AIM-120, behind the electronics unit, houses the radar proximity fuse and warhead. The warhead consists of 198 projectiles that are shaped like matchboxes. The proximity fuse can detect on which side of the missile the target is located and direct the projectiles towards the target instead of exploding in an even circular pattern as an AIM-7 would for example. The warhead of the AMRAAM is 48lbs of high explosive, directed fragmentation. And it's fusing is by active radar proximity or contact. AIM-120B model. The one in Lockon is ment to be AIM-120C even though it has the larger rear control fins of the B model in Lockon which should be corrected for smaller ones. The 120C is ment to have better ECCM and an improved warhead, and greater speed and agility than the B model. The leathal range of the warhead is classified. The first ever fully guided AIM-120 to be fired, was fired from an F-16 and scored an almost central hit on the QF-102 target drone, which burst into flames and crashed. The missile did not even carry a warhead. So it must be very accurate, or the drone was flying straight and level using no ECM. For comparason the French MICA uses only 26lbs of explosives. The AIM-54 uses a 132lbs high explosive warhead. The AIM-7 has a 88lb warhead. The AIM-9 has a 22lb warhead almost the same as the MICA! The Python 3/4 use a 24 lb warhead. The R-27 is equiped with a 88lb warhead, same as the AIM-7. While the R-77 has a 60lb warhead, a bit more powerful than the AIM-120 counterpart.

Just a little correction on the Su-27/33 MERs. When the MERs are loaded on the wing pylons they can hold 6 bombs each as modeld. But when the MERs are loaded under the intakes or in the tunnel they can only hold 5 bombs each. The reason for this, I'm not sure but thats how they are loaded. An Su-30MKI with MERs loaded.

You should have used a driver cleaning program to get rid of all ATi files before installing the Nvida card and drivers. But yes it is ok to delete these as you don't have an ATi card installed anymore. Your lucky you don't have any driver conflicts

http://www.flankertraining.com/ironhand/news.html Try here.

I'd love all that plus a proper living airbase. Jeeps and trucks driving around, choppers flying overhead. Have an airbase weapon stockpile that goes down over time.

I'd go for a faster processor first. Your processor will bottelneck a faster graphics card. IMO its not worth going froma 5900 to a 6600. You will get better frame rates but not enough to justify the cost. Just IMO. LOMAC is everything intensive. Your 1GB RAM is fine. If had your system I'd get a faster CPU.

Unless you ask a RL F-15 pilot to go and test the flight model for us. Anybody know one?

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/ubb.x/a/tpc/f/38610606/m/1921076733 These poped up the other day.

DDR works best when dual channel can be used. As far as I know this can only be done with 2 sticks of identical RAM as mentioned above. I'm not sure how it would handle 4. Is there a gap between the 2 RAM slots and the other 2. If this is the case, keep the 2 256s together. Put the 512 by itself and pair it up with another 512 when you can. Thats why the mobo is layed out like that, if it is on yours. As for getting 2 256 sticks instead of 1 512 and ending up with 4 256 sticks, I don't know. Thats your call. If I were you I'd get the 512 stick now and get another later. That way you would have 1.5Gigs of RAM in a 2 dual channel settup. I'm not to familiar with P4 boards. I have had AMD processors in all my PCs. They all had 3 RAM slots and I always left the third empty. Just used 2 identical sticks in all my PCs. Maybe an experienced P4 user can give you a deffinate answer.