monotwix

Stick a rocket up there, see if that’s hot.

O yeah the mud movers manoeuvres.

But this opponent is flying like a bee. What do I do?

Less atlantic tuna for Japanese sashimi alert.

Originally Posted by monotwix I don’t understand the advantages of not having active missiles on air superiority fighter e.g. SU-27 and therefore the theoretical tactics used by Russian air force to deal with AIM-120. Originally Posted by monotwix I don’t understand the advantages of not having active missiles on air superiority fighter e.g. SU-27 and therefore the theoretical tactics used by Russian air force to deal with AIM-120. And you replied: There are none. They were in a bad position in general to deal with AIM-120 equipped aircraft. Don’t blame my imagination it’s good but not that good.

No offence intended.

I thought you said there was no plans or tactics to deal with AMRAAM. Or training their air force, and bang, there’s nothing only the Polish Mig-29 instructor is catching up with those tactics using R-27.

I’ve done my own little bit of investigation and speculation regarding SU-27 and R-77 and I‘m just going to try to piece the bits of information together. Su-27 has entered service in 1984 and the works on the R-77 began in 1982. R-27ER and ET entered in 1990. Quotes from wikipedia: SU-27 related. Frontal Aviation service its primary role was as aerial interdictor, tasked with fighting its way past enemy (presumably NATO) lines to strike tanker and AWACS aircraft.[citation needed] Soviet planners knew that NATO forces possessed an advantage because of these assets, and believed that attacking them directly would limit NATO’s ability to maintain an extended air campaign.[citation needed] The Su-27 retains that role in CIS service, with later marks capable of carrying long-range "AWACS killer" missiles such as the Vympel R-37 and, potentially, the Novator K-100 when it enters production. If there is no tactical documentation has been written by the Russian air force to deal with ARH missiles (AIM-120) it may be because it has not been revealed yet, but it shows that the intention behind the strategy, tactics, countermeasures (pick one) has always existed, in my view the defensive strategy is totally different from the offensive strategy, why? Because for the initial assault it uses is air strikes and for defensive strategy it uses air strikes in combination with the ground defence. Lets see what monotwix has to say next: in 1990s was the least favourable time for the CIS countries to care about their defence program due to the political turmoil which possibly reflects the lowest point in air defence of the SIM we are playing, and even if it was stepped up to more modern combat capabilities of SU-27 vs. F-15c where the two platforms are capable of delivering ARH missiles it would change the balance and the realism would remain unaffected. This bit is ARH missiles related from wiki. Sometimes the launching platform (especially if it is an aircraft) may be in danger while continuing to guide the missile in this way until it 'goes active'; In this case it may turn around and leave it to luck that the target ends up in the projected "acquisition basket" when the missile goes active. It is possible for a system other than the launching platform to provide guidance to the missile before it switches its radar on; This may be other, similar fighter aircraft or perhaps an AWACS. This opens the whole bunch of possibilities for BVR. Whereas SARH missiles: The combat record of SARH missiles was unimpressive during the Vietnam War. USAF and US Navy fighters armed with AIM-7 Sparrow attained a success rate of barely 10%,[citation needed] which tended to amplify the effect of deleting the gun on most F-4 Phantoms, which carried 4 Sparrows. Some of the failures were attributable to mechanical failure of 1960s era electronics which could be disturbed by pulling a cart over uneven pavement, or pilot error; the intrinsic accuracy of these weapons was low relative to Sidewinder and guns. However, since Desert Storm, most F-15 Eagle combat victories have been scored with the Sparrow at beyond visual range. So was it a data link or 7G manoeuvres or neither in terms of comparing the success rates? The advantages of having ARH on board is clear but it retains the puzzle I.e. the development of SU-27 and R-77 sort of fit into that time frame and yet they are miles apart. If it was as realistic as it is in LO the first thing they would do is make SU-27 and R-77 and put them together. For me however the question is still open when I think about it, non existent tactics in the Russian air force? think again! Some one knows and that’s not me. Can we agree that having the carriers in the Black sea is a good thing during the 90s in LO? Either way I would like to encourage every one to think that realism should be based on the mission objective rather than the precision of the missile modelling. FSX have managed to place real time ATC controllers and in this case it could do with the real time mission planer with air combat logistics, tanks and fleets. What is not realistic is to have SU-27 Locked for so many years firing R-27ER whilst beaten to death, ''it has never happened''.

I can’t zoom out.

Have you got Russian air force phone number I might just do that. And ask them what sort of porkies are you playing at. Can I quote your name?

That’s better for a answer, thanks indeed.

Please answer why SU-27 is not fitted with R-77.

I don’t understand the advantages of not having active missiles on air superiority fighter e.g. SU-27 and therefore the theoretical tactics used by Russian air force to deal with AIM-120. If the primary strategy for SU-27 was to fire R-27ER followed by ET, it then rises the question of getting to within ETs firing range. I’m not saying that it’s a useless strategy but rather how dangerous and uncertain it would be in the real scenario. In order for a fight to be effective one would assume that putting your opponent into disadvantage and make him work hard would be a good thing and to do that you use weapons as your primary tool, now R-27ER only works for as long as pilot can maintain that lock which puts him in a serious danger of not only loosing his tactical advantage but also his fight and a piece of air force. So it’s clear that having an active missile on board is advantages, living your opponent occupied whilst you are on defensive retaining tactical advantage. What is not clear from this stand point is that Mig-29 being capable of launching R-77 and the people in general who made it possible thought it was a good idea, but not on SU-27 and these are the kind of people who made their space advances and took their air defence seriously i.e. by making very capable platforms, fit them with titanium, train pilots, write defence program only to be in the disadvantage of not having an active missile on their air superiority fighter. In short: it doesn’t fall into places in realms of understanding and I’m not uneasy about it, whatever is given in FC2.0 I’ll take it, it just that certain statements are so convincing that’s hard to take on board.

You know that submarine sunk, no offence, how much info did they wona leak. That UAV and the rest was in complete denial. The question is how much do they wont to let you know.

How do you know that? Are you confident being on equals with 70 years of experience with: shell I say (former bight my tongue) super power? Or that didn’t exist?

That’s not what I had in mind though. I’ll give you an example shell I? You know what B-2 and F-117 are for, we all know that right? The rest can be done with Tornado and A-10 here and there having F-15ns and AWACS in range for all air traffic. It’s the historical fact that I know, lets call it a strategy yey? What is the point of building a plant if it has no strategy yey? You can’t fight AIM120 with R-27 alone (and not in doubles bubbles) there has to be more to it, and you’d think that air superiority fighter wouldn’t carry active missiles.

Air force makes a strategy and orders for it’s needs. And I don't know how it works.

So what are the Russian air force tactics then, I know you didn’t write the book they did, they make the planes and missiles and the question is what do they do with it as a unit or a test branch.

That’s good memory. OMEGA3?

And file it into avi.

Why caravan, did it have this inside?

One for all and all for nothing. Just a litle bit supersonic.

Icons can’t talk with out prerecorded sound.

Horseshoes even cheaper to buy on today’s market.

How much is it per kilo?