mattebubben

it has been done both ways. Since either you make the enemy think your stuff is worse then it is (which can be an advantage at the point when it has to be used) or you make them fear it as they think it is much better then it actually is (Mig-25 for example where the other side was terrified of it and tried to make a counter and later the realised it was never as dangerous as they thought).

Well the air-ground radar is on the way. Its coming together with the F-18 (either late this year or early next year).

The flares issue was just not with the Aim-9P but with most early Flare rejection attempts. And the problem of different flares works both ways (all sides were testing missiles against their own flares as that was what they had and nobody realized they had different effects) And i assume he is talking about the early Aim-9P (rear aspect oneslike the one we have ingame atm) and not the all aspect variants (that were comparable to later L / M variants when it came to flare rejection) But either way the difference between Soviet and US flares is most likely not modeled.

Word is that the R-60M for the Mig-21Bis will be all aspect with the Next patch. And even the Russian Test pilots in the 70s found the F-5E to be a superior dogfighter to the Mig-21Bis. (Surprising them all) Most of you guys has probably seen it already but i think its fitting for this discussion. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=144200 So the F-5E should be more then capable of defeating a Mig-21 in merge even if both pilots are comparable skill wise. Ofc a Superior Mig-21Bis pilot can still beat a less experienced F-5E pilot but with a good pilot in both planes in the merge the F-5E should be deadly. So best chance for a Mig-21Bis would be to use its speed and avoid a merge and rely on hit/run tactics and bringing the fight into the vertical. And thats where the Aim-9P4 would be valuable as it would give the F-5E teeth before the merge. And since the Mig-21Bis has the R-60M i see no reason against the F-5E getting atleast the Aim-9P4 (as they entered service at around the same time and both were compatible with fighters capable of carrying the older variants of the missile R-60/Aim-9P)

The F-5 should be very competitive with the Mig-21Bis. Especially if they give it the Aim-9P4 or Aim-9P5. But either way its gonna be competitive. As its very maneuverable in the merge and will have the advantage when it comes to situational awareness (due to the better RWR and the wider search area for the Radar) the only real disadvantages the F-5E are comes down to armament size as its limited to 2 air-air missiles while the Mig-21Bis can carry up to 6 (im not counting the bugged 8x R-60s Exploit) and that it has a better Power to weight ratio. But the F-5E is alot more aglie and also bleeds less speed so in a prolonged engagement it will still be even as while the Mig-21 is better and gaining speed it bleeds allot more. If the F-5E Gets the All Aspect Aim-9P (P4 or P5) it will be a very good match for the mig-21Bis (and if it does not it should still be good but you will just have to get past the merge and since the Mig-21 is gonna get improved R-60Ms with the next patch it will be even more potent in the head/on aspect) And in either way the F-5E is a closer comparison to the Mig-21 in abilities then the F-4 is as the F-4 is much larger and is significantly more BVR capable etc. (the R-3R might be Radar guided but its not BVR)

The visual model is based of the Aim-9P3. But we dont really know if everything else is also based of the Aim-9P3 or the P1 or P2 variants. (all Rear aspect variants) But my guess would be the P3 as i think its the most common of the rear aspect variants. The all aspect variants are the P4 and P5.

Yes but its one thing when it comes to weapons an aircraft should not have (based on setup timeframe etc) But thats not the fact here. We are getting a Later F-5E with the APQ-159 radar and the more modern RWR. So by that point the Aim-9P4 was already in service. Most likely any nation buying that tier of F-5E would get the Aim-9P4 missile for it as if they spend the extra money on getting the most capable F-5E possible they would not pick the inferior missiles. Sure if we had a early 1970s F-5E being modeled then i would be OK with no Aim-9P4. But this is a Late 70s early 1980s F-5E. So the Aim-9P4 should very much be a part of its arsenal (and most if not all F-5E users that operate aircraft equipped with the APQ-159 radar use the All aspect Aim-9P4 or Aim-9P5 variant) So in this case it would actually be un-realistic to limit this aircraft to only the Rear Aspect Aim-9P3. (It should have both and not be limited to only one of them) It would be like making a Mig-29 but not giving it the R-73 and limiting it to R-60s...

Thats about the APQ-153 And not the APQ-159 we are getting. The 159 is significantly more powerful. So an interesting read and worth while to look at but the radar we are getting is slightly more advanced and significantly more powerful. (Almost twice the range of the APQ-153)

Yes. But why would the symbology/range information have to be changed for a Aim-9P4 or P5? Since first of all the Aim-9P4 uses the same Rocket engine as the Aim-9P3 (as far as i have been able to find) So they would not really need to change the performance parameters of the calculations. Or do you mean how it would handle head on calculations compared to chase calculations? (as the velocities would make the effective ranges very different) It depends on how advanced the computing is (if it takes velocity into the range calculation or not) but if thats not the case it would most likely just be a case of Pilot Training (the pilots knowing the effective range in a head on etc) In either case. If the Computer is capable of calculating the Rmin/Rmax by taking into account closure rates it wont be a problem either way. And if its not capable of doing so then it wont matter since even a F-5E only using the All aspect variants would still be limited by that (and would most likely have the rear aspect as the default Rmin / Rmax since its better to be closer then you have to then it is to not be close enough)

The R-60M in reality can be fired head on depending on the conditions. For example against a aircraft with powerful engines that is on full afterburner it will get a lock. But against a aircraft with less powerful engines where its radiating less heat then it wont be able to get a solid lock. Weather etc can also play a part. And also what do you mean with "right symbology (on the gunsight) for each type."

Well first. The R-60M (even fully modeled) is not 100% all aspect. Its Limited all aspect. So its all aspects during some conditions (Range / Target type Engine power etc) and also this is yet another reason why they HAVE to the F-5E the Aim-9P4 or Aim-9P5. Maby the P4 as its of the same time period as the R-60M (early 80s) while the Aim-9P5 is mid-late 80s. Just make it an option on-top of the Aim-9P (just like they have been talking of adding the Aim-9B)

It all depends on the tactics used. In a head on missile exchange with both pilots pressing until one is down then no the Mirage 2000 is not comparable with the Su-27 and F-15. But if you use the correct tactics depending on the situation then you are well able to tangle with any opponent with a better then even chance of success. So instead of doing a missile exchange in head on you would likely have to go defensive evading the enemies missiles until either you get closer where you can gain the advantage (either by maneuvering into a close range dogfight where your instantaneous turn rate will give you the edge or with a snapshot Super 530 shot between dodging missiles) or evading untill he runs out of BVR missiles at which point you will have the upperhand. But this kind of thing is not unique to the Mirage 2000. In any Aircraft you will have to adapt your tactics depending on both your aircrafts capabilities and that of the enemies. And all fighters in game currently have a disadvantage against the F-15C in that kind of head on engagement as the F-15C has superior BVR missiles in the form of the Aim-120. I stand by the fact that if you know the mirage and you use its strengths you can reliably take on any fighter in the game including the Su-27 and F-15. Sure it might be slightly more challenging then flying a Su-27 and F-15 is but if one is afraid of a challenge one will never become a better pilot. And especially when it comes to the Su-27 and Mig-29 it has advantages and not just disadvantages (The effective TWS mode and the RWR Display being two major ones) Its only the F-15 that can be said to mostly have advantages over the mirage 2000 but the F-15 has most of those advantages (and a few more ) over all of the other fighters that are in the game currently.

maby the radar performance. But operation would not really help as they would be completely different. Only the Physical Radar (radar dish etc) is the same (or atleast based on the same radar but with changes for the new customer / aircraft etc) .

And Tom if you still have me on steam just message me any time if you need help with a new start up change (i tend to stay up to date). But yet my guess would be it could be the Fuel Cut-off Valve as im not sure if that had been added when i helped you.

Well dont you see this picture actually proves his point in his mind. ^^ Since there you are with 9-8 and then the Su-33 below you have 6-1 and the Su-27 5-2 So that proves the Su-33 and Su-27 are better. Right? Right? The Mirage 2000C is a great module and i love it to bits and i dont hesitate to attack any target i see with confidence. Sure if i get locked up by a enemy or launched on i will flee in true french fashion :smartass:. But i will always be back once the missile has been evaded. And when i come back i return with a vengeance. And i love playing sneaky with it as its easy to sneak up on enemies. Especially Su-27s and Mig-29s as they have less advanced RWR displays. (one massive advantage the M2000 has over the Russian FC-3 fighters) Personally i think the TWS and RWR of the Mirage 2000 more then outweighs any disadvantage when it comes to number of weapons compared to the Su-27/Mig-29 as you just have so much better SA etc.

I actually do better with the Mirage 2000 then i do with the Other FC-3 fighters. Its mostly because the mirage 2000 suits my play style and as such i do better with it. The mirage 2000 is not a bad aircraft but there might be alot of players who dont understand it / use it to its full potential. And also I kinda like your logic... Noobs in Mirage 2000 = Obviously Bad Aircraft. Noobs in FC-3 Fighters = Obviously Bad pilots... So any time a FC-3 fighter does poorly its because of the pilot and any time the Mirage 2000 does poorly its because of the Aircraft... Its pretty obvious your opinion on this matter is already fixed and no matter of differing experiences seem to have an effect on your views so i see no reason to keep trying to convince you as its obvious you have made up your mind.

Its no bug... The way you can tell the targets are the reason that Any aircraft you detect on the radar is moving. So it has a Velocity in relation to you. But the Fake Jamming contacts dont have a velocity as they are not there and they cant be (atleast not the generation of jammers that are present in game) programmed to look like they have a velocity. So its not a bug. Its how they would show up in real life. ... I regularly pull 2-1 and 3-1 KDs on mp (On the 104th server so no weapon limitations etc) So no i wont die in any circumstances... If the enemy is smart and stays very high and avoids closing with me he can have me at a disadvantage. But those doing that will usually dont see me if im flying very low and close to terrain so i can simply get outside their radar scan areas and then sneak up on them. I find Su-27s to not be a really large danger as they tend to want to close (as thats what they are used to doing) and when they close i can usually turn the fight to my favor. And most F-15 pilots will also push as they are usually very confident with their Aim-120s Again i will have them chase me i will avoid the Aim-120s and i will then turn around and engage them when the advantage is mine. The only opponents i have a hard time killing are those that are very careful and keep lobbing Aim-120s at long range. What happends with those players is we usually go back and forwards (them launching me going evasive and me re-engaging once i have evaded the missile) until they run out of Aim-120s. And which point they either go home (leaving both of us alive) or they push and at which point i have the advantage. So if you play smart you can counter any enemy. If i fly at high altitude its harder but thats mostly because im not a pro at evading missiles in open skies but rely on terrain / low level flying for doing so. Im not a great pilot (probably avg) So if i can do well in the Mirage 2000 most people should be able to do the same.

Viggen in general or the variant we are getting? Is there anything specific you want to know about? To start with we are getting the strike variant that entered service in the early 1970s (first flight in 1967 and first entered service 1971) The Strike Variant (AJ 37) was produced between 1970-1978. In the 90s it had a minor upgrade mainly in regards to weapons capabilities (letting it use some later more advanced weapons as its Replacement the JAS 39 was not yet ready for service but some of the weapons developed for it were) The AJ 37s that were upgraded were given the Designation AJS 37 (thats the variant we are getting. Its Mach 2 capable at altitude and mach 1 at low altitude. You will have a range of different weapons available such as Rocket pods (135mm rockets 6 to a pod) Bombs (120kg bombs 4 to a pylon) Guided Air-Ground weapons in the form of the AGM-65 Maverick and the RB 05 (A weapon comparable to the AGM-12 bullpup and is steered manually using a small joystick in the cockpit) You will have Two different type of Anti-Ship missiles (the 1970s RB04E and the late 1980s RBS 15F) Both with Active Radar Seekers and wave skimming BVR capability. For Air Defense you will have Aim-9 Sidewinders Both the older RB 24J (Aim-9J/P) and the later RB 74 (Aim-9L) You will have the BK 90 which is a gliding stand off submunition dispenser and is comparable to the AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon. The Attack variant does not have an Internal Cannon but you have the ability to carry gunpods armed with the 30mm Aden cannon. It also does not have any Internal jammers or Chaff / Flare dispensers but you have 2 different pods (one jammer pod and one Countermeasure pod) though a pod will take up a Weapons Pylon. You have 7 Pylons (Centerline + 4x Wing pylons and 2x Cheek Pylons) The Centerline is for the External Fuel Tank (Irl it could also be used to transport RB04 Anti-Ship missiles but was not capable of launching them) The outermost Wing pylons are dedicated for Air-Air missiles. With the Inner wing pylons and the Cheek pylons being able to carry Air-Air or Air-Ground weapons. Gunpods, Countermeassure / jamming pods or anti-ship missiles can only be used on the inner wing pylons and the RB 05 can only be carried on the Cheek Pylons. All other weapons can be used on all 4 of the weapon pylons (Rockets,Bombs,Aim-9s,BK 90,AMG-65 etc) The AJ/AJS 37 does have a radar and its mainly a Air-Ground radar (though it does have Air-Air Search / ranging abilities) Its main Duties are to Search for and find enemy ships as well as terrain scan to allow all weather capability (Standard Doctrine for the AJ/AJS 37 viggen is High speed flight at very low altitudes so a air-ground radar is a must for all weather/night operations) The radar is capable of Ranging targets but you cant directly target something using the radar (and its not capable of reliably picking up small land targets like tanks etc) If there is anything you wonder about that i did not mention here feel free to ask.

Yea the Mirage 2000 should not be simplified just for balance. Especially since more and more fully modeled aircraft are starting to enter service now. If anything the FC-3 fighters should be updated to make things like Radar and RWR more realistic + more fully modeled (and not as simplified as they are today)

Its extremely easy to tell the fake targets from the real once. Below the target indicator (the Chevron) You have the Merge Velocity in Mach numbers. But you only get the Velocity indication below real targets. So numbers below the Chevron = real target and no numbers = fake target. And alot of the Advantages the F-15 and the other FC-3 fighters have over the Mirage 2000 are because they alot more simplified in their modeling. The Fake Targets are one example of that (IRL all the FC-3 fighters will show fake targets depending on the jammer type but they have chosen not to impliment the fake targets for the FC-3 fighters) The Mirage 2000 is a great fighter and you can do very well in it. All you have to do is adapt your flying to the Mirage. You cant fly the Mirage like you would a F-15 or a Su-27 because they are very different fighters. If you fly the Mirage correctly you can tangle with any fighter in this game and be confident of victory.

Well it also has Aim-7s. And using Aim-54s togethers with Aim-7s might be a solid tactic even if the Aim-54s are not super effective. Since throwing a Aim-54 at a fight will force him to either to evasive or eat a very large missile. And if he goes defensive that gives the F-14 the chance to keep pressing into Aim-7 or Aim-9 range while the enemy is defensive. This aught to be especially effective against Non Aim-120 equipped fighters. I dont think the F-14 will be able to or should rely on the Aim-54 completely against fighters. carry a mixed loadout and use all the weapons together to get the enemy off balance letting you secure the kill.

The question is not if it can kill fighters but if it can kill fighters trying to evade. Of the the Iranian kills (if not all) were against targets flying straight and level either not knowing the missile was coming or thinking they were safe from it. So a fighter doing its best to evade might be a different matter. And while yes its a fast missile with a lot of thrust over a long duration it is a very heavy missile. So it will most likely not be super maneuverable (atleast not at medium/long ranges) and it aught to burn its speed very fast once the rocket goes cold.

Well =P. They are not. Atleast if you are talking about the ones who start with Matra. The Magic does not really have any significant problems. If you get a solid lock and fire within the launch perameters you have a very good chance of the missile hitting. And for the Super 530 the only real problems it has had are radar related and not really missile related. (as if missiles miss when you loose radar lock you cant really blame the missile). I only really play MP and id say my hit percentages for the missiles are very good. About 65-70% for the magic IIs and 40-45% for the Super 530 (which is not that bad for a BVR SARH missile. (and some of my misses are radar related so when the radar is perfected the 530 aught to be pretty good for a SARH missile). Any missile will miss if launched outside parameters or in the wrong situation. So those misses cant really be blamed on the missile.

The Visual model is that of the P3 but dont know if the performance etc is mirrored to that or not. And also none of that generations Aim-9 rocket engines are truly smokeless. Reduced smoke yes but dont know if any can be said to be have been truly smokeless.

The Flare avoidance Depends on the All aspect variant. The Aim-9P4 had a seeker that was based on the Aim-9L (slightly less advanced in order to be cheaper to produce require less maintenance and a longer shelf life but with pretty comparable performance) with the Aim-9P5 seeker being an improved variant with similar IRCM resistance as the Aim-9M. the P4 and P5 (and the rear aspect P3) where all made at the same time and it was simply up to the user what capabilities they wanted and how much they were ready to pay as the prices varied significantly. (The US also decided in the end what variants a nation were allowed to buy so a trusted nation like South Korea or Switzerland could pick any of the variants while a less trusted nation like a small state in Africa etc were often limited in what variant they were allowed to buy). The range estimates ive seen for the Aim-9P range between 10-18km (and thats a pretty significant gap =P ) but i have no idea how correct those are. But sadly they have not yet promised or stated there will be a All aspect Aim-9P as well as the standard Rear Aspect one. But i will be very annoyed if They dont give it the All aspect one as well as its so common on F-5Es. And especially since all other Fighters you will be facing have later weaponry (even the Mig-21 has a 1980s missile in the form of the R-60M and it can carry 6 missiles instead of the 2 of the F-5E) So dont really see them having and excuse not to add it (since mission makers will always have the option to just use the older variants if they dont want the all aspect Aim-9 for a 1970s scenario)