zare

A respectable member of key.ltd and acig forums passed on that information. You can also grab a couple of details here : http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/5354-su-30mki-jf-17-air-fight-16.html Note the guy that says he posted an report 4 years ago, so dig if you want :D

Airframe wise, very similar. Su-35 is dead, yet the Su-35 lives on ;) Heh...the T-10M project dating from 1986 is officially closed, with 12 aircraft being delivered to VVS, five being passed on to the display team, two were fitted with advanced avionics and transformed into something known as Su-37, some lost and some left as LL's (flying labs). Nowadays, T-10BM (Su-35BM) project is actual. Static display was shown on MAKS 2007, this is probably the last iteration of the Flanker. Some of it's systems are even more capable than F-22's. The aircraft will undergo state trials in a next month or two. You can check my article with more comprehensive info here : http://www.aviapedia.com/fighters/su-35bmt-10bm-the-last-flanker True, for the most part. It has somewhat upgraded IRST module, "new" FCS, SUV-33, which has different lookdown mode to ensure better performance against targets flying at low altitudes near sea surface, and an different datalink for communication with carrier based systems. Deliveries started in 2003. There should be 40 Su-27SM's in active service, at this moment. And, all SM's, plus several squadrons of ordinary S/P's, have their RCS reduced. The work has been done by ITAE. Conventional methods.

Yes, ordinary Su-27S/P, circa 1990, the long burn version. But it can only engage in LOBL mode, just like you use X-25MP. Su-27SM and Su-34 can exploit the full kynethic range of the missile, because the system can send out MCCU to the missile, via L-150 and L-175M, respectively.

Ok, noted. However, every time i discussed MRAAM's, it was "for granted" that mentioned G-limits were target ones. However, when discussing SRAAM's, mentioned G-limits refer to airframe itself. Habbits, habbits... ;)

It's reliable information from an reliable non-www source. Thus, i cannot "prove" it. So it's up to you to accept it or not ;) Because if you mount an 1103 onto the R-27ER, you'll get R-27EA. They are targeting R-27 users for potential upgrades. It doesn't make much sense now that RVV-AE is doing good on the export market together with new Flankers and Fulcrums, but latest ROE issue has R-33E listed also...that's an downgraded variant of the first Amos variant, and that first Amos variant isn't in active service anymore. So you should really question Russian export tactics. The 8G and 12G are respectable target limits for R-27 and R-77 series. Before you ask for "better" info, read my posts right. Specially modified Su-27P was used on R-77 tests. Stronger DSP which allowed TWS'ing two targets, some minor changes in FCS and an digital bypass channel on the radar to allow dual MCCU. In essence, this test-modified N001 was the base for N001M/V/VEP variants of Su-27SM/SKM and Su-30MKK. As you may know, they all use the same old, 80's vintage cassegrain antenna. Besides, what was the test platform for the R-77's, don't you think they needed to convert some of their aircraft for airborne missile tests? I said that Su-27P can take R-27AE "just like that". With several big limitations. No TWS, no multiple engagement, and you still need to illuminate. The only difference is the terminal mode, with the ER you must stay with the target couple of seconds, with the EA you can go home and let the missile do it's job.

Guys, this is getting boring. 1. Su-27S/P can exploit R-27AE. The active Alamo has only different seekerhead, the equipment inside the missile remained same throughout all early pre-production units. Thus, the FCS doesn't recognize the difference, it lists the missile as R-27ER. 2. Launching operation is same as in ER scenario, lock, and launch. When terminal stage gets going, the 9B-1103M will activate and go "pitbull". At this time the Su-27 can disengage the lock and do what ever he wants to do. So, the sole difference is between illuminating for the 9B-1101K and disengaging once the 1103M goes active. 3. R-27AE was tested on baseline Flankers, usage like described in above paragraph. Results of that tests are unknown to me. 4. R-27AE was dropped in favour of R-77. The Alamo features 8G limit, while the Adder has 12G limit, R-77 has smaller range but it's a lot lighter, and it's suitable for internal carriage. Therefore, this missile was chosen as the base for the next generation of medium range AAM's. 5. Several of in-service Su-27P's were installed with digital bypass channel, and different dual MCCU datalink, together with new radar logic for the N001, to enable TWS mode and ripple-firing of two R-77s. This was done in late 1990. 6. The Union collapsed, so the production of R-77s suffered. Su-27S/P upgrade and Su-27M production suffered together with them. In the meantime, Indian Flankers were upgraded with the same technology that allowed Soviet Su-27's to fire the R-77. Conclusion : If you had an Su-27S/P, and you got your hands on R-27AE, you could just plug it in, and play. But, there's no TWS. Single target fire, and you still have to illuminate because that's the way N001's engage mode works. N001 will transmit MCCU only if it has an positive lock. R-27AE was fitted on Soviet Flankers during '80s, but only for testing. It never saw any active service in VVS, so asking for R-27AE capability in LockOn's Su-27P is wrong. Regarding PLAAF, they purchased a bunch of 1103M seekers in 1994-1996 period, however, their Su-27SKs also lack any kind of TWS that could fully exploit the benefits of active missiles. They could have used them "cold", like i explained before, ditching out 1101K's and putting in the active units. But that's one big "could", nobody has any hard evidence they're doing that. Besides, 1103M's were probably puchased to ease the development cycle for the SD-10. But, if this is an "missile wishlist topic", i would just want things to be more realistic. That includes fixing up the 120, downgrading the ET (no lock, no launch), and including the R-27P/EP on the Flanker's payload. They were and are in the VVS active service from late 1980's. First hand information.

Is it possible to rearrange the instrument positions in LOMAC's pit? I would really like my Flanker TWS somewhere up, and closer to HUD, like it's in Su-25. Anyone did this kind of tweaking?

I wouldn't play Raptor simulations with this. After each mission, you would have to call your wife, to get you outta of it with a chainsaw ;)

I got my hands on this excellent joystick, it's an old gameport version, but it's same as newer USBs. I have no throttle module ATM. So i was wondering, what you guys think of this piece of tech? It's ergonomics are great, after all it was designed for USAF. Materials are top-of-the line too, and overall construction, but $100-$150 tends to be a little expensive, considering that you dont get HOTAS for that money, and it has no force feedback. And, what kind of mapping do you use with it in LOMAC? I use a modified version of mapping i use on my standard stick, Genius F-23 (i know, :megalol: ). That is : trigger-fire, thumb-lock, upper two buttons-cockpit zoom, lower multi-radar target designator, upper multi-point of view, sidebutton/basebutton-MFD zoom in/out. And of course, the only slider for throttle. It might seem like inappropriate mapping, but works for me, those are the functions that i use most in flight. Everything else - left hand at the keyboard.

I am not missing anything, unless public internet sources lie. R-77 entered small scale service in eighties third quarter, but global conditions in USSR and Russia delayed the full scale production, witch started in 1993, and R-77 entered service in 1994. I'm sorry for my error, 120C didn't enter service in '94, but in '96. And in LOMAC encyclopedia, it states AIM-120C. So it's a C version stated, but, seeing it's ingame characteristics, it's a B version. And B version entered in 1994, so we have an same type of missile, medium ranged autohomed, from the same year on both sides. As i stated, R-77 was installed, and tested, and fired in the air mid-to-late eighties. After that, smale scale production started. What carried it, Hindenburg? It was tested on Su-27, using bypass channel on N001. Some Su-27 were altered on this way, and later carried R-77. Was there couple of Su-27 in active service with Adder in late eighties, on low production batch, or in 1994 when full production started, it doesn't matter. VVS had an Su-27 capable of firing R-77 in 1994. You need to get your timelines straight. AIM-120C entered service in 1996. You are right that Su-27SM entered VVS some time ago, but im not talking about SM. For god sakes, im talking about normal Flanker, with extra 100cm2 of digital electronics, so it can fire R-77! How not? Ok, Flanker will get LA first, ER/ET sequence...But Eagle has better ECM package, in my expirience with LOMAC, F-15 pilots always get a first lock, it can engage multiple targets, and once his AIM-120 goes into terminal, he can turn around and go home. I would call this an advantage. Eagle can engage three Flankers at the same time, in BVR combat, in theory. Flanker has ho chance against three Eagles in straight BVR. But Flanker can sneak around, it has loads of fuel, plus medium ranged thermal missiles, plus IRST. The 15's advantages are multiple engagement and active missiles, and those are great for straight up head on BVR. Flanker has the ability to stay longer in the air, so you have the time to prepare an sneaking tactics, and to remain sneaky using IRST and R-27T/ET. So i would say that Eagle is better in heads on BVR. Probably, i don't know the exact number. But it had them. The main reason about not implementing some LOMAC-generation stuff in the game was "the thing is not active anywhere". Well, that Flanker was active in Russia, in the same period when F-15C had AIM-120C. If F-15C is in the game, then there should be that era Flanker too. Listen, GGTharos, i don't know if F15 needs attention or not, im not that familiar with it's true capabilities and history, as i am with twentyseven. Ok, if the Eagle can carry 120C in the game (it can't, there is 50km max range in LOMAC's AMRAAM, that means B version, but the whole topic is about getting the right C version in the game), then it would be nice if whole needed avionics were upgraded on the same level as 120C era F-15C. Not some hybrid stuff. Hovewer, Flanker then needs restoration too. How would you feel (i sense that you are western-technology biased), if you had, in LOMAC, first version of F-15 with AIM-7 Sparrow, and we had Su-30M? Not fair.

Correct me if i'm wrong...but i see somekind of misconception between fighter versions in LOMAC. Eagle was born mid-seventies, and Flanker was born mid-eighties. In the beginnings, both of these aircraft carried SARHs, right? AIM-7, and R-27R/ER. But, AMRAAM was in service somewhere around 1991, and Adder was in limited service before the Union collapsed, and it entered full scale service the same year as it's main competitor, the AIM-120C. The LOMAC's Eagle carries AIM-120C, yet, the LOMAC's Su-27 cannot carry Adder, altrough there were Su-27 variants in active service that carried Adders, with certain upgrades that alowed him to be equipped with R-77. Those weren't in significant numbers, because Su-30/35 was coming on as an logical replacement, but the point is, there were. The same digital bypass channel that India used on N001 radar of their Su-30, to give them R-77 ability, was "invented" and implemented in Russia for limited number of Flanker aircraft. Mind you, N001 is the original Flanker's radar. Don't you think that is bit strange that two dirrect opponent aircraft in the game aren't of same "generation" of upgrades. If we have an F-15 from 1994, we should have an Flanker from 1994. Also, i think that statement about "certain death of anything if hunted by AIM-120" is something for debate. The most "advanced" piece of flying technology that AMRAAM killed was Iraqi and Serbian MiG-29, and both of these were in horrible shape, and were used for something that's miles outta of "job description" of Fulcrum. Be that AIM-120's performance disputable or not, my opinion is, if we have an ten year newer F-15 with active capability that Flanker, boosting AMRAAM's PK and performance to that of "realistic" level could ruin whole balance in the game. F-15 has better BVR in LOMAC, but Flanker has longer sticks, and can employ sneaking tactics with IRST and R-27T/ET. If you want to bring LOMAC to next-realism level, boost up AIM-120, i don't mind, but give us then a same-era Flanker that carries Adders. I didn't mind when they pulled out R-27AE and R-37 from payload lists, that is realistic, AE is an competition loser to R-77, and R-37 is not from that era. If i want a bit of fun, i can always edit an XML file, and fire Arrows from Flanker (!) like maniac. That was realistic, this is not. The point is - when USAF had an AIM-120C capable F-15, VVS had an R-77 capable Su-27.

Well... Regarding that IR launch, radar was off. How could it be on, when only IRST or RADAR mode can be active under BVR HUD mode at the same time? But, let's sat that i used EOS for scanning and launching, and radar was on. I mean, his TWS could have detected my scanning beams, but there was no track beam, so why would it alert launch?

Yes, i'm flying LOMAC 1.02. I placed an battletank somewhere 100km away from my initial point, route to it, and attack waypoint on it. Targeting for that attack waypoint was on "object", "primary", "missile", and clicked on the tank. Now, the target shown "building", but had same coodrs as the tank. And there are no buildings nearby, that tank was in middle of Crimea. Got up, and no LA again, tried override, no effect. Then, i hopped to options screen, input, there is no entry of "override LA" or something alike. Alt-W, you say? Hmm...well then i created a mission, placed a Flanker 100 km away from B-52. I locked B-52 when it was 80 km away with my radar, R-27ER was helluva outside it's envelope, Alt-W, nothing. Seems no override for me. Just to be curious, i didn't end that mission now, i wanted to see how IRST can lock up on B-52. It locked on ~ 20 km distance, i selected R-27ET, approached, got LA, fired two, and then the bomber started releasing countermeasures, and both missiles failed. How did it know something was coming? The AI might known i was behind it, because i kept radar lock when i tried that SARH missile launch override, but it started throwing flares around in the same moment when i squezed my trigger.

Sukhoi P701 / PAK-FA 5th generation fighter schematics : :pilotfly:

I heard stories of US Army using massive electromagnetic fields to cloak an battletank in late '50s. Bullshit story, of course. To get back on-topic, i still believe that active-stealth technology is the way to go. Maybe not with plasma, with radiation of different kind...who knows. In theory, uniform electromagnetic field around, for the sake of example, a fighter, could completely absorb radar emmited energy. However, that's still in the "theory domain", the magnitude of the field would be huge, and the field would have to be so precise, in other case, somebody would invent home-on-em AAMs very fast, and locking up to that amount energy wouldnt be a problem. The other problem is secondary-emmited energy from the "fielded" fighter. It would be difficult to get anything out, be it radar beam or simple analog communications channel. However, i still believe that this is the way to go. Take a look at the AAM technology. There are certain advantages of both passive and active homing. I would draw parallel here on stealth. Maybe an active-something around an fighter could be detected from an shorter range, but, it could be designed so that radar cannot lock to the source of emmisons (alike ECM tehniques). I mean, your RWR senses active-homing missile flying at you, but if that missile was fired from right envelope and right geomety conditions, you can't do a shit about it except hoping that it will run into your countermeasures. So, i see a first-batch of activestealth like that. If you manage to get close, near visual range, you'll detect something. But you can't get a firing solution. In a great BVR-theory, you wont get close to a stealth aircraft just that easy. One thing crossed my mind too...F22 resembles the heaviest digital technology flying around. For instance, Raytheon's radar-control processors are two times slower than Intel's E6700 in terms of MIPS in arithmetic processing. I know those chips are dedicated controllers, and Core II is general purpose CPU, but you get the point. Figher aircraft is a complex system, with a 10 to 15 year interval from production blueprints to service. What's on that production blueprints, that's how it's gonna be. And in those 10 years, technology can evolve on a huge basis. That timespan is just too much for rapid implementation of cutting-edge tehnologies.