Kula66

If they are only going to introduce a/c one at a time, with 9 months (lets say 18 months in reality) between ... when the first fast jet is introduced it will only have helicopters and A-10s to shoot at - god that will be fun :( Surely you have to introduce them in pairs! Are we all going to fly on-line on the same side just plinking the dumb AI? Or all with the same a/c on both sides? Please - half the fun of LO is the different a/c and their capabilities. I still fly the crippled F-15 and fly against hordes of Migs/SUs ... fire-off my dumb AMRAAMs and then back to base for a reload!

I'm 100% with you GOYA. Plus do something about the arcady implementation of jamming ... I guess fixing missiles would mean including decent HOJ modelling.

So when are we going to see realsitic A2A missiles?

Is the 50% increase in range caused by a 50% increase in volume? If not then your simple comparision of the 77 is bigger therefore has longer range is not valid ... there are obviously other factors involved. A bigger missile will have more drag and therefore loose energy quicker A heavier, bigger missile will burn more energy to change course. Those potato mashers will have more drag. The electonics package will take up more of the missile, therefore less for fuel etc etc The AMRAAM could be smaller, carry less fuel and yet due to other factors (which me or anyone less using UC info) can't know! One thing we do know the UASF, with billions of $$$ of budget is happy with it (not an organisation that is know to scrimp on equipment) ... sure they would like something better, but its good enough for purpose. PS> Sorry, this isn't an attack on you ... just the info isn't available.

Sorry, Yoda, but real tactics don't work ... real tactics are F-15s at 35-40k' flying in line clearing the skys with their superior radar in TWS and 120s. TWS is broken, keeping a lock from that height on multiple targets is nearly impossible and 120s go stupid in look-down mode ... I've recorded it and played it back many times in disbelief. Also, a shot from 1000' v a target at 40k' have the same range either way is just arcadish ... sorry it completely negates RL tactics ..

cool_t, I've done the same, locked an enemy and had the missile guide to a friendly 20k' feet below me ... hence I don't play online any more ... just too frustrating - too much luck and too little skill. They used to work before the last patch - that completely narfed the 15/120. Perhaps TWS was over-modelled before, but to just rip out that modelling and replace it with nothing - not good. That patch was supposed to fix a load of stuff but for me was a big backwards step ... so when you hear the next patch will fix a load of stuff, don't get too optimistic, even if it ever appears.

I bought MS FS ... lasted about a week on my PC - very dull. I don't remember the clouds being anything great ...

* Different burning effects ... if you have a battlefield full of burning vehicles, all the balck smoke columns look the same! How about a bit of variety? Hight, colour, burn time .... * Weather - LO clouds are the best that i've seen in any sim ... but more types, colours etc * Airfield clutter ... * Turnulance * Comms ... much more like the simulator that can't be named. * Better ground mesh * More general clutter on the ground - LO is probably the best, but needs to improve ... walls, fences, hedges, ditches, tall grass, crags ... * Carrier landings - agreed. Oh and an F-18 as well * An AI ... rather than an AS! * AFM (sorry, it just had to be said ...) So nothing requiring too much development ...

The ET was designed with a specific scenario in mind ... you have a fleeing Tornado or F-111 on AB, 3 miles ahead. If you fire a 73, it hasn't got the legs and will miss. So, marry an IR seeker with a big motor that you already have in use ... I wish Western designers thought out of the box too! I thought the problem with LOAL for an IR seeker is the FOV is very narrow and you have to point the head at the target. This isn't a problem for the ER, its homing in on reflected energy and the active seeker weapons have a big FOV.

I thought the recent shoot of a MICA at a following aircraft were tests of the 2-way data-link ...

I thought both the Meteor and the MICA have 2-way data links. Is the 120D even flying in testing yet?

Now I would definately buy a flyable Harrier sim!

So cool_t, what you are saying is that there is so much broken its never going to get fixed. ED will not make any more money by fixing it and those of us who love A2A will have to look elsewhere .... yep, that was my conclusion. For me the last patch broke more than it fixed, so my hopes aren't high of its content let alone whether it will appear. ED is a company and has to make money - I'm sure they would all love to fix LO, but companies don't make money from patches! When was the last one? It ain't going to happen. Sooner or later something better will come along - from ED or someelse ...

But hacking the EXE/Process to change you plane .... that is very different!

Why is dumping fuel cheating? He runs the risk of running out of fuel during the fight and then loosing. The other side just has to keep him out of his six for a while longer and he dies - plus both sides can do it!

Oh great ... I can see it now - Typhoon will fly with partially populated AESA array to save money! Perhaps the UK MOD could 'spin' the reuse all those old SkyFlash missiles to sound like something positive!

But you said 19nm in post #51 ... I was using your figure as a basis ;)

Ok Hajduk, this from Janes: "R-27EA, had a multifunction monopulse Doppler seeker, AGAT's 9B-1103M, which has a lock on range of 20 km against fighter aircraft targets, and a weight of 14.5 kg excluding the radome. The radome itself had a distinctive conical shape, unlike that of any other R-27 version."

Well, from a trusted source I get: "110 km for R- 27EM" So you're looking more like trebble the range - I know single range figures mean squat, but we are guessing big time here. So, assuming a head-on shot from 110km at high alt, the F-15 can't ignore the threat ... can it get within range for a 40km (assuming 25mile range for AMRAAM-B/C) return shot?

Ok ... here is some info from a reasonably trusted source: "six versions vary from the smallest (R-27T), which is 3.80 m long, has a body diameter of 230 mm and a launch weight of 245 kg, to the largest (the R-27AE and R-27EM), which are both 4.78 m long, have a body diameter of 260 mm and launch weights of 350 kg." So, the AE and EM are longer than the rest!

How can you distinguish it visually from the ER? Also, do you have any pictures of 33 carrying 27s while operating on the Kuz? Nothing I've found show any missiles apart from 73s.

Indeed, but my original post was hypothetical AEs v early AMRAAMs. If you compare a 1990s weapon with a 2005s weapon sure ... but that wasn't the post ;) EDIT: Infact GGT, mentioning the D model, this isn't just classified it isn't even in production!! So how you can quote ranges I can hardly guess!

That would be the mission editor. Well the range of AMRAAM (and probably the R-27s) is classified - so unless you are divulging classified infor you are guessing. Given that the R-27Es have significantly larger rocket motors it is very unlikely AMRAAM has a similar range. AMRAAM is less draggy due to size and small fins so it will bleed speed at a lower rate (if only WAFM had made it into LO :( ) ... So we can only draw deductions based on physicals and some guess work ... and AMRAAM and R-27ER having a similar range don't really add-up. The later AMRAAMs have a longer range than the earlier AMRAAMs ... thats all we KNOW.

I think you missed the whole point of what I was saying ... its hyperthetical based on the time frame of LO. What time period are you trying to describe? LO time frame is somewhere between mid-80s and mid-90s, so there would have been plenty of REs and If the USSR hadn't gone pop, there would have been plenty of AEs too! 1. Like almost everyone else, I believe the evidence suggests the AE was never in production. 2. I do watch the news ... 3. This was the whole Soviet doctrine ... numbers v quality. 4. So range is no advantage ... interesting idea. Try reading some history - it is littered with examples of range being a great advantage, especially when combined with greater speed (read fuel load). You suggest that the older R/Ts have lasted longer than the newer RE/TEs - what evidence do you have for this?

Well, all other things being equal (which I know they were not) it gives you first shot and puts your enemy on the defensive. Plus given USSR usually had a numerical advantage, could 2 F-15s with 16 AMRAAMs handle 6 SU-27s with 48 R-27AEs and 12 R-73s - especially given that the SU-27s would shoot first. The 15s would have to wade through a wall of R-27s! The Su-27s could then just turn and run from the suvivors using all that internal fuel. Many reports speak of the Russian disappointment with the R-77, especially in range when compared to the 27. Those fins were just too draggy! Shame this isn't reflected in LO :(