D-Scythe

According to Jane's:

To chase down fleeing/rear-aspect targets that are out of the R-73's kinematic capability to intercept? AFAIK, ECM/jamming targets are not the raison d'etre for the R-27T/ET.

Um, an attack against an unsuspecting target? The *perfect* engagement is the one where the target doesn't get any warning until the AMRAAM lights him up in the end-game. I'm not saying 20 nm maddags are realistic, or not. All I'm saying is that not being able to lock up anything with the APG-63 is a much bigger problem. What is there to do? ED currently has their hands tied - I'll bug them later, be sure. The F-15C's. It's a late 90s weapons platform fighting against early 80s tech, for crying out loud. Make no mistake, the Russian stuff will still have an affect on the Eagle's game, but the F-15C should still be able to fight BVR like it's supposed to. Being relegated to 6 nm for a radar lock is ridiculous. Currently, BVR in LOMAC is a joke in terms of realism - I'll rank it just above Jane's USAF and Strike Fighters. Just accepting this "as is" is a mistake - we need to at least recognize the faults so that ED can improve on them.

So is having the APG-63 unable to lock up a blinking ECM target WITHIN 10 nm part of this compromise? 10 nm is WITHIN burn-through, btw. Just wondering, since I really don't see any compromise here. Compromise requires give and take - all I see is the F-15 giving. And giving....and giving. Apparently, not with ECM blinking. Prophet stated REPEATEDLY that he can't even lock up a target with radar boresight. In perfect conditions, why not? At high altitudes, where jets generating contrails can be seen from ranges greater than 10 nm, I'd try to mad dog my AMRAAM. I never said it wasn't possible - merely that there are ways to counter this. Where's *your* source concerning whether the APG-63 is vulnerable to ECM blinking? Apparently not. And even if it did, it's unrealistic. The F-15 is a BVR fighter first and foremost. Why should it be forced to WVR? Just because LOMAC said so? Again, the best, most REALISTIC way to fight in the F-15 is to AVOID a closer fight.

I'll assume you're talking about LOMAC and not real life.

True - but you need to consider ECCM (or lack thereof). The purpose of ECCM is to make BVR easier in a jamming environment. You can use it to counter ECM blinking, get a range approximation, etc. It *exists* IRL, and of all the aircraft in LOMAC, it should be the most powerful in the F-15C (by far). However, it's NOT modelled in LOMAC. This makes the F-15C the *most* vulnerable of all aircraft, in BVR no less - a domain which it should dominate the baseline Su-27 and the MiG-29S. Realistic? I think not. The "realism" ball can be blasted back and forth here - the unfair usage of ECM IS unfair and MORE unrealistic because LOMAC already doesn't take an entire dimension of ECCM into account. By employing jamming in a way to completely destroy the APG-63's ability to even lock on a target is a WAY bigger issue in realism than maddogging at 20 nm (which technically IS possible).

Actually, a beam followed by a max G pull-up a couple seconds before the (anticipated) impact works almost every time. For some reason, the missile always passes safely below your aircraft. So basically, beam, dive, and a few seconds from impact pull up (and *keep* pulling up) until the missile passes below you. Try to time it so that you're roughly at the same altitude as the missile when you start your pull up, and then just keep pulling back on that joystick.

Um, no, the F-22 can do a bunch of other things pretty well - that's why it's replacing the F-117. For one, it's advanced TEWS suite gives it great potential to be a lethal SEAD/DEAD platform, if given a decent weapon that can fit into its weapons bay. It's performance is already there to make it great against SAMs because its stealth and supercruise miniaturizes the threat ring of any SAM it can possibly encounter. Anyway, that potential has been realized for a while now - with the SDB. I'd say basically that any mission whose target(s) an SDB/JDAM can destroy, the F-22 would do well (except CAS). The F-22 is gonna be the plane that kicks the enemy air defense door *wide* open for the USAF. That includes enemy fighters, early warning radars, AWACs and SAMs. Air-to-ground is a major part of the Raptor's game. It's designed for air dominance.

What makes you think the Archer is not modelled with TVC right now? AFAIK, it's just not animated, but the R-73 rates (as in turn-rate/g's) the best out of all missiles in the game. Furthermore, you can't dive and beam it to make yourself instantly invisible, much like you can for all radar missiles.

The F-22's top speed of Mach 1.8 is due to the fact that the structural materials that make it stealthy will melt if it goes any faster. Otherwise, it destroys every other plane hands down in speed and acceleration.

Yeah, where are the destroyers? Burkes and Sovremenny's are awesome AAW ships that surprisingly were not included with their cruiser counterparts. Any old-school anti-aircraft artillery gun would be nice, IMO. Would love to fly through some flak.

KS-12/18 85mm AAA F-15E Sovremenny-Class Destroyer

The AMRAAM went through a couple motors since starting out with the WPU-6 in the AIM-120A. It was upgraded to the WPU-16 (+5 in) version in the AIM-120C (need to confirm). I have no idea what the rocket motor in the AIM-120D is going to be.

No, the R-77 also has 8 "fins", with the 4 in the back doing the steering, just like the AIM-120.

The R-77 doesn't loft - it might compete with the AIM-120A in range, but not the AIM-120B/C. In any case, there is no way the R-77 can compete with the AIM-120C, because it represents AIM-120A technology which is in some cases is several generations behind (like software).

"Personally" as in I fly the F-15 99% of the time, and that it's my "personal" opinion. I can't speak for the other fighters, because I neither have any credible experience or knowledge about them. Sorry, that came out wrong before. I'm no F-15 pilot, although I wish I could be. I don't get it: I never claimed to be a pilot or have any significant piloting skills...well, ever, as far as I remember. I thought I made it clear that by personally, I mean that "personally I feel that the F-15 is underpowered, especially at altitude." Which translates to: I have no solid numbers, but it is my personal opinion that the F-15 is underpowered based on what I've read.

True, but the fact is, it is still much easier to evade missiles down in the weeds. You're aircraft performs *much* better at low altitudes (I can personally say that the F-15 seems to be rather underpowered at it's normal "perching" altitude - >40 000ft), plus energy retention by a manuevering missile is *horrible* at low altitudes. One 90 degree turn, and you can basically shave at least 600 kmph in 2 seconds from the incoming missile.

Um, that shouldn't apply to the AIM-120B/C - it's far superior to both the AIM-120A and its Russian equivalent, the R-77. If we assume all things are equal, the R-77 is AIM-120A tech - in fact, I don't even think it's capable of lofting IRL. I don't know why people believe in the myth of the R-77 outranging the AMRAAM - including ED. It's questionable whether the R-77 out-ranges even the AIM-120A.

Setting the task of an F-16 (or any other type of fighter) flight to escort but giving them a couple HARMs to lob around gives them a pretty good A/G capability against most SAMs.

...as your radar missiles hit the ground as the target takes advantage of the 10 m anti-radar missile floor.

Some more: F-15E - dark greys, F-15C - light greys. AIM-120 - Fetch'em Fido AIM-9X - X-ray

Yup, mine too, along with the ground always beats aluminum.

Dropping backwards for sure...but it's physically impossible to fly backwards unless you have some type of forward thrusters.

If Sukhoi ever decides to send Flankers to within 400 km of Toronto, Canada for an airshow, I'll be there.