Poopskadoop

That's annoying, and it sets me up to for a full frontal french kiss with an AMRAAM. Speed is important.

What I'd really love to see is some more advanced commands for my wingmen. As it is now, every time I try to coordinate an attack from different sides, they scatter in different directions and slow down severely. Why can't they stay at my speed? I should be able to tell them at what range to fire, where to fly, and at what speed to fly. This would encourage the use of real life tactics in single player.

I once landed an Su-25T on the CVN. Both my engines were shot out and some parts of the wing were missing. The landing gears collapsed, which is the only reason I was able to slow down enough not to fall off over the other end. It was a miracle, and I've only managed it once on the American carrier, but I frequently land it on the Kuz.

Amazing. I don't see how people land these things. I have enough trouble landing an aircraft when viewing from the 1st person position. I couldn't imagine doing it while standing on the ground. I'd crash that thing the first time I flew it, and then I'd be missing a couple thousand dollars. :cry:

The reason you lose lock when the enemy is below you is because he beams your missile. That is, he flies perfectly perpendicular to your radar and, since the Doppler effect shows he is no longer moving at any speed, he will become lost in the ground clutter. The radar cannot be fooled in a look up situation, but it can easily be fooled in a look down situation. Yes this is realistic, but the perfection with which he notches himself in this invisible zone is not.

This is how I do it: First missile fired at 20km out. The Eagle usually fires at 18km, so I have an advantage of a few seconds. If he fires at the same time, I don't worry about it. As soon as I fire, I bank to one side, usually the direction into which the eagle itself is heading. For the purpose of this example, let's say I banked to the right. I fly level and calmly. I generally don't need to use chaff, but it doesn't hurt. I fire another missile sometime within this time range. As soon as the the missile warning system indicates that the hostile missile is at the second to last bar, I pull upwards and in towards the direction of the eagle so that I don't lose lock. Sort of a sudden pull on the stick and a sudden bank into the eagle. So, in relation to my example, I would pull up and then bank left suddenly. This causes the missile to miss almost 100% of the time. Now, by this time, your second missile should have hit or will hit momentarily. If it doesn't, then the job becomes more complicated. Right now I should be pointing towards the eagle as a result of my maneuver. Depending on the range, I fire either another ER or an ET. ET is best because it is fire and forget, which is needed at this point. Usually the eagle launches another AIM-120 as soon as you finish pointing your nose to him, so you've got to quickly launch your missile and perform the same maneuver I used earlier. It's much more difficult this time because the AIM-120 is traveling much faster. Again, the same method is used. I pull up violently as soon as the indicator reaches the second to last light. Sometimes you may need to it slightly earlier as a result of the faster missile. If performed correctly, the eagle should be dead and you should have dodged his missile. If the third missile doesn't get him, quickly put yourself into a position to fire a 73. Pop some flares because it is likely that he is about to use his AIM-9. In all honesty, I usually get him with the first or second missile. I have to if I am outnumbered 2 to 1. That's a completely different situation that I am still trying to master.

The only thing I like about the Eagle is the auto-trim. Otherwise, I always fly the flanker. I don't know why, but it feels more natural to me. Besides, it's my favorite aircraft. :smilewink:

Okay, actually guys, I think this is a Su-35UB.

Hmm, t'would be nice to have that. Is it deployable on the Su-25 or Su-25T? I don't think they have the necessary FLIR equipment.

Yup, It's a 30. The Su-33 could not do that. Su-37 had a desert camo paint job, a single seat, and no longer exists. I tell you, I can never get over how beautifully the Sukhoi flies and what a beautiful jet it is in general. It doesn't simply fly; it dances through the sky. Russians are good at ballet in two ways. :thumbup:

Of course it was pilot error (or maybe a malfunction), but he's quite lucky. It must have been low on fuel to be able to pull that off. He also probably had the afterburners at full, although I can't see them in the video. But yeah, it's still amazing because he basically stops in mid-air and, like some have said, goes VTOL. :megalol: I wish I could see how that particular incident ended. By the end of the video, he was still hovering upwards. I also wonder if there is some sort of emergency thrust switch that can be used for precisely such situations. If there is, we should have that in LO.

But isn't it also used at high altitudes, regardless of the AoA? I always thought this was to provide a larger intake for the purpose of ensuring enough oxygen gets to the engines, considering the air is much thinner up there. Well... err... Am I at least 10% correct when saying it increases mass flow rate? :D

Wouldn't it also increase mass flow rate? No? Well, I'm probably wrong.

I actually like the original more than the ad-ons for some reason. It's a great sim but not ideal for use with a Saitek X-52. The controls are too loose and this causes constant nerve-wrecking readjustments when you're training your gunsights on the enemy. I played it using a friend's cheap logitech (or something like that), and it was much easier to keep the sights on target.

So I see they haven't terminated the Ka-50 project? I would have chosen the Ka-50 over the Mi-28. As I understand it, the only reason they chose the Mi-28 was because it had night attack capability. Well, we see now that this is also available on a variant of the Ka-50.

:surprise: :surprise: :surprise: I wish our Su-33 could do that.

I believe it increases intake mass flow rate.

AFAIK, the berkut is not fitted to carry weaponry of any sort. It's intended as a technology demonstrator. It is one beautiful work of art, though.

That will always be the disadvantage of single engine fighter aircraft. Lethal, nimble, but they can taken down by a single bird... Hmm, maybe that's an idea--train flocks of pigeons to swarm over your enemy's airbase to destroy their engines. :lol:

I doubt it has to do with counter-measures. Take note that the second R-77 and first R-27ET did not guide at all. Had counter-measures come into play, the missiles would have guided themselves towards the countermeasures, but they simply flew straight into the ground or off into the distance without manuevering. The first R-77 did seem like it was bound for the F-16. Despite it's strange trajectory, the nose was always pointed towards the F-16, not towards any chaff. The target's ECM was off--I had a clear radar lock. I was within 16 or so km when I fired the first R-77 and around 10km when I fired the second one (the one that did not guide). I was within 6-7 km when I fired the first ET and around 4km when I fired the second one (this one hit). The target's altitude was close to 600 meters; I was at 800 meters. I never lost radar lock, and even if beaming is a possible explanation for the R-77s, it does not explain the ET.

Alright, I don't usually fly the MiG-29, but, as far as I know, it should be similar to the flanker but with a shorter range and weaker radar. Well, today I was flying the second mission in the MiG-29S last chance campaign, and I noticed my missiles behaving strangely. The first R-77 I fired sort of "semi-guided" itself towards an F-16. I launched from approximately 15 kilometers out, and the missile just sort of curved gently as if trying to get behind the F-16, which was performing a beam maneuvre, instead of flying ahead to intercept it. Needless to say, it missed. I fired a second R-77 that didn't guide itself at all. Then I fired an R-27ET that also did not guide itself. Finally, I fired a second R-27ET that was able to guide itself and knock the F-16 out. Now, how the hell did that happen? I never have this sort of thing happen to me in the flanker. What would cause an R-77 not to guide itself or to "semi-guide?" Furthemore, I thought a heat-seaker, not being tied to any sort of radar system, would not experience any odd malfunctions, but it just flew straight from the direction I launched it and into the ground. I did not manually authorize launch and I had both the IRST and Radar functional. I also launched from very moderate distances. So, what's going on? Fortunately, the mission was a success, but I had to gun down the last F-16 since more than half of my missiles did not work for some reason.

I, for one, couldn't think of a better project than a helicopter simulator. Yes, there is much room for improvement in the realm of fixed wing aircraft and AI, but think of the variety that BS will add into the world of LO. Think of it: you will be able to choose from air-to-air combat, ground pounding, and now, if you become bored with the rest, you can fly the Ka-50, which should be a completely new world unto itself. I remember the good old days of EECH, but that game is old now and will pale in comparison to the level of detail incorporated into BS. The Ka-50 was the best choice for two reasons: - It is a single pilot aircraft. - It shares many of the same weapon systems as the Su-25T. Of course, the only thing I would have wanted more is to see one of the newer multi-role flankers modelled (with AFM). Oh, that would be pure heaven.

:lol: Yes, yes, I can agree with the Hornet, but to me the whole tail section of the Su-27 seems sexy as well. The thing I don't like about the Hornet is the rounded elevators, but the Su-27 has nice, clean, angular ones. The fins are perfect; in fact, everything about the Su-27's asthetics is perfect. Odd... any onlooker who didn't have a passion for aircraft would think it strange to use such terms as "sexy" when describing a piece of flying equipment.

Chunky butt? IMO, only the Su-33 has a chunky butt because of the reshaped tail cone. The rear view is one of my favorite aspects of the Su-27. I like the "stinger" look that it has going on and the engine nozzles seem appealing to me as well. The ugliest Russian aircraft ever produced would have to be the T-4. Second place goes to the dual-seat variant of the MiG-25.

What do you mean it never existed? Do you mean to imply it was never fitted with the necessary equipment to engage targets or that it never entered service? I see the latter as being more of a financial limitation and I know the former is false. Russia can build these aircraft for export, but, as I understand, prefers not to spend that money on its own airfroce, which is regrettable but understandable. But surely some variant of the Su-30 or Su-27 that is in service does have this ability, no?