Kula66

None that I could say are of the EM explicitly ... but these pictures are captioned Su-33 and show an interesting weapon load ... mock-ups I presume or perhaps a 30? Seems to be very few pictures of 33s on the Kuz carrying missiles ... perhaps they can't take-off with a missile load - too heavy? ;)

Why do you think this is an EA? It looks more like an ER, an E and a 73. The information I read was that the EA, as planned, has a more conical nose cone than the ERs - see attached. This cone doesn't look conical. BTW: What is a P-27PI93PI)? Anyone? Is that the passive homing 27? Perhaps that's what the picture below shows.

Why a better interceptor? Similar range, EF has significantly better sensors (unless the MOD are flying blue circle again) and has speed up high ... something the Tornado is notoriously bad at! The only thing the ADV has is a second crew member for the pilot to chat to.

Good point ... apparently the Soviets had examples of early 7s while they were designing the Apex. Certainly by DS1 (7M?) it was a reliable weapon

Well, was the Apex ever tested to the extent that the 7 was? And not as publically. Where was it used in real combat? As we all know the early 7s were terrible v fighters - again never designed for such targets. I thought that Apex had a much longer Max range - quoted as 35Km (I know, launch/target conditions allowing - so assume head-on). The IR seeker would not have been able to lock before launch. So how would they fire the IR model "According to doctrine"? I understand that the search FOV of the early IR missiles were very narrow ... but they did deployed them widely and 23s are usually seen with mixed weapon loads IR & SAH with the IR model LOBL. EDIT: Interesting quote from FAS.org "The R-23 and R-24 missiles were superior to the K-25 Sparrow-ski in versatility and range, as well as interference immunity, signal processing logic, and other characteristics" Also quotes the max IR range as 15km .. so I guess your right, the one-two salvo would have been at shorter range.

Yes Acrid is R-40 ... and you're, it was never design for use against fighters, but what about Apex? Mig-23s weapon - the Soviet match for the F-4.

I know this isn't very relaistic (because it would expose you to AAA), but after attacking a target, I simply pull up into a loop to reverse course - works a treat in the A-10. The 25 is a bit more difficult because it tends to roll off the heading as it slows.

There was a comment in that reference that stated that the 77 was limited to M3 due to heating of the nose cone. As to IR AAMs, the Soviets always seemed to produce IR and SAH versions of missiles - in addition to 27, the Acrid and Apex spring to mind. The Acrid certainly had a significantly longer range than 10km. I'm sure they also expected to attack figthers as well as fleeing bombers, but, if the launch characteristics were heavily mismatched, this wouldn't follow with doctorine of firing the IR shortly after the SAH was fired.

Interesting comment that the R-77 is limited to M3 ... I thought the 120 is an M4 missile ... Also it would be nice to seem R77 blead energy much faster than the 120 - they are obviously not close in RL! Also mentions (as mentioned in many other places) that standard Soviet doctorine was to file an R-27R followed by a T. If the T was lockon before launch how would this work at the range a 27R was fired? Could this indicate some sort of lockon after launch?

BGP, this doesn't sound right - stealth faceting (as used in 117) concentrates reflected energy in a very few directions, and the aim is to deny the transmitter a long look in that direction. So if you turn they get a flash of reflected energy as the a/c presents that face ... after that nothing. Other stealth a/c, like the B-2, F-22 etc use combinations of sstealth technology in difference bits of the a/c. So, wings and tails are alligned as in the 117.

Well, I tend to 'fly' the vanilla 25 - raw avionics, no HUD, slightly less sluggish than the T, bouncy flight, glass under carriage and just as ugly! The trick I think is don't be tempted to overload it and keep the speed up ... but I've crashed plenty!! 100s! I've just fitted some peddles (Simpeds) and am re-learning the AFM with those. My first attempts at ground steering were just like in a RL Cessna - weaving all over the taxi-way with the airlerons flapping wildly! If the A-10 is nearly as good in RL than in LO, then that is one great plane!

A major factor is the engines ... optimsed for low-level. Apparently they need to use AB to A2A refuel if done too high just to keep up with the Tristar/VC-10! And then you can't get the fuel in as quickly as its used in the AB via the hose! But out over the Atlantic hunting Bears/Blinders/Backfires (ie. nothing that turns too well or runs too fast!) ... that's its playground. BGP: Apparently the F-15E is a really rough ride down low ... due to low wing loading!

Now that the patch is being talked as 'if' rather than 'when' - what incentive have ED to do any patch? It will not pay the wages of those programmers who write it ... I'm sorry to say I think we are just stuck with 'arcade' missiles, until 'the next project' - perhaps my kids will get to play it one day ... I'm not holding my breadth. But hey, ED have given me good value for my money - Ј60 has bought me many hours of fun! SO BIG THANKS ED!

There was an F-18 HUD video ages ago that showed the pilot do a 25deg pull up before a loft shot ... he was getting steering queues from the HUD. All helps the missile!

The shear ugliness will repel the enemy! ;)

And what happens if you never truely establish air-super? Do they stay on the ground? The Red AF only had to keep NATO off the backs of the tankers to win! A regisment of T-72s sitting at Ramstein AB is the best air-superiority weapon out! In a WWIII scenario you wouldn't have the luxury of saying "We'll only send in the A-10s when we have control of the air ... " that may never happen! You may never shut down the AD network ... you haven't got enough HARMs!! GWI and GW2 are nothing like WWIII - not even close

Unlike LO, the question is would 1 x F-15 been able to handle 4 x Mig-23/29/Sus again and again and again ... remember the old joke about the 2 x Russian tank commanders sitting in Paris "I hear we lost the air war ...". They only had to keep the NATO airforces off there backs for a short while and they had a load of AD with them too! Unfortunately, that doesn't make a very good sim for people who like to fly Russian a/c!

I didn't because I'm sure the A-10 is the most survivable plane out there ... low-level battlefield AD is just too dangerous (Tunguskas) and too numerous (manpads). Up high, above 10k would have been filled with Migs, SU, SA-10s etc ... look at Kosovo - A-10s had to go high and Apaches couldn't work - and that was nowhere near as hot as WWIII! I was just saying that the environment was too hot for any plane to fly - lots of good men(women) on both sides would have died very quickly!

Its a great plane, but operating with all those 'double-digit' SAMs around, in often bad vis and the biggest air battle ever raging overhead ... I think it's life would be very short. 1970s possibly, 1980s it would have been just too hot over Europe.

They aren't going to do much with only 12 missiles! ;)

I've just checked the Janes on-line service and it doesn't say that now ... sorry

Wow - so, that extra 1,200lbs of thrust is that necessary! Worth lugging all that water, water tank, pipes, pumps etc around while not needed.

Cheers IK ... Interesting.

Its simple ... its locked on BEFORE launch - so why would it need a datalink?

No, but with an R-73 you may have a tail chase range of 2miles, but with a big R-27ET you may have 8miles - hence the reason for having them.