Breakshot

Thats the whole point, only when its in terminal homing. Initial homing has to be done inertialy or some other way. If someone could translate on what CYB stands for it could be alot clearer on if the missile does infact have inertial guidance or some from of other first stage guidance for that matter.

Hmm, all my posts here are based on the info from the manual, nothing more. Meanwhile you are simply speculating as you have no credible info at all on Russian ET missile. Also to repeat again the title of the manual page is: "Conditions for Missile launch" OK, well we could argue forever here, so I am not going to post anything no more, unless you bring some credible info on the ET to prove your point, because as it is now I see nothing credible in your remarks. Although you do pretty good trying to "discredit" the credible info from the real Su-27SK manual with your statements about the poor edit etc. Its funny though I can give you that. Allright I am off for now

Anyway I posted and cleared out the info from the manual as best as I could. People can interpet that how they wish. In your case GG it seems like you mind was made up already, and offcorse you have a background of infinite knowledge on the subject so how can a lousy, bad edited, wrong, easy to read manual prove anything? Also I was never trying to prove that an ET has command updated guidance. It probably only has initial guidance, and once released is on its own. But that would be at least enough to set it on the right course to a distant target lets say 25km away. Sure the seeker is not as good as it is in lock on, but the fact of the matter is that the missile is ment to be employed as a medium range IR missile to be used in conjuction with the ER. And the manual states many things that prove that. So my conclusion on the matter is: In lock on: ET needs inertial guidance (not command updated) ET should have a more limited seeker. Regarding the amraam, I have no info at all on this and can only speculate. But I think its still the best radar missile in the game. Just by looking at my own stats in 504 server, it is the missile that killed me most.

Nice, so he forgot to edit the title from "Conditions for Launch" to "Kinematic range" as well then?? Wow you realy work fast. lol

There it goes, but does that make you a Russian Missile expert? Also you havent brought up a single credible source (that concerns ET) at all, so untill you do It appears I have more info to offer. But it doesnt matter, you rule-out everything posted because ur understanding of the manual is exellent To be honest, it would not be such an easy read even for those who know perfect Russian.

It would be useful if human beigns could fly on their own, but it isnt physically possible is it? Your "mr know it all" logic makes no sense what so ever

According to the manual pg 129 the P73 has a ZPC range from 0.6 to 13 ET from 0.7 to 12.5 So strangely enough it appears that P73 has better "kinematic" range on receding target (according to you) Like I said the manual is not just giving kinematic ranges, its giving you the pilot a possible parameters for launch under different conditions. The title of that table states: Conditions for Launch! Not kinematic range for missiles!

LOL GG you have an answer for everything it seems. Therefore it is no point in arguing with you, you are the most exellent expert in missiles(be it seeker, guidance, kinematics, employment) also u seem to know alot about how effective they all "should" be, man you are good! So tell me now then, do you work with all this missiles? Are you flying/building for the Russian BBC? Ti hot po ruskii govorit umeesh?

I think ET is wrong, the wrong part about it is the seekers ability to aquire so easily. The other thing is that it has no inertial guidance in the game (removed since 1.1) So it would be best if the seeker limits and such were changed, but that the missile would still find its target due to inertial guidance, not by "maddog" launch. It only makes sense, the ET is a big missile and is made for long ranges. It would make no sense in launching it only when seeker has lock as you have an P73 for that already, which has decent range.

OK for page 169 (at the bottom) Continuation of previous post. (That one has also been edited) Unguided release of missiles such as R27R/T/ET/ER if the AC is in emergency condition such as inability to land with missiles on. OR if the tactical situation requires such a release. (This is what I assumed coud be that Maddog situation) Unguided release of missiles can be done while flipping: unguided launch switch & holding another key untill the missiles release. Next paragraph it states how to do a jettison of them as well.

Sorry let me rephrase that, "opinions". It might not necessary mean facts, my bad, wrong choice of word. Also I replied to EvilBivol regarding his "different interpretation" EvilBivol actually disagreed with my conclusions based on interpretation. Such as: about Inertial Guidance (because it isnt stated in the manual) Simply because its an operational manual not a technical manual. I made this conclusion because the manual clearly states that the ET has a maximum forward aspect target range of ~53 km (based on some parameters offcorse). Now how can an ET hit something at that range wihtout some sort of initial guidance? And no, the manual doesnt just state the ballistic stats on the missiles, it states the parameters of their employment, so theoretically it is possible to hit a flying target at that range. Such as: Maddoging was possible, now in this part he just misunderstood me as all I was trying to say that it could be possible because the missiles could infact be released without lock if the situation requires. I hope that clears it out for you. But if not let me recap just the facts from the manual: Pg 128-129 (Table for Missiles) Title: Conditions for Missile Launch (pg 128) Under IR missiles (2,3,4) it states certain weather conditions that could affect the launch. Such as: clouds, sun, water that is lighted by sun, also states the allowed temp deviation of 15C during this conditions for day and 4C during night with moon instead. etc etc (pg 129) 4 (P27TE) First line 4 (ET) Parameters when launching at longer ranges using CYB depending on the conditions of atack PPC from 2 to 52.5km ZPC from 0.7 to 12.5km Second line Parameters when launching at identified visual ranges using KP PPC from 2 to 3Hp+15km ZPC from 0.7 to Hp/2 + 2km Now the only 2 things I couldnt uderstand is the short forms for the (avionic systems?) such as CYB and KP. It states that u use them for providing range data on the target. That could be it, the system that provides the missile with necessary guidance info for launch. Anyone knows what these stand for?

Hmm I think its obvios for everyone that LOMAC is wrong. It has to be, as it is just a sim, not real. It is a question of "how much wrong" thats what we are deliberating on....

Buddy read up my post properly before making such conclusions. None of my comments ment to insult you or anyone. No matter how one tries he can never be objective. All your posts Pilotasso were only ment to somehow disprove this "new problem" of yours. I am sorry if you feel offended by my reply, but I was only stating the obvious. That is you are totaly biased into thinking that the ET is wrong and should be "fixed". Just look at the title of this post for example, that tells the whole story. Anyway no hard feelings, I think you shouldnt have started this post in the first place, as it is obvious where it would be going. Also the info that I posted (su27 manual) didnt seem to matter to you or to others, as you just maitained your course of complaint.

Hmmmm, No Comment Untill any of the actual "assumed anamolies" are proven to be true/untrue with actual solid evidence/information to prove it, you or anyone else for that matter have no right to say what is "wrong/right" what should be "fixed" so I suggest picking your words a little more carefully next time. As far as I am concerned nobody has brought up anything apart from speculation regarding the subject at hand. As for myself, I based all my comments/assumptions/conclusions on what I gathered from the Su-27SK manual, be it right or wrong.....

Did I say anythin about hitting a target?? All I stated was that the manual dictates the possibility of such a missile release, therefore proving a point that it is physically possible. I think you are mis-interpreting my interpretation. The pages from the manual were added to prove my point. I was not trying to directly translate them, as it wouldn't make any sense to the topic of discussion at hand (Maddogin ETs). What I am merely doing is, drawing conclusions based on what the manual has, to try and make actual sense based on the information at hand. Same goes for my "inertial" guidance comment. I think its pretty obvious that the page from the manual that I raised up does not have any info on this, you dont need to read russian to understand it, because its just a table of missile launch parameters. So I think EvilBivol you completely misunderstood me there.... Oh and I am translating it because I am Russian and its my first language.....

Spot on Ice! I agree with you 100% as I already said, I would rather have the ability to launch an Amraam in TWS with no trails at a much longer range, rather than "maddogin" ETs at ridiculous ranges.

Ok, here is a page from the manual again (pg, 169), which clearly states that u can release these missiles in a completely unguided manner (maddoging??) It states that u have to press some switch and hold it etc. Note also thats not simply jettisoning the weapon, as that is described as well. This is actually releasing the missile if required by any "tactical" situation. So it is very much possible to "maddog" an ET! Another interesting page (pg 142) shows the thermal profile of targets for Headon/Rear/Close/Long Range/low alt/High alt/ for launching an intercept missile. So it clearly proves that these missiles are definately employed at such ranges, or at least ment to be employed.

Apology Accepted I do have a tip for you though: You are in no position to tell anyone that he/she is wrong, because this my opinion on the subject. I am by no means a "expert/scientist" whose formula could be proven/disproven by simple mathematical calculation. Unless you actually work/fly with this missiles, your opininon is no more "correct" than mine! Also in the End-Game the missile motor is burned out (it only takes couple of seconds) and at that speed it will cool instantly, therefore the missile will have no heat signature what so ever, the missile will probably have ice forming on it! Also different types of missile use different type of navigation. Just compare ARH vs SARH, so I dont see your point there. Anyway i just had to set that straight.... I am out for sure now

Wow nice D-Scythe I got a nice picture of how ur mind works, therefore I will hope that u will not reply to any of my opinions or anyone else that disagrees with u for that matter. Because u seem to "know it all" Congrats! Bck to the point, the first stage of flight is Inertial guidance so the seeker does not look for targets at launch because it already has the data uploaded to the missile. And even if the target is very close the computer will probably filter out any IR signature that it recognises (such as other own missiles). Your "expert" opinion is just a blatant guess! Also the missiles arent launched behind each other as there is no pylon positioning for that. Also the missiles are plrobably launched with some sort of gap in time say 3-4 sec is enough (Thats probably what they learn in training). Anyway we are all posting here on this thread to voice our opinions on the topic to have a better understanding. And because it seems like some people have absolutely no respect for that, and since no sides seem to listen to each other anyway, I will exuse myself from posting any more on this thread......

Allright here are 2 slides of actual Su-27 manual regarding missile emplyment. Basically it states the Guidelines and parameters at which the missile is launched. ET is number 4 in the table and in forward aspect has a maximum emplyment range of 53km!(perfect conditions offcorse) The missile is inertial guided at first stage of flight. There are disclamers however that weather/sun etc can affect the effectiveness. But not drive the missile blind like some might think! Also the plane can do up to 6gs when launching, when the seeker is out of limits!(The R73 up to 8gs) So the AC actually downloads the coordinates of the target upon launch... I also fly ALL fighters, and to be honest I find the F15 lot more superior in BVR and it is definately the best AC in that respect to get the kills. And Yes i flew in it since 1.12a and have gotten better K/D ratios than in any Russian bird. A combo of Aim7 + 120 is very hard to beat!

The Inertial Guidance is infact present in the ETs first stage of flight (not modelled in Lockon 1.1 although was in the 1.02 days, so the ET has been already nerfed). In fact from what I gather it is a standart tactic for russian pilots to launch an ET straight after an ER shot at long range, thats how they are being trained. So I totaly agree that this post was made simply because someone was looking for a reason to use when it comes to beign shot down. To be honest this whole post is going nowhere apart from an endless argument by both the F15 & Russian plane drivers. Lets face it, each plane has an edge in some respect, in the game anyway, so instead of complaining just work it out. By the way since 1.11 the f15 has got double more flares on board than before, so use them! About the chaff thing, I think that it is equally or even easier to spoof an 77 or ER with that as well, so the Amraam is not underpowered. Missiles are prone to misses, and I doubt that in real life u can score 1 kill per shot with an Amraam. The standart tactic of US fighter pilots is to Ripple as many amramms as required to take down the targets. I heard that only 1 out of 3 or 4 actually hits (although dont know exact stats on that, I could be wrong) But lets just look at it, 1/3 is actually an exellent rate for a missile. Just think of some of the Sparrow or 27R stats where the hit rate is very low. I doubt that the Amraam, no matter how good the technological advancement made could increase the PK by more than say 50 odd percent. I also agree with Ice on the actual effectiveness of the ET, getting a kill with it at more than 15km is extremely improbable, and I would rather have an Amraam that could be launched in TWS (without trails by the way) instead. Also in my honest opinion the Amraam is nasty when u are in WVR and about to merge. Because u just dont see the bugger being launched! (well if u are lucky, u can catch the initial ignition but even that is hard to spot) Anyway here is what I think about all this. This discussion is pretty much pointless as both sides would always find reasons to complain, disprove/prove a theory that suits them better.

Aim-54 needs special radar on its frequency to operate it I think, Also it is so heavy that the F-15 doenst have the pylon holders to even hold the damn thing. So Tharos what are u talking about!

No Gaze, it only states that for 27SK, Not 33! It also states that the 27S can carry P77! So the info is pretty much a throw-out. The reason 27 cant carry it is because of seeker limit if u put the missile under the aircraft. But with the Su-33 because of those extra 2 pylons we are talking on putting the missile on the wing, where it is not obstructed!

We are not talking about the Inner Pylons! Its the 2 extra wing Pylons that the Su-33 has, thus there is no obstruction for the seeker!! And those pylons have the same launcher that the ET missile requires (The ET is fully autonomous, u just launch it straight like a rocket, it doesnt need any guidance from the plane itself). So the only possible reason why its not modeled in the game to have Ets on those pylons is probably, real life procedure, like someone pointed out in the real life they rely on the ER/EMs to do the BVR job not ther ET, thus they carry more of the ER kind. Also the Mig-29 is able to carry 2 ETs on the inner wing pylons, so its obvios that the seeker is not obstructed in that position. In my opinion I see absolutely no reason for the missile not to be carried on those 2 additional wing pylons. Weight is also not relevant as if u carry Ers on those pylons the ET is even lighter I think.....

I am just curious in the ability of the Flanker to carry the P27T/ET on the inner pylons, not just on the middle wing pylons. As far as I understand, it seems like all of the P27 missile versions could be carried on the designed pylons for them. Yet how come in LOMAC it is only possible to fit the T/ET versions only on middle wing?? Anyone has any info on this? Thnx!