Manny

Unfortunately none of this information presented today helps poor Goya get his Mavs on target :icon_frow . Perhaps using an Su-25T is a better choice for delivering weapons

Is this a fact in the simulation? I find it hard to believe a weapon as large as the Harpoon and its' near straight-and-level trajectory would make such an appealing target difficult to lock onto. If this is true, then balance is in order since no Russian anti-ship missile goes unengaged except the Kh-41 given time and distance to target, i.e. within minimum enagement distance and short flight time of the Kh-41. Not the Harpoon like trajectory, low over the sea, steady, non-evasive, and lookin to hit home.

Well thing is it self-guides, steady and at low altitude. It then goes balistic and makes an over-the-top pass at the ship. The only time it can be destroyed is if a ship detects this missile early in its' trajectory, at low altitudes and high speed. Not difficult given the size of the weapon and using Doppler-Shift Radar. However, once the missile goes ballistic, all bets are off. It is pulling too many gs and at too high an aspect angle for effective destruction unless a Phalanx gets a good lock. In the real world, this missile is touted as the most deadly anti-shipping missile in the world.

Swing I cannot say for sure in the presence of Electronic Countermeasures whether the aquisition and tracking radars will be effectively "jammed." I do know certain weapons employed by the Russians are jam-proof. Does this tech translate into jam-proof, jam free operation of air defense systems? I Ido not have sufficient information. however, these systems do employ optical sights. If I was operating a Tor, Tunguska, Shilka, etc. and observed a Maverick come off the rails of an A-10, I would certainly not hesitate to pop that Hog with some SAM and utilize my fire-control system to pick up that mav and knock it out of the sky.

Goya, I will preface my response with background and try to answer your question. Bear in mind the context of Maverick engagement has its' foundation in an Eagle Dynamic's simulation. The verification of Tunguska ability to defend itself and assets in such a manner is simple in the real world: Establish a convoy protected by two Tunguskas. Have Maverick deployable platforms engage the convoy. Record the results. Any volunteers? :rolleyes: When I obtained the Su-27 1.0 demo product, I was hooked. I observed the evolution of the game from retail product version 1.0 through 1.5, 2.0 through 2.5, LO-MAC through 1.11. The Tunguska has evolved. If I am not mistaken, it all began with 2.0. The Strela is a man-portable surface to air missile system (Currently IR only) and I do not expect it to be employed against air to surface missiles. Aircraft, however, I do. In the Flanker product since 1.0, nearly any deployable anti-shipping weapon was engaged by either ship-born missile or rapid-fire, High Explosive, systems. The ships tended to use Tunguska and Tor equivalent protection if Russian. US ships employed Sea Sparrows and Phalanx systems. It did appear nothing was highly effective against ships and their defensive systems. Thus employing more than one air to surface missile was a very good tactical decision. However, I have observed Cruisers and Battleships, even Carriers knock out all my missiles.The only weapon that appeared capable was one operating at multiples of Mach numbers such as the Kh-41 3M82 MOSKIT - SS-N-22 SUNBURN anti-ship missile. Even then, attempts were made to destroy it but it simply flew too fast most of the time for it to be engaged. Translate this simulation to land-based equivalents and one begins to see the apparent equivocacy. A Maverick engaged by a Tunguska, Tor, even Shilka system. All these platforms employ multiple target acquisition and tracking radars, and sophisticated fire control systems. In the mind of the product manufacturer, this weapon platform will do just that. In the mind of Eagle Dynamics, sure, absolutely and let us put it in the simulation. Is this at all possible given a real world scenario? That is best left to the volunteer Tunguska and convoy crews. There appears enough real world data to conclude it is possible and its inclusion in the sim appears justified. I know the annoyance this can be Goya especially if yer chucking limited ASMs at stuff. There are more ways than one to destroy these systems including the 30mm, depleted uranium, shell the A-10 fires at well over a mile away.

The 2K22 "Tunguska" (Russian 2К22 "Тунгуска" - Tunguska River, NATO reporting name SA-19 "Grisom") is an Integrated Air Defense System. The system carries six (2S6) or eight (2S6M/2S6M1) 9K111 missiles in two banks of two pairs, each pair being able to be elevated independently. Effective engagement ranges are 2.4 to 8 km (1.5 to 5 miles) and altitudes are 15-3500 m (50-11,500 ft). Each missile is 3.2 m (10.5 ft) long, weighs 65 kg (143 lb) with a warhead of 16 kg (35 lb), flies at around Mach 3.5 and can engage targets flying at up to Mach 1.5. The 2S6 vehicle carries two radars collectively known to NATO as "Hot Shot": 1RL144 E-band target acquisition radar with a maximum detection range of 20 km (12 miles) 1RL144M J-band target tracking radar with a maximum engagement range of 18 km (11 miles) It also incorporates the 1RL138 C/D-band IFF system and an optical tracking system. The 2S6 is able to use these systems to guide missiles to the target using radio command guidance in combination with automatic optical target tracking, or can feed the data into the fire control computer for aiming the guns, which consist of a four-barreled, high rate-of-fire (700 rounds-per-minute combined) 30mm cannon battery. (Reminds me of the deadly Shilka ) The missiles are detonated using a proximity system when they are within 5 m (16 ft) of their target and have a kill probability (PK) of around 0.65. Note that missiles can only be fired while the 2S6 system is stationary and due to the optical tracking method have extremely limited viability at night. The 2S6 system has also been mounted on ships. The naval version is the 3K87 "Kortik" (Russian Кортик - dirk) and has the NATO reporting name SA-N-11. It is installed on Kuznetsov-class aircraft carriers. It is said to have a role similar to that of the American Phalanx CIWS system, able to shoot down incoming anti-ship missiles as well as aircraft. The export version of the Kortik is called "Kashtan" (Russian Каштан - chestnut). I would state that ED modeled the behavior of the tunguska correctly :icon_jook

Lol, G stop hate'n on Russian birds! Why the F-16? For that matter why an AFM for the A-10? (though I do have an aversion for the hog ever since A-10 Cuba ) Bahhh haven't we had enough NATO sims to last a lifetime? If one wants to fly the F-16 and have it "As Real as it Gets", then there is Falcon 4.0: Allied Force! I seriously hope Eagle does not go the way of the DoDo Bird and flock to simulating more of the same old thing already out there... sheesh :icon_evil

Flankers, particularly Su-30s, are so huge u can carry a pair of F-16s on the wing pylons ... gives me the shivers lol

Are you familiar with the Razaorworks title Enemy Enaged: Comanche vs. Hokum? That was perhaps the premeir (and only) short-lived simulation of the Hokum and Comanche. It can still be bought but no modern PC-simulation of the Hokum, other than that, has been made.

I may be of some assistance: 1. What is "AFM"? everybody is talking about this.... Isn't AFM the Airplane Flight Manual .. :p Are there plans for ED to distribute these? Naaa must be the Advanced Flight Model thingie .. darn 2. In the section "LOMAC" of lockon.ru, you can read in the description of Su-33/27 and Mig-29A/C: Data Link mode, all radar systems are kept silent for stealthy attack. what does that mean? Already explained I am sure .. I do find this is quite interesting in that u can no to nly receive AWACS data through the data comuunication system but also lock-on and engage targets with the radar off .. Ummm yummy :icon_jook 3. Same section, page 2 Weapons : Kh-15, Kh-23, Kh-23L I don't know for you guys but I never seen these weapons in the game and I searched... is it only me? These are classified as Air to Surface weapons. The raduga kh-15 (as-16 kickback) anti-radiation missile is a short-range attack missile analogous to the the American AGM-69 SRAM The Zvezda Kh-23 (AS-7 Kerry) is a beam riding tactical guided air-to-ground missile The Kh-23L is the laser guided variant 4. What happened to S-300V, why isnt it in the game anymore? (it was in flanker 2.5) Man am I glad that is gone :icon_wink The S-300 represented the badest of the baddies in my opinion, a mach+5 capable, nearly theatre balistic surface to air missile system that literally was jam-proof, evasion proof, escape-proof, and one ugly, mean way to die. I think in 2.5 I managed to successfully avoid it once out of a hundred attempts. 5. Is there any project, in a future patch, to remove the sams' ability to shoot down anti-radar missiles, it ruins all the sp missions... That has been a feature since Flanker 2.0 if not 1.5. My preference was for the Patriot Missile System to operate in that role but for some reason Eagle never modeled the system's Desert Storm counterpart. Of course always firing off more than 1 will do the trick. 6. Is the weapons control for the A-10, especially for the maverick, correctly modeled? cause its seems way too easy, you dont even need to keep the lock on for the laser guided version... "The AGM-65E uses a laser seeker and the AGM-65F employs an infrared seeker. The infrared and laser seeker sections can be interchanged with no other alterations to the missile. Used in conjunction with ground or airborne laser designators, the missile seeker, searches a sector 7 miles across and over 10 miles ahead. If the missile loses laser spot it goes ballistic and flies up and over target -- the warhead does not explode, but becomes a dud." 7. AA Combat Question Sometimes, well actually very often, when I fly the Su-27 and lock on an enemy in BVR, I launch a R-27ER but after some time the radar shuts down, the "I" dissapears on the side and it switches to EOS ("T"), obviously the missile is then wasted. This is really annoying, especially when I have to waste like 4 missiles on an unarmed F-16...:icon_roll What's wrong? How can this be solved? Did you perhaps verify your joystick assignments? Perhaps you are inadvertently pressing a button on your joystick that is turning off your radar and turning on the EOS. :icon_frow

I can appreciate your decision to introduce to Lock-On, Flaming Cliffs, a military helicopter but why the KA-50 Hokum-A / KA-52 Hokum-B :confused: Why may be irrelevant considering the current development of the add-on. Was consideration ever given toward the Mi-24 Hind, a military helicopter that has seen more combat than the Hokum? Perhaps it is the asymmetrical main rotor design that makes the Hokum that much more appealing. :cool: I ask this question in consideration of the Mi-24 Hind simulation from I-Magic. I always thought the Hind was a formidable machine and especially like the troop modeling in the sim. Nevertheless, are there plans to introduce additional variants of the Flanker and Fulcrum such as the navalized version of the fulcrum (Flanker 2.5) and perhaps the first thrust vectoring to LO-MAC in the Su-37? How about the Su-39?? I understand the die-hard, NATO f4n8o1s may not appreciate this thread. However, I find the over-simulation of US warbirds enough reason to thank ED for their bold approach to simulating the rest of the world suitable to my taste :icon_jook .

GG I defered, but however I have already agreed, after I researched this for myself, it was not put into service, sold, active, etc. I agree to prototype only... meaning it was produced but not for sale or use actively. I work for an Automotive Supplier that produces many things not sold or distributed externally. Anyway, does the R-27AE have an advantage over the use of the R-77 in Lock-On? If so what is it else I still don't understand, beside the fact the missile was never used, what the big deal is? Is this a sacred cow thing to users of Lock-On? A candles and Star of David event? The R-77 is employable if you fly Russian and an AR missile like the R-27AE. So what is the big deal? Well nevermind I understand in part why people hissy-fit over it.

Are you certain the R-27EA is not a production missile? I have read at Janes of the active radar seeker assembly 9B-1103M used in the AA-10 'Alamo' R-27AE (Duncan Lennox) You are correct to state the missile is not in service but incorrect to state it was not produced. Data for the missile was compiled but it was replaced by the AMRAAM equivalent R-77. Nonetheless, I defer. It should never have been placed into Lock-On. However, Lock-On is a simulation, a game, and I think lightening up a bit is in order since an AR missile already exists for the Flanker and Fulcrum.

Ohh absolutely I have a working gold game and thx, I will install 1.11 CD version into the game this evening

Well I just do not know but I am sure you all do.. help an old Flanker 1.0 pilot out will ya :) I downloaded the file but have yet to install it. Should I install 1.11 CD version into Lock-On gold? Thx

I am aware of the objections, the issues, toward the use of the R-27EA and R-27EM AA-10D Alamo missile and chose ot relight this thread. BTW, the missile is in production, not currently used. However, would not this objection also extend toward nearly all remaining Soviet-built Air to Air missile technology after the AA-8 (R-60) Aphid? Technically speaking, there was limited to no oppotunity for Soviet Air to Air missile technology to be employed. The Vietnam War was the last opportunity for Soviet-built A2A missile technology to be employed. There have been opportinities for theatres of actual use and operation. Thus, the The Vympel R-73 Archer, R-77 AA-12 Adder, and every furture production missile should be considered an "illegal" loadout. The Fulcrum, Flanker, and Frogfoot should be limited to AA-7 and previous missile technology. I'm talkin the days of the MiG-21 and prior. As for the AIM-54 Phoeinx missile system, I thought that was F-14 Fleet Defense restricted and the F-14 was built to carry that missile in a qty of 6? Nonetheless, this is a game simulating a conflict that never happened in real life, simulating the use of aircraft that presently have not seen actual combat and no, Iraq and other nations possession does not constitute use in battle since these aircraft were prcticaly never used. I am of the opinion this attempt at fanaticism toward reality has gone way too far and for ED to make the missile a "dumb missile" is silly. Just one man's opinion.

I would like to comment. It appears you are stating, by your action, how "unfair" it is regarding an apparent "advantage" one weapon system or aircraft has over another. There is no need to react negatively (player hate) toward the R-27EA, EM Alamo (AA-10D) the pilot fired as it is no different than an all aspect AMRAAM. I know I will never play on your server and will never be welcome if I have to "restrict" my loadout to make the game "fair." I this is a sticking point for you then you may as well complain about the IRST, gimbled seeker heads, high thrust to weight, low speed high AoA fights, beaming, pouncing, punching, high speed low AoA, etc. Why don't you just make the aircraft meet on a common runway and see who can crash into the other first. I respect you as it is your server and with any online game, respect the server rules but man either play the game or quit. Vulching, gouging, and unfair play is one thing but to discipline someone for using an effective 70Km range all aspect SARH or AR that requires you to think, requires you to react, requires you to know that when your ass is locked up you better start movin or die, well then I do not understand how you play the game. I have taken out Eagles with this and similar weapons in BVR and VR and watched with radar lock or not, as the player flew straight and level with a clean, clear, and naked attitude....bahh that is not my fault or EDs. As I wrote, I respect you for your server rules but you have definitley gone way over the edge with that. Subnite: I did read that there was a bug in 1.01 regarding some SARH missles, the AIM-7 and R-27EA included, whereby there was no continbuous RWR tone once the missle was fired. If this persists today and is still a "Bug", then I would be in favor of limiting the loadout or suggest Eagle pilots do what has been donw before; namely fly at greater than speed of sound and wildly dump chaff and flare until you get into visual ranger and then unleah the AIM-9s.