golfsierra2

Lucky he made it ! Strong nerves, cold blood ! :thumbup:

Don't ask, the Mods won't tell ya. Been through long conversations already....

AA-10, Alamo R-27AE, is reported to be operational and in service since 1995. Got that from a friend who owns a (very expensive) 2004 Jane's CD "Air-launched Weapons'. At least THEY confirmed that the AE made it into active service. Any other reliable sources (I consider Jane's pretty much reliable..) ?

http://www.enemyforces.com/missiles/r_27.htm "The R-27RE missile became a base developing a R-27AE and R-27EM missiles. The R-27AE (AA-10C "Alamo-C") is a medium-range missile, featuring an active radarhoming seeker. The R-27EM (AA-10C "Alamo-C") is optimized for a long-range low-level interception on water. Current status of this missile is unknown. Both missiles entered service in 1990." The page does not list any sources for the data. And - the R-27AE is referred to as an Alamo C, whereas most other web pages refer to it as Alamo-E, which I think is the appropriate designator. Additionally, we should ask SwingKid for a source about the R-27AE: http://forum.sukhoi.ru/showthread.php?threadid=21709&perpage=25&pagenumber=2 There he wrote in 2004: "With R-27AE, IMHO there is enough uncertainty to make a compromise. I can confirm that this missile was in real production (at least, for export) in Ukraine. Ukraine has no Su-35. Is it possible to use R-27AE with standard Su-27? Maybe the Su-27 radar doesn't need to know if it carries active or passive missiles - R-27AE may theoretically be built with "reverse-compatibility" to R-27ER, and be launched using the same software. R-77 would require the software to be programmed with its flight characteristics."

-- text deleted -- -- Even more text deleted -- Best that it would do is create some steam, but that would not cause extra thrust, it only cools down the exhaust gases. The amount of energy still comes 100% from the fuel, and by water no extra energy is added ...

Accidents are always unexpected.....

Both links won't work for me.... A page of http://intl.local.live.com/ appears instead

IRL it is the SA-10 system.

Funny, it matches with what one of my comrads said years ago about the ongoing EF2000 debate (to buy it or not): If those who wanted to save money (not buying the EF2000) had ruled, GAF still would fly Me 109, but with AMRAAM...

Thats because both are built by Agat. Right above that picture on the Czech site you can read "...pohonné hmoty a kombinovanou naváděcí soustavou 9B-1348 ruské firmy MRI Agat." which refers to the seeker-head 9B-1348, which AGAT builts for the R-77, as you can read right below the seeker-head picture on the Danish site: "9B-1348E active radar seeker of the R-77(AVV-AE)" :music_whistling:

The way you put it, still that would imply that the R-27AE went into mass production and entered service - and I still doubt that. There is no proof of the R-27AE being a missile in service yet. So the question, which version of the Su-27 can fire it and which squadrons are using this missile is way to far out. EDIT: The best sources I could find so far are: http://home19.inet.tele.dk/airwing/aircraft/a2a.htm stating that the seeker head is of the 9B-1103M-type http://www.airshow.ru/expo/334/anketa.htm listing several different versions of the 9B-1103M seeker

Exactly. Pictures of what could be a mockup for display purposes or even a prototype missile is no proof at all that the R-27AE ever entered service.

Because earlier in this thread, there was mentioned a book source telling this and I doubt it. I still can live very well with my R-77, R-27ET and R-73 mix

That is against any practical real live firing technique. Firing at almost max range, and instantly breaking away (breaking lock by that) certainly will end up in a 'trashed' misssile. In German F-4F, the WSO is calculating the time period, that the AIM-120 has to be supported after launch, after this time elapsed (and the missile is considered pitbull), they break lock and turn away. In an F-15, there is the indication in the HUD which 'counts down', telling the pilot how long he has to support the missle with a radar lock befor he can break away. Firing an AAMRAM as you put it only is a shot of opportunity with a very low PK. Nobody would waste precious AMRAAMS like you described it.

I'm not happy with the statement that an AR-missile is a real fire and forget weapon. Neither the R-77 nor the AIM-120 can be fired and the aircraft then immediately braking away and braking lock subsequently. At longer distances, you still have to support the missiles for a good portion of their flight path before their organic radar is able to pick up the target by itself (going pitbull). R-77 and AIM-120 only would be fired as fire & forget at very short distances, that is it is going off the rail already active. Which likely would be almost the same envelopes like for effective firing an IR-missile.

Have searched for some days now on the internet and could not find any source stating that the R-27AE ever made it into service. BTW I came across this nice site http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/text/missiles/aam.html which adds more figures to the recent disussions of max missile ranges and so on...

Wait for ..... DirectX 12 Shader Model 5.0 Intel Pentium 6 Nvidia GForce 11 (GForce 11000GT PCIe, 2GB RAM, 2048 Pixelpipelines)

If you have a DL-Version of FC, then this patch is the correct one to use for upgrading to 1.12b. There is another patch available for the CD-Version of FC (1.1).

Any further develepoment yet ?

I changed the switches of the Extra300 a bit to meet my requirements...

A possible link-up between Lock-On and MS FS is just an example. How about F4 and Lock-On ? Or other sims, that are close together in terms of aircraft, weapon systems etc.

No, sorry, I'm no software developer. I'd like to, but I can't.

A generic example: See this part of the export.lua of LO: function LuaExportAfterNextFrame() -- Works just after every simulation frame. -- Call Lo*() functions to get data from Lock On here. -- For example: -- local t = LoGetModelTime() -- local name = LoGetPilotName() -- local altBar = LoGetAltitudeAboveSeaLevel() -- local altRad = LoGetAltitudeAboveGroundLevel() -- local pitch, bank, yaw = LoGetADIPitchBankYaw() -- local engine = LoGetEngineInfo() -- local HSI = LoGetControlPanel_HSI() -- Then send data to your file or to your receiving program: -- 1) File -- io.write(string.format("t = %.2f, name = %s, altBar = %.2f, altRad = %.2f, pitch = %.2f, bank = %.2f, yaw = %.2f\n", t, name, altBar, altRad, 57.3*pitch, 57.3*bank, 57.3*yaw)) -- io.write(string.format("t = %.2f ,RPM left = %f fuel_internal = %f \n",t,engine.RPM.left,engine.fuel_internal)) -- io.write(string.format("ADF = %f RMI = %f\n ",57.3*HSI.ADF,57.3*HSI.RMI)) -- 2) Socket -- socket.try(c:send(string.format("t = %.2f, name = %s, altBar = %.2f, alrRad = %.2f, pitch = %.2f, bank = %.2f, yaw = %.2f\n", t, name, altRad, altBar, pitch, bank, yaw))) end Let us concentrate on the Pitch/AOB/Yaw-values. They can be used to trigger gauges in a pit, but it should be possible to 'translate' them to a corresponding data format which MS FS understands (the way it receives that data from other online player) as shown in the schematics below. Basically, 30° AOB always is 30° AOB, no matter what flight sim you are using. So, the values itself are the information that has to be 'transported', and the 'vehicle' therefore is the dataformat where this value will be 'packed into' like into a cargo box. It all depends then on the format of that 'cargo box' because every sim only accepts a certain structure or form of 'cargo boxes'. This 'linkware' I am thinking about is just to open a box that was sent, take the content out of it, put it into another box and sent it away.

No, it only requires that the data format that you sent to the sim is the same that it understands and that the values are within the sim's limits.

First step could be looking into this: http://www.projectmagenta.com/ The guys from Project Magenta managed to get the data from MS FS , read-out the values and use them to trigger appropriate cockpit gauges. With the export.lua of LO, the same thing can be done. So if there is software available to get the (online) data of flight sims via the online software interface, it should be possible to 'extract' the data value from one sim, convert them to the corresponding values and formats of another sim and sent them into the sim using the online interface like the clients of other online gamers do. If you can stimulate gauges with those data retrieved from a sim, it should be possible to stimulate another sim the same way.