vanir

Demonstrated weapons loads and figures: MiG-25P 1972-75 Foxbat-A -4x R40 under wings (generally 2x R40R and 2x R40T) -2x R40 under wings (more common, 1x R40R and 1x R40T) max internal fuel 14570kg Soyuz-Tumanski R15-B-300 non-bypass engines 73.5/100kN 150hrs life service ceiling 20700m for 2min (23750m with 2 missiles) range supersonic (presumably circa 1.5 Mach) 1250km range subsonic (presumably circa 0.85 Mach) 1730km g-rating at supersonic +4.5 max wing loading 598kg/m^2 takeoff run 1250m and 360km/h landing run with brake chute 800m and 290km/h MiG-25PD 1978-82 Foxbat-E -4x R40 under wings (as above) -2x R40 + 4x R60T under wings -2x R23 + 4x R60T under wings (ie. identical to MiG-23P standard loadout) -2x R23 + 4x R73 Archer under wings max internal fuel 17660kg with provision for 5300 litre external tank on centreline underbelly Soyuz-Tumanksi R15-BD-300 non-bypass engines 86.24/110kN 1000hrs life service ceiling 23750m for 2min claimed reliable 3000km/h true at 13000m with full weapons load, 2.35 Mach extended cruise MiG-25RBT 1978-82 Foxbat-B (update, R variant 1969, RB variant 1970) slightly reduced wingspan (13.418m from 14.015m) 6x FAB-500 bombs (4 under wings, 2 under fuselage centreline), precision geographic sighting system for use at 20000m/supersonic provision for 5300 litre external tank under fuselage Soyuz-Tumanski R15-BD-300 non-bypass engines service ceiling 21000m (presumably unrestricted) max wing loading 671kg/m^2 range supersonic 1635km, with external tank 2130km range subsonic 1865km, with external tank 2400km MiG-25BM 1982-85 Foxbat-F -4x Kh-58 kilter antiradiation missiles under wings camera modules switched for further enhanced ECM suite otherwise as RBT/V/S series

Look, this is just killing me. Now I love the graphics on LOMAC, for screenshots circa 90s era popular models you just can't beat it. Love it. Got screenshots all over my desktop. But I'm a super enthusiast on these models, got details of the D30F2 Aviadvigatel, the Soyuz-Tumanskis, overspeeding, throttle restrictions at high mach, cruise ratings, bench tests, pilot comments, historical documentation, all over the place. I write books, I'm into research. Now I'm not an engineer, or a real pilot (just a handful of hours in civvies), just a hobbyist. But a well read one. And I really love a top notch flight sim. Thing is graphics, I just can't get immersion in something any less the graphical quality of something like LOMAC, I like the regional setting and the models are all my favourites. As a game I love it. For screenshots I love it. But its technical accuracy on just a few points is killing me. I play SP offline, and use AI controlled models like the Flogger and Foxbat (say, a Ukrainie scenario involving breakaway sentiments from the Russian Federation but much greater foreign adversity from western interests, hence an independent Ukranie versus NATO/Georgia/Middle East issue that the Russian Federation comes in on later to save the day...yep I just love flying Flankers and honestly believe the RAAF should've picked 'em over the JSF Plagiarism and Super-70s Northrop). So to start with I'm really looking at the Foxbat PD/PDS and all RB models (ie. Foxbat-B, D, E, F) with the Soyuz-Tumanski R15-BD-300 improved non-bypass turbine (circa. 1000hrs service life, 86.24/110kN bench tested static sea level, three-ring reheat, water injected, 7:1 compressor). The models in LOMAC 1.02 are Foxbat-B and Foxbat-E (RBT and PD). The first glaring problem I'm feeling is the fluffed Foxbat performance back to Eagle standards. I mean the things perform more like an Eagle than a Foxbat (not saying one is better than the other, for air-superiority the Eagle is definitively better, but this is a lengthy discussion topic with many more considerations to bear). Obviously for LOMAC the Foxbat modelling serves to provide an Eagle drivers AI equivalent for the older Soviet era equip depictions in SP mission building. This is a purely arcade style assertion by ED. The Foxbat does NOT perform anything at all like any Eagle variant in reality. Its engineering specifications alone utterly prohibit the contention, it is the realm of physically impossible. So we are in the situation with LOMAC, like it or not of weighing arcade style "game balance" (cough) with actual performance standards, wrt to AI aircraft types modelling for offline SP mission building. I can't help feeling a little sold out here. Like LOMAC was really made for all you online gamers and the SP military aviation enthusiasts looking for a sim with LOMAC's kind of layout got screwed. Now I'm not challenging an apparent, extreme (reasonable) accuracy for all player controlled aircraft and a damn good job on weapons/defence systems overall (regarding gameplay, technical accuracy and computer-sim restrictions). Given a mid-90s environment LOMAC comes up trumps for this according to everything I've read around the traps (problems I think come up where online players begin to assert mid-2000s era AIM-120C performance etc. I think, and general manufacturer claims and military hardware salesmanship for the international market). LOMAC rocks. I love it. Can I say that again? I love it. Top job ED, you guys are the bee's knee's, the possum's pussy, the eagle's talon. Back on topic. I'll do this point by point. Inlet and exhaust design features for the Foxbat and Eagle = different. Engine and airframe structural design between them = different. Avionics outlay and weapon systems = different. Operational doctrine = different. Cosmetic similarities are wholly superficial. Performance should not at all be similar. Due to the LOMAC modelling most people are pretty familiar with Eagle's general performance parameters. But they do not apply to the Foxbat. A very different approach needs to be used when combating them. They are not like an F-4 (but are closer to this than an Eagle) and are not like a Flogger (but are closer to this than an Eagle). LOMAC incorporates very well the vast difference between US manufacturer claims and specialised ("cleaned up") record breaking attempts, and actual combat performance using combat loads. It enforces these constraints on all aircraft Soviet/Russian and American/European. But it is not entirely accurate. I'm not going to go into the F-X design features or the exaggerated assumptions of the Foxbat. Just simple engineering facts, widely published since the mid-90s. As we know the razor thin wings of the Foxbat and large diameter exhaust nacelle is designed for mid range climb rate and high Mach cruise performance to propagate between 68000 and 78000 feet, for missile release. Radar is designed to burn through ECM at good range for targets roughly in front of the interceptor, general doctrine is GCI with pilot control virtually for missile release only. Airframe restrictions are 0.98 Mach at sea level and 2.83 Mach at altitude (ref. Mikoyan design bureau). The maximum performance envelope of the Tumanskis lay roughly between 36000 feet and 55000 feet supersonic. Airframe rigidity is an impressive 4.5g supersonic, clean (benefit of an approximately similar construction to the Grumman Tomcat bar variable geo). Best climb rate starts something like 20000 feet, just gets better and doesn't even start dropping off until somewhere like 45000 feet. It begins a very strong climb from around 18000 feet. Zoom climbs in vanilla models can return 80000-100000 feet with a good run up (presumably burning all fuel, clean layout and hitting maximum airspeed at around 55000 feet), but 78000 feet is maximum service ceiling sustained for up to 2min with various loads/engine fitments in a combat scenario (routinely tested in service, 68000 feet minimum service ceiling is actually typically quoted but this is for Foxbat-A with full-heavy missile load). It's a high altitude specialised interceptor, we all know that. Actual engineering technology is old tech, using the maxim: if you survive the mission, it's a good mission. If you kill the enemy, even better. If you don't, maybe don't think about surviving the mission. Well then here is why. The Tumanskis are non-bypass and that means overspeeding issues (like several American engines of similar basic design). Much was done in airframe development to reduce intake airspeed, increase lift and lower overall supersonic drag but nevertheless the common redline for conventional airframe/engine matching (foregoing highly specialised developments like the Lockheed variable inlet-interior/high-bleed/compressor-bypass hybrid weirdo engine some say gets its rocks off at 3.5 Mach but loves a good flameout at any speed and can't stand an angle of incidence or anything remotely resembling a turn), is 2.5 Mach. Simple figure. 2.5 Mach if you want regular turbine engines. Slow exhaust speeds with really big diameter and you can up this a little, but the Tumanskis are non-bypass and have that overspeeding issue. Quite simply at that speed it defies the engine management control. So the Tumanskis forego quite a bit of low airspeed exhaust velocity to really do well up around 2.5 Mach. Cruise speed for any Foxbat with any weapon load is 2.35 Mach. Following the engine overspeed of an Egyptian Foxbat-B (reaching 3.2 Mach according to Israeli ground stations, but destroying its engines), Mikoyan placed a general speed restriction on all Foxbat models of 2.5 Mach under normal conditions (except in emergency wartime conditions). Above 2.5 Mach according to pilots using maximum throttle would easily cause overspeeding and had always been unwise. One of the E-155 prototypes was modified for the closed circuit speed record attempt of 1967, which was essentially a MiG-25 airframe with no combat equipment and rather large wingtip tanks fitted with fins, for extra fuel. It recorded 2.802 Mach absolute speed over 1000km using the R15-B-300 engines (circa 150hrs service life). This is the basic outlay of the MiG-25P Foxbat-A. This model in service could reportedly achieve its maximum airframe speed in level flight with two heavy missiles fitted at 42500 feet. It could climb to 78000 feet for 2min. With four missiles speed was reduced and only 68000 feet could be attained in level flight. The MiG-25R actually entered service slightly earlier and was quickly modified on two important counts, the engines were improved to the R15-BD-300 with increased thrust and 1000hr service life, plus a precision, all-weather, high altitude/high Mach bombing capability added, with provision for external stores on the four wing hardpoints plus one centreline (for a total of six FAB-500 bombs typical loadout). Mikoyan OKB claims top airframe speed at 42500 feet is achieved in level flight with a full external bomb load of 3 tons (ref. Janes 93-94). A 5300 litre centreline fuel tank may be substituted in loadout on any RB-series. Essentially the Foxbat-B was a reconnaissance-bomber with higher spec engines by the time the interceptor Foxbat-A entered service, and it was one of these which hit 3.2 Mach over Israel in 1973. This brings us to the part which concerns LOMAC directly, the 1978-82 mid-life Foxbat update. The Foxhound (initially MiG-25M) had been in development since 1973 and prototype testing since 1975 (it was an E-155M which set the final word on airbreathing altitude world records at 123000 feet without rocket assist in 1975). But a new direction was taken with the design and overall it was protracted so as not to appear before the mid-80s. An interim was needed for strategic interception by PVO (this is the Russian home defence network of EW, SAM and GCI, they use strategic and tactical interception with ground base support where the US uses Missile defence technology and the Air National Guard...in 1977 for aircraft terms it consisted of the MiG-23P/modified-ML for GCI and MiG-25P which was always GCI, P designation means specialised interceptor and is never used for other tasks such as counter-air, it refers to GCI modifications to the avionics and direct pilot control is minimal although it regularly features all modern variant improvements of counter-air versions regarding ECM and other tactical features). This is the MiG-25PD and RBT variants listed in LOMAC. Both contain the R15-BD-300 engines and both are equipped with ECM suites. The PD is fitted with an IRST sensor below the nose and the radar system has been updated to a limited lookdown/shootdown type (Saphire model 25, an improvement on the original Foxfire which could not discriminate ground clutter and it is regarded by NATO as equivalent to the Highlark of the MiG-23M with demonstrated lookdown/shootdown capability...search range 100km tracking 75km, chaff and flare fitouts, RWR, 3 communications radios, general avionics improvement). Loadout modifications included the provision for either R60T on twin mounts for each outer pylon and later Archers have been exhibited in service. The RB centreline tank provision was also included on PD models. The PDS is the vanilla Foxbat-A updated to PD or Foxbat-E standard. This was for earlier airframes which outlived their engines, a common occurance, and included all the other PD improvements. In 1978 in fact, when the PD was first being delivered it was discovered Ukrainian pilots had flown their P variants so infrequently in an attempt to conserve engine life they had to be retrained. One instructor said nobody in the Ukraine knew how to fly them anymore. In 1982 the RBT/V/S was used as a basis to produce the BM defence suppression model (Foxbat-F), perhaps the most important of the final Foxbat series where camera equipment was replaced with enhanced ECM packages in the nose and and four Kh-58 anti-radar missiles could be carried. This model was produced until 1985. So...in LOMAC the Foxbat-B and Foxbat-E which are included should be subsonic at sea level and exhibit poor acceleration, climb and manoeuvre characteristics to 2000m. They should handle like a brick and get their backsides handed to them by my little sister in an F-15. They should have chaff/flares and limited ECM but very poor comparative radar performance and whilst powerful warheads and lethal range, poor missile technology. However due to signal strength and at least some attempt to interpret data electromechanically, they ought to resist ECM attempts quite well for SARH missiles (reportedly even the old Foxfire radar could "fry rabbits on the runway at 250 metres" during ground maintenance, one Foxbat-A pilot said, "the radar was so powerful it could burn through any ECM attempt at missile range [but could not distinguish ground clutter]"), the Saphire only ultimately added improved data interpretation (but therefore also the possibility of beaming for defence). At 5500 metres the Foxbat-B and E begins to really perform as it should. It ought to find approximate equivalence to aircraft like the F-15 at supersonic speeds at this altitude. From 11000 metres the Foxbat should totally come into its own. At this altitude these models should have little or no trouble achieving their 2.35 Mach cruise with any weapon loadout and a good acceleration to approx 2.5 Mach. By 13500 metres they can well exceed it but there is a danger of engine overspeeding without careful pilot control measures. Its climb rate is listed by Mikoyan as 8.9min to 20000 metres at 2.35 Mach from a standing runway start, with full weapons load. 8.2min to 19000m for RB variants with full weapons (6.6min clean). From what I've heard I believe the Eagle is pressed breaking 2.5 Mach with weapons at around 17000 metres and at much lower altitudes 1.8 Mach might be a more reasonable figure. Presumably the low-bypass engines help with altitude efficiency but their comparative exhaust speed/diameter doesn't. The Eagle was in part designed for extreme transonic performance, where the MiG was pure high speed interceptor. So I get in LOMAC and I do up a mission, and the Foxbat acts like an Eagle. In fact with two missiles fitted to a Foxbat-E the best speed I could manage over 170km @11000m was 2.4 Mach. In the Foxbat-B with only two R60 I managed 2.5 Mach @11000m over 150km at best. Longer flight plans than this and you run out of fuel. Any other altitude reduces speed capabilities. So for Foxbats, we've got Eagles. Similar story to the Foxhound, which needless to mention is a greatly improved Foxbat and ought to trump an Eagle at altitude big time. But in LOMAC it's a Foxbat, which is an Eagle.

Forgive my newb question, but I noted a civilian technician accidentally started tracking F-117s when they were used in the Gulf, using mundane troubleshooting software on the mobile coverage telecommunications network (thank God the Iraqi air defence network didn't think of it). So with regards to RCS profiles, aren't these sort of muted IRL using datalink/AWACS/GCI facilities? And the high survivability technology of lowered RCS acts more as a physical enhancement to ECM for evading effective locks by missile seeker heads only? Meaning including RCS profiles to a server mod (ie. affecting player experience at all) would be similarly muted. But it may affect missile accuracy alone (not aircraft detection capabilities where some datalink functions occur "off stage" in commercial sims)? I'm not that educated on it all, just some enthusiast impressions/wondering.

Are these the same mock combats upon which Johann Koeck (cdr 1./JG73) commented (paraphrasing for space), "Our navigation system (on the MiG-29) I'd prefer to call an estimation system. For communications we have only one VHF/UHF radio. The radar is at least a generation behind the AN/APG65, with poor situational awareness. It has reliability problems, lookdown/shootdown problems, poor discrimination between targets flying in formation and we can't lock onto the target in trail, only into lead. But inside ten nautical miles with Archers I can't be beat, period. Even against the latest Block 50 F-16s the MiG-29 is virtually invulnerable close in. On one occasion I remember the F-16s did score some kills but only after taking 18 Archers. We didn't operate "kill removal" since there'd be no training value, we killed them too quickly. They couldn't believe it at the debrief, they got up and left the room." lol, I love that.

Hi all. I've got LOMAC 1.02 to which I've added some of the great mods at lockon files. Pretty happy so far but just wanted to explore what I might be able to tweak. I play strictly offline, so no server acceptance issues and don't do online purchasing so unless FC appears at the local games shop on dvd I won't be adding that. What I'm interested in is any tutorials/guidebooks (pdf or whatever) for tweaking any element of the sim (my interest is specifically getting it as technically accurate as reasonably possible). Any help along these lines, where to search or links, for version 1.02 would be really appreciated. Cheers. ------------- For example...one thing bothering me is the Foxbat/Foxhound performance. According to my figures, the Foxhound for example ought to be getting up to 3000km/h true at 17500m (2.8 Mach) without trouble, it's a cruise speed for the D30F2 engines. The Foxbat with R300BD engines (PD/PDS and all RB variants) ought to scoot to 2.5 Mach pretty easily from about 11000m with a possible 2.8 Mach at 13000m (danger of engine overspeeding, ie. catastrophic failure above 2.5 Mach however). Both these ratings are with full loadouts according to 93-94 Janes (P variant couldn't get top speed and had reduced service ceiling with full missile load with R300B engines). Problem is I can barely make 2000km/h in LOMAC 1.02 for either at 11000m, 1800km/h at 9000m and 700km/h at 17500m with loadouts and acceleration times are...well the fuel runs out. Am I doing something wrong? Are there any fixes anywhere? A Fulcrum outperforms them in LOMAC, managing 2.25 Mach at 10000m without trouble. But...I realise hard coded FMs etc. Probably nothing I can do about this most glaring fault I have with LOMAC. Generally any other tweaks or accuracy improvements would help, maybe I can look past the wholly inaccurate, purely cosmetic Foxbat/Foxhound models by failing to use them and concentrate on other elements of the sim, or things that I can actually work with, being I do quite like the sim.

Yep, expanding modder capabilities is at the head of a big wish list for me. An application toolkit for adding flyables, the community seems happy and capable of rendering accurate models, cockpits and doubtlessly undertaking performance modelling. The same feature could be used to modify existing modelling to reflect real world data which may have not been either deeply enough researched or available when the sim was originally made. My biggest gripe is the Foxbat and Foxhound modelling, which in no way reflect their actual performance on paper or according to pilot account, but are arcade game generic enemy vehicles with those aircraft skins slapped on them. The same problem seems to occur frequently with all combat flight sims, in that strict accuracy is sacrificed in order to make a computer program which falls somewhere between a flight simulator and an arcade "shoot 'em up" game in terms of the real world performance of various types. I believe too much effort is spent on the marketing aspect of generating a well balanced gaming platform for mass media, instead of addressing the marketing aspect of catering to the target audience. Certainly a smaller base of enthusiasts are prepared to pay the ridiculous contemporary price of a new computer program for an extended period, than the circa 3-month lifespan of most mass media gaming platforms at the release price, followed by a marked disinterest by all but the small batch enthusiast market (who then need to set about a modding regime to make the game a bit more of a sim). I believe game balance can be safely excised completely whilst accurate performance modelling is introduced, and thus real world balance reintroduced through actual doctrines and model differences. It doesn't matter if a MiG-29 can outdo an F-16 in dogfight any day of the week because it doesn't stand a chance at BVR and overall low-medium altitude performance is pretty similar. A MiG-25 doesn't need to be downgraded and exaggerated so it's more like a player's F-15 because it isn't even supersonic at low altitude and the turbojets need a bit of momentum and about 30,000 feet to wind up. The balance comes in that once they do the F-15 has a pretty limited engagement opportunity, the Foxbats can enter or leave combat at will. Foxbats in game are far more like Foxhound performers on paper, but with much worse acceleration and power-weight (in which the Foxhound is also lacking, presumably the same performance modelling is being used between the two aircraft types which is way, way off). So yeah, my big wish list is for simulator level accuracy, whether by modders introduction or an extensive game patching commitment. At the very least a patch should be provided to facilitate extensive modding. I mean it seems so odd. The CFS programs on the market, for simulator level modding interests have an arcade style user interface, whilst for simulator style user interface use locked, hardcoded arcade modelling. It's a conspiracy, isn't it? I mean are we all worried about black cars and silent helicopters following us around or something, should somebody render an accurate combat flight sim one day? Schoolkids are going to start hijacking Raptors from airbases after playing it? Ze Germans will discover our secretive, widely published and easily deciphered technologies?

How about make new models with proper cockpit and all the bits, self installer package and uninstall, then the owner configures their game with the flyables they want. I'd probably have mostly Russian aircraft, the next guy American or French. For online play the flyables would just have to be common AI planes for both systems, right? So have the installer default to an AI when the flyable is swapped out for another (ie. a partial uninstaller and a full one in case owner wants it completely removed). There's no restriction on AI content?