D-Scythe

Amazing job!

That's....impossible. There weren't even 50 air-to-air kills in total during the entire duration of Desert Storm. Furthermore, the Iraqis didn't even fly their Hinds during the war - so I'm also skeptical that there were 56 air-to-air duels between Coalition and Iraqi helicopters.

During the first Gulf war? As in Desert Storm?

An AD gunner would certainly be more survivable than a helicopter if we're talking about SAM threats, but I'm pretty sure the helicopter is hundreds of times more survivable when talking about assault rifles, machine guns....anything else really ;) But yes, I guess we both agree that although real attack helicopters won't be shooting AAMs at each other, the fact that they can shoot AAMs at each other would be something that many gamers would like to exploit in the LOBS world.

Right, one deep strike failure in Iraqi Freedom, over an urban environment no less with no support from anything else, basically renders the entire strategy obsolete. I mean, in Desert Storm AH-64s did penetrate enemy air space to blast open a hole in Iraqi's KARI defense system for other strike aircraft to blow through, but nobody remembers that right? Okay, sure, you're absolutely right. But, the point is, just because it's gonna be rare to encounter another aircraft to shoot at over the FLOT, doesn't mean that there never will be, and having more options is always better. Ideally, strike aircraft should never engage enemy fighters in air combat either. F-15Cs wouldn't dogfight with enemy MiGs without a significant advantage. Su-33s won't be shooting Kh-41s at enemy ships. Su-25Ts won't be performing SEAD/DEAD. But we do it all in Lock On anyway.

Well, you're obviously right in a fair fight. All I'm saying is the option to carry AAMs may be welcome by the community, and IMO, is not that far from realism. Obviously, we'll never know, but in a tight shooting war where air superiority is not achieved, I think it's highly likely we'll see choppers carrying AAMs.

Well, it can be argued that there hasn't been a war where helicopters capable of carrying AAMs (like the U.S. and Russia) had to contend with any air-to-air threat at all. Just for the sake of being argumentative, I'd imagine AAMs would be useful against other helicopters. Certainly, in the only helicopter A-A battles in history (between Iranian AH-1s and Iraqi Mi-24s), having Igla or Stinger equipped would be an overwhelming advantage. Moreover, while against fighters it's best to hide, I'd think a Ka-50 would be able to effectively defend itself against an A-10 if it had to. IIRC, an Iraqi Mi-24 even managed to shoot down an Iranian F-4 Phantom with rockets during the Iran-Iraq war.

AFAIK, no, that's impossible. Radar missiles - track doppler. The helicopter's rotor - constant source of doppler. So if a helicopter does evade a radar missile, it's not because it can't see it. NOTE: I am not sure if this applies to LOBS.

Cluster munitions are by far the most effective anti-runway weapon in Lock On.

Yup. Mostly for when the ROE required a VID - which basically kills the 90% that makes the F-15 as good at A/A as it is.

Pretty sure the Russians have realized their IFF codes have been hacked and changed them by now.

No.

It's very, very, very, very pretty. The Ace Combat 6 environment is easily the best of any air combat sim or game I've seen - the battles seem something like Star Wars meets the USAF. The combat in AC6 is a dream come true - I would love to get dirty and participate in such large scale environments. A sky full of contrails, missile tails, tracers and burning planes are a huge turn-on for some reason.

No.

Goya, I stand corrected. I had the AI turn off their jammers on me and didn't break my lock, didn't know that turning on the jammer breaks that lock. Haha, I can not believe that you got "I am mentally superior to you" from "AC6 might be more your type of game if you don't want to be shot at beyond 13 nm." The only that's upset seems to be you. Looking back, I stand by my statement that I haven't been intentionally making personal attacks or actively trying to engage you in a pissing contest. I didn't get upset. I questioned how you flying civilian aircraft (well, not the F-15, Su-27/33 or MiG-29S) would be relevant to this discussion. Then, you get upset because logic kicks in, and you realize that no, it had nothing to do with the thread and that you were, in fact, trying to win the argument on the basis that you fly more aircraft than I do. Which is great, cept for the part where it's totally useless and meaningless in this discussion. If you're game, and I suspect you are because you seem to be looking for a fight, we can continue this with PMs as Goya has suggested, since you seem to be getting overly riled up publicly. Otherwise, please stop trying to make me look like "the guy who's contributed nothing to this thread except flame people" - including literally calling another poster a flamer. That's...well, I'm not gonna name names or point fingers, but let's just say that's not me :thumbup:

That's not an answer. I asked you to provide an example where I attacked you personally, and I'm sorry, but I really have to know. I try not to attack people PERSONALLY - attack, their gaping dark holes in logic, sure. Again, please provide an example of me accusing you of being a blinker. I freely admit that I did say you "condone blinking," so at least half your accusation is correct. But since an accusation is not a fact, I don't really get why you get so upset over these things. Hell, you accused me of being gay. Repeatedly. No. If you intend to blink, then you're a blinker. Simple as that. It doesn't matter if you're successful at it or not - the fact that you TRIED to cheat ALREADY makes you a blinker. Obviously, there is nothing to stop a guy from blinking, so what's the point of defining a minimum time standard? But trying to cheat, that usually pisses some people off in multiplayer - which is my whole point. Blink if you want, but don't expect to make a lot of friends along the way. In Lock On, ECM does NOT break a lock - it just denies your opponent range information as he is forced to switch to an HOJ lock. Part of the whole primitive ECM vs. ECCM thing. The only way one SHOULD be able to break lock in LO is by notching an enemy radar. Were you intending to blink? If not, then you're not a blinker - easy! You're Pete Mitchell because you think that, just because you touch aircraft for a living, I'm jealous of you. Now, why would you accuse me of being jealous or challenging me to log the number of hours I spend flying next week? Sorry, but it's the sign of a weak argument to pull rank on your opponent. Means you got nothing else.

Where did I make an attack on you personally? As far as I know, personal attacks that have NOTHING to do with the topic are your job, not mine. You feel better now? I know, it's sometimes easier to just vent. But, if it is possible for you to make ONE post that is actually on the topic of ECM employment in Lock On, that would be great. Thanks.

Kay, let's keep track of how many times you berate *me* instead of addressing the issue at hand. One. Two. If you would've went through the tread more carefully, you would've noticed that I wasn't addressing the question of "What is the best way to employ ECM." I was responding to the guy who answered "Blinking." Three. Turning your ECM on and off with the intention of denying your opponent a BVR HOJ/SST lock. You were right, that WAS difficult. Um, I don't recall a point in this thread where you ASKED for anything. Do you want me to define "ASK" for you too? Like I just defined "blinking"? How would reality work against people who oppose blinking? I'm sure everyone acknowledges that strobing your ECM is likely an SPJ technique. But that's not the point - the point is that the ECM system modelled in LOMAC wasn't designed to handle actual ECM employment techniques, and thus by employing one, you're giving yourself an unfair AND unrealistic advantage in multiplayer. There is no manual ECCM counter to a guy who blinks his ECM. So now, you basically have ECM with no ECCM in the Lock On world. Realistic? Don't think so. But hey, it's not like BVR combat is a huge part of the game, is it? I mean, who does BVR anymore? We should just accept Lock On for what it is, and eliminate BVR combat from it altogether. Jealous? Sorry Pete Mitchell, but I'm not jealous. Four. So, people who have homosexual thoughts should get help? Like they have something wrong with them? Well, at least your honest, but I'm counting that as number 5 because you obviously meant "homoerotic" to be derogatory. But yeah, as for your invitation to get into a pissing contest with you, I will save you the trouble of pulling out your 12 whooping inches and decline from your challenge. Congrats, you are now one of the "men" of this forum. You showed me up and totally put me in my place. There's a new sheriff in town boys. A civilian tech inspector who condones blinking.

All PC sims have to TRY to be realistic, because there is no way you can be 100% realistic - you'd end up building the aircraft you're simming. This was about ECM blinking and how it's frowned upon. In fact, I never praised Lock On once. So really, I have no idea what you're talking about. Again, no idea what you're talking about. So what if I brought AC6 into the conversation? Never said it was "bad" or "I hated it". I distinctly remember me saying "fine, whatever, it's your game, play it as you want." So no, the only one imposing anyone's opinion would be...well, let's just say it's not me and leave it at that. Wow, a civilian inspector by day AND a psychoanalyst by night :worthy: I distinctly remember Boneski talking about ECM blinking, you know, with it being a "How to use my jammer" thread and all. Could be wrong - what does the title say? Pro....Pro-per....Proper ja...jammer...u....sage? Sorry, it's been a while since I've actually read. Yet, you come to the defense of those who say that ECM blinking, missile spamming and flying 10ft above the deck to avoid radar missiles are "just part of the game." Interesting. I could careless about how quickly SPJs can strobe - chances are, I'll never know, so I don't care. Fact is, M-A-C-R-O's can deny locks in BVR in Lock On. So no, the issue is not null and void....right there. Sure. Since this is about ECM usage in A/A, the airframes in question are the F-15, Su-27/33 and MiG-29S. We can have a little get-together to compare notes, then after we can make popcorn and braid each other's hair while telling each other how our boyfriends are so insensitive to our needs. I'll even bring my spa set. This is going to be so fun! On a more serious note IK, I don't even know what we're discussing anymore, and whatever it is, I'm certain that it's extremely OT.

No, I'm not. The only thing I'm doing is showing how Lock On is a sim and AC is a game (while pointing out how you think otherwise). That's not the case I'm making. I already acknowledged and accepted all of LO's weaknesses, so I fail to see why you have to rehash everything. All I'm saying is that there isn't an excuse to not TRY to be realistic. Trying does NOT mean it HAS to be realistic. Who's reading too deeply into things now? Find anything that suggests I hate AC6. Until you do, I suggest you stop making things up. Again, where did I say "my opinion is more realistic" than yours? I merely explained why people frown upon blinkers. I also said that Lock On, in its own way, should at least try to be as realistic as possible, unlike AC6, which is a game designed purely for entertainment purposes. So just because it's no worse than any other PC sim, we should just "accept" Lock On just the way it is? Please - if everyone here started doing that, then certainly, Lock On wouldn't be any worse than any other PC sim on the market, but it's not going to be any better either. But hey, I guess mediocrity does it for some people. That's what I've been saying. A couple pages back. As my explanation for why blinking/strobing is unrealistic, because SPJs aren't manually strobed. Great, so now Lock On is grouped into an even more general category of "a source of entertainment." Can't wait till we start comparing it to Peter Griffin, Jack Sparrow or Shrek. Does Jessica Alba in a Fantastic Four suit count as a "source of entertainment"? I'd get behind that - or under it, above it...anywhere within visual range really.

+1 :thumbup: So, just because neither one simulates the real world means that Lock On shouldn't attempt to be more realistic? I'm sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense to me. Lock On is a simulation, Ace Combat an entertaining shoot'em up. Black Hawk Down belongs to a different movie genre than Legally Blonde. Physics 101 is a different course than Philosophy 200. None of the things mentioned share anything in common besides belonging to the same, general subject (video games, hollywood movies, university courses). But hey, if the Lock On community doesn't see it that way, than I guess that's our problem isn't it? Personally, I can't believe that some of the more prominent members of this community would actually compare Ace Combat so favorably to Lock On, but guess you learn something new every day huh?

Sorry, but Ace Combat being the same as Lock On isn't a fact.

No it's not... It a game marketed for the home PC. Much like Ace Combat. So Check again Bro. And now that I know that you really don't care much for the "realism" or "simulation" aspect of Lock On, I really see no further point in discussing this more. You obviously have a different (and unyielding) view of what LOMAC is, and I'm pretty sure I'm not gonna budge on the issue either.

Yes, it's all a U.S. conspiracy to fool the world. Not like the Russians or the Chinese ever exaggerated the performance of their missiles. No, those Russians and Chinese are honest people when they're trying to sell you that R-77 with a 100 km range.

The Patriot uses a completely different radar system (search and tracking) then the SA-2 - for one, it uses a PESA radar that provides track-via-missile guidance. Wouldn't it be more likely that it was a 'fog-of-war' thing?