Jump to content

zare

Members
  • Posts

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by zare

  1. 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
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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... ;)
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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?
  8. 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 ;)
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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?
  13. 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.
  14. Sukhoi P701 / PAK-FA 5th generation fighter schematics : :pilotfly:
  15. 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.
  16. In my "test" mission, i placed Su-33 right in the air, 150 km away from the targeting object. Tried to get LA from the start, when i approached to couple of miles with no LA, i saw that something ain't right. So, range is no problem. Or i messed something up in mission editor. Lets resume, please : 1. Add a role to Su-33, "ground attack", payload - Kh22. 2. Program route, one of waypoints to "attack". 3. Add a ground object, set Su-33's "targeting" to that object's coordinates. 4. Mission objective - assign to destruction of that object. That's the way i used for Moskit and anti-ship missions. I still can't get LA, i'll try to override and see where that missile ends up. What other missiles can i install on 33 with LOPE? Only active-radar ones, or others will work too? I would really, really like to fire Kh-65 on something :joystick:
  17. I know that Su-33 doesn't have A2G radar in LOMAC (as in real life). However, it can launch "guided" Moskit, if the missile is data-fed in the mission editor properly. I used LOPE to tweak weapons capacity of Su-33, and enabled it to carry Kh-22 missiles. Setted up everything correctly in mission editor, just that target is some ground object, instead of the ship. Entering A2G HUD mode, i get cues, i have an filled triangle with target number on my MFD, missile is selected, but i can't get launch authorization. Both Kh-41 and Kh-22 are AR/inertial guided, so why would there be a difference between launching them in LOMAC, if they are of same homing type, and they are fed with data on the same basis? Is there any way i can launch any guided A2G missile from the Su-33? Tweaks, mods, anything? Also, can any of flyable aircraft, with tweaks and tricks, launch Kh-65?
  18. Sorry for late participation, first to reflect some things about the Su-35. The Terminator never saw it's production. In fact, the Terminator was testbed for vectorthrusted engines, mounted on SuperFlanker. I don't know exacly why Russia never pursued Su-37 production, but, the Su-35 SuperFlanker is in production, and there are 11 Su-35s in active service with VVS. It uses N011 and N011M radars, fore/rear. N011 has the ability to track six targets at once. Regarding the Foxhound, the aircraft and it's systems are based around long-range stategical interception. Meaning - take down the bombers. It's radar works exactly your singlecore CPU does. One process at a time, but on a timesharing base, with context switching so fast that you have a "virtual parallelism". Considering that large bombers cannot move fast enough to phase out a radar beam in the "switching" interval, the hound's system proves itself. And R-33 is a long-range missile. Agile or not, the hound can fire it from a great distance, and always make more capable fighters go defensive.
  19. Missile is an complex and expensive system. Imagine a war, where one region gets cutted of from it's supplies. You have 10 Archers, you fire 10 Archers, you have no more Archers until you get them from suppliers. And the lines are cut. If you have a gun, an local metallurgy factory could make replacement shells. Gun is crude, but efficient at it's field-of-usage. I wouldn't be so enthusiastic if i flew an only-gun fighter against something with Sidewinders, but at-least you have weapon at your disposal. And the gun doesn't take much place, it's production is cheap, so i don't see a real reason of ditching it outta of aircraft. It should go with future - when particle or some laser weapons come mainstream - aircraft should employ these also. Gun must be cheap and effective. It's power lies there.
  20. Regarding B-2's, i had a table with NATO aircraft losses, where it has an extensive article about downing of an B2, confirmed by eyewitnesses. I don't want to fight over this, nor i care...if it's downed, then it's NATO's propaganda, if it isn't downed, then it's Milosevics' propaganda that took place. Old stealth - stealth technology that employs shape, material and paint to reduce RCS. F-22 uses same tactics. If sensor device was "tuned" to track F-117, it's only matter of time when that sensor device will be tuned to track F-22. The principle is same, only the variables changed. If Raptor participates in minor conflicts, such as separate anti-terrorist actions, it's stealth will go on...but if it fights an sovereign nation with whole army, like it was in FedYu, it's only a matter of combat hours until it gets unvealed. A new stealth tecnology would be something like plasma stealth. Employing an active stealth generator. Electromagnetic countermeasures could also do...if your stealth gets unvealed, you just tune your stealth generator. In nowadays case, your airframe is to be replaced (or severely altered). Is plasma stealth and, it's tech. cousins, Star Trek for now, i think not, but i won't place my money on it. Does USAF really need Raptors now? I think not, and they could invest couple of years for exploration of new stealth technologies. This "old" principle has been negated, and it will be negated again. About projectiles...somebody said that R-33 is obsolete, R-127 good only with AWACS...they maybe true, but atleast top Russian aircraft can carry long range missiles. Raptor is bound to AIM-120C5's range, it can't even carry Phoenix. And "setting up an BVR" as you say it, would be more effective from a longer distance. With my opinions about F-22's stealth, an AAM-L would be even more desired. If it had an option to launch something of Novator's range, it could even attack from friendly or neutral space. Not getting exposed to somebody's radar. It's stealth may be perfect, but you are stealthiest when nothing looks at you.
  21. In my humble opinion, the Raptor is somewhat misplaced aircraft. It's a true 21century technology with average weaponry, an exploitation of an old stealth system, and a 20-year old airframe design. It's surely gonna kick some ass in the sky, but is it really worth the hype? Any aircraft with that cost will surely make enemies suffer. The Flanker and Fulcrum family showed that the airframe is the primary thing on the combat aircraft, as you can always upgrade the technology under the hood. Hell, even the newly upgraded MiG-21s can do extensive BVR with Alamo's and have all the nifty Russian EOS stuff and can carry top-of-the-class closecombat weapons like Archer. Having mentioned weaponry, US doesn't have a true modern long-range weapon. I find this rather weird, considering that current USAF's tactics can be described as stealth-no-contact BVR combat. AIM-120C5's range is approx 110 km. AIM-7s range is 75 km. On the other side, there are R-77M1(175 km), R-33(160 km), R-37(280 km) and production prototype of R-172(400 km). The stealth system is an advancement of an old type that F-117 and B-2 carries. And both of those types were shot down by guided weaponry in operation "allied force". IMHO, it's just an matter of Raptors combat hours until it's stealth gets decloaked. The thing that i like very much is AESA radar, and it's fast-shifting. However, i again think that F22 is a mixture of an old and new, and right in the time when that is not needed. I mean, there isn't Soviet Union anymore, Russia has an rather defensive doctrine and US won't wage wars with any superforce (Russia, EU, China) in the near future. It's not even likely it will fight Iran, not an superforce, but an force. In last two conflicts, the Serbia and Iraq, third generation fighters won the skies. Why not instead concentrate on making an true futuristic aircraft, something like the PAK-FA project? Berkuts, Terminators and 1.44s were technology testbeds for future aircraft design. With an thrust-vectoring Fulcrum, Su-35 Superflanker, the Platypus and Su-25T, Foxhound, all old but genius designs, upgraded with latest technology, Russia is secured, rather up-to-date and can focus on the real new design. All this is IMHO, flamewar not intended.
  22. Hmm...in Su27, you normally select an appropriate HUD mode, then an scanning choice - "normal" radar, (eg. pulse doppler) or IRST. Only one at a time can be active. If you enter scan mode, activate the radar, then turn on IRST, beam is disengaged. If you activate the radar again, IRST scanning is off and...you get the point. So, there is no way that IRST lock-on can alert the enemy, also considering it's passive nature. The only thing that can alert your adversary is launch of an missile. If it's a radar-equipped projectile with passive or active scanning, the missile's beams will trigger his RWR upon launch. Considering that best scenario for IRST usage is when you are looking at his engines, and that no LOMAC aircraft carries rear-facing radar, you are pretty much stealth, close in hard visual range, and fire infrared R-73 (in most missions you aren't equipped with R-27T). He won't know what hit him...of course, if he has AWACS datalink, he could see you on his HDD, but chances of your stick-up are still high, because his RWR won't beep, and the RWR tends to alert fare more efficiently than an icon on a green LCD. If he sees you, you'll know by his manuevers. If you're few seconds away from him and you have speed, just wait and match trajectory until you get launch autorization. If he is like to outmanuever you, switch and fire normal missile, it'll at least get him to lose a few angles. Then it's SCHLEM time :) That's my view on the EOS. Things i've done dozen times. So i just don't see how an IRST lock can alert somebody. Also, no LOMAC aircraft carries IMLW (infrared missile launch warning) system. (Does any production aircraft carry this kind of equipment?) And of course, you dont get IFF, because heat doesn't carry encrypted information ;)
  23. Good point, but where should i go? Flanker can't do a full stop in the air ;) Maybe i'll just take down those F-16s on the start, and then go back and land :) Yes, i presumed that i could steal some time for my reinforcements to come. But, it's a scenario's first mission, shouldn't it be "follow the route and engage"? Btw, i downloaded couple of your tutorials some time ago. Great work, was very helpfull indeed ;) I can't get that mission video right now, i'm on narrowband here, so no 157mb files for me. Thank you very much. :)
  24. First to say, i'm new here, greetings to fellow members. I have a question about first mission in Su27 campaign, how to complete it? I flown all "single" missions of Su27, completed them without problems. I'm playing on realistic mode, with comp AI set to "good". Eg. it's always the same scenario. I get airborne, in couple of seconds i have speed, alt and i'm passing waypoint one, hard right turn, two enemy Falcons, no problem, either i shoot both down or one manages to disengage and my wingman takes care of it. Then come the problems...when i pass waypoint two, 180 turn on route to WP3, and i have an swarm of Tigers and Falcons dead ahead. I can't really do anything...my Floggers are somewhat far away, if i fire, i can't maintain a lock because i have two AIM120's flying right at me, if i try a sideways highspeed pass my afterburner becomes a nifty target for Sidewinders. And if i turn and run away, hoping to give time for Floggers to enter the furball, i'll again have couple of AMRAAM's on my tail, i can manouver my way out for certain amount of time, but then i lose energy and AIM120 ends up right in my ass. I must be doing something wrong, this mission can't be that difficult, it's scenario's first. And considering that i can beat up any single mission on the same difficulty level, i just can't find a solution here. Please help. Thx in advance.
×
×
  • Create New...