D-Scythe

HAHA! Priceless!

I know I'm nitpicking, but technically A/F/E-poles are distances (between target and shooter) rather than ranges :harhar:

So...the missile has a range of 85 nm when it's a-poled? Again, a-pole is a tactic maximize the distance between the target and the shooter as the missile is in flight - it doesn't increase the range of the missile. If you mean 85 nm is the range where the shooter can cut the strings to it's missiles, then you're dreaming - the R-77 would have to sustain a speed of 6200 kmph for 90 seconds for that to happen. Even the SA-10/Patriot can't do that, and they have MUCH more propellant and MUCH bigger and more powerful rockets than the R-77. So...what's the A-pole range of the AIM-120 in LOMAC?

There is no such thing as an a-pole "range" - a-pole is a tactic to maximize the distance between you and the target before you're missiles can go active. Secondly, you better have some sources to back up your "facts." Thirdly, this has NOTHING to do with the topic. Are you even reading what you are saying? And what OTHER people are saying?

Of course it does.

Wikipedia? Okay, so the R-77 is 2 cm thicker and 50 lbs heavier. The difference hardly is significant - the increased planar surfaces or the lattice wings (compared to planar wings) can account for the increased weight, and we don't know the interior arrangement of the R-77 vs. the AIM-120 to know just how that extra 2 cm in diameter is being used. Furthermore, any miniscule increase in propellant mass would also have to power a HEAVIER missile that also happens to be more "draggy" because of the lattice fins (which create more drag than planar fins during level flight). So you get an extra 5% propellant, but now you're powering an almost 400lb missile that also happens to be more DRAGGY. You were wrong about the AIM-7's propellant, and you're incorrect about this as well.

Ok, then in that case...thanks. Now you're nitpicking. My assumption of course would only be right if the propellant was of the same type, which it is. Both the AIM-120 and R-77 uses the same propellant, probably a form of HTPB. And last I checked, the AIM-7 also uses solid rocket propellant, not liquid fuel. From the manufacturer's site, about the AIM-7 Mk-58 motor. http://www.atk.com/internationalproducts/interprod_sparrow.asp

Internet articles, papers, (actual) simulations, etc. If you really want to know why the baseline R-77 cannot loft, PM Swingkid. Nothing I claimed was over-the-top. The R-77 is physically about the same size as the AMRAAM - thus, there is physically only so much rocket fuel you can pack into the airframe, so it is simply not physically possible to DOUBLE the range. Furthermore, the R-77 also is about the same tech level as the AIM-120A - their in-service entry dates/research/development/testing dates basically overlap (i.e. the mid/late-80s). So, in the absence of unclassified information, we assume that they're basically the same technology-wise - no reason to assume one is superior to the other. The AIM-120B and -C came much later, in the mid/late-90s. Do you expect a weapon developed in the -90s to be INFERIOR to the baseline version of the SAME weapon developed 10 years prior? And the baseline Su-27 IS what is modelled in LOMAC (about late 1970s technology, put in service in the 80s though), and the F-15C MSIP II with AIM-120C capability IS what is modelled in LOMAC as well (about 1990s technology). Do you honestly expect something from the 1970s can be SUPERIOR to something from the 90s, when BOTH are designed to do the same thing? The logic is simple. Can't see where you're getting lost.

The R-27RE is kinematically superior to the R-77. The actual R-77 (the baseline version, the one modelled in LOMAC) was like the AIM-120A in many respects (kinematically) - it didn't have loft. In fact, the AIM-120A still probably out-ranges it. The original claims that the R-77 out-ranged the AMRAAM are just BS as the Russians tried to sell stuff in the '90s...they also claimed that the MiG 1.4X would be stealthy, and look how that turned out. Everyone BS's when advertising, it's just that they sorta overdid it. Ooops. Convinced the public though - people think the R-77 should outrange even the AIM-120C, because of it's 100km range. Not to say that the R-77 is a terrible weapon, but in reality, it actually isn't a match *at all* for the AIM-120C. Kinematically and technologically, I guess it can be considered on par with the AIM-120A - still a weapon to be respected, but the AIM-120B and -120C are *much* better missiles. Just like if you wanted "balance," model the Su-27SM. Pitting the baseline Su-27 vs. an MSIP II F-15C (that's porked) is stupid - it's like pitting the F-15A vs. a porked Su-27SM. The only way to maintain balance *is* to undermodel the F-15C and AIM-120.

Single play is always the way to go, simply because it's simpler. Games like Falcon 4.0, Jane's Longbow 2, F-15 and F/A-18 didn't build such a strong community because of their multiplayer dimensions. Also consider that while not all multiplayer features can be applied to singleplay, all single player features can be applied to multiplay. I can't name one extremely successful game (excluding the arcade and fighting/streetfighter-type) off the top of my head that relied solely on multiplay.

Jane's F/A-18 and F-15 struck pretty close to my ideal balance of realism and gameplay. The only thing that fell short was the AI actually, but nothing I've ever installed on my computers have ever met my expectations for AI programming. Or you could take LOFC/LOBS, put the campaign engine from Jane's F/A-18 into it, up the AI, fix all things radar (APG-70, radar missiles, etc.), and add more terrain detail, and I could probably play that till I'm six feet under ;)

Instead of adding new missiles that are going to suffer from the same problems as the original ones, why not fix the original weapons first?

All of the new generation of fighters possess RWR/datalink equipment that can determine the location of an enemy radar (Rafale, F-22, EF, etc.). The days of leaving your radar carelessly on are basically over - if you do, you're giving the other guy all the data he needs to execute a perfectly silent AMRAAM/Meteor launch. Then the only thing you'd here before you die is your RWR going off when the active radar seeker kicks in.

It's not that I don't believe it, it's just that coming up with an improved rocket propellant is not that simple, since unlike the rest of the missile it has to be changed on the molecular level. You can't simply just "add" something to the rocket propellant like you can add features to a missile - it'll be more along the lines of coming up with a new antibiotic that can combat the flu virus (i.e. extremely difficult). AFAIK all missiles basically use the same rocket propellant, except some are smokeless. And I see no reason why IRIS-T would be the best SRAAM. The performance delta between all new-gen SRAAMs don't seem to be great enough for someone to claim that one missile is better than the rest IMO.

IIRC, Python 4 had a much greater range than the AIM-9M. Python 4 followed a "Type 2" engagement profile, which extends the useful range of the missile (to about 9 miles IIRC) but at the expense of increasing the flight time of the missile during the entire engagement. And the Python 4/5 intends to achieve the performance of a TVC missile but through lifting/guiding fins, rather than TVC (advantage = greater agility kept after motor burn out). My guess is that Python 5 would probably expand upon such an engagement profile, and achieve moderately greater range/energy through software (much like the AIM-120D).

Manoeuverability doesn't mean jack if you're missile decelerates like crazy (which the IRIS-T will). All the new-gen SRAAMs have about the same rocket power, but the IRIS-T is the only one that is loaded with control surfaces and TVC, which is agility overkill. Sure, REALLY close in, it's gonna rock, but considering that off-boresight SRAAMs are *already* kinematically challenged (they have to overcome the energy of the launching fighter by twisting around ridiculously, THEN they have to chase down their target), putting so many energy depleting features on the IRIS-T is overkill, IMO. Python 5, AIM-9X, R-7xx, and A-Darter are probably going to have a bigger (or more "useful") MEZ because of this.

Um, what? Read his post carefully again. He EXPLICITLY states that IF the Su-33 got the upgrades (like the Su-27KUB), THEN it would be able to use...whatever we're talking about. Never, never doubt Alfa on Russian naval equipment ;)

No thrust-vectoring initially (I don't even think it has it yet - it was planned). I was always under the impression that it traded close-in knifefight agility for range. For best SRAAM, I would pick Python 5. Then A-Darter (which is everything the ASRAAM should be but more) or AIM-9X. IRIS-T has too many fins sticking out, and coupled with TVC, it can't be that good for range/energy at all. ASRAAM is the exact opposite - it trades everything away (reduced to just 4 tiny fins) for energy. I know nothing of the R-74++(whatever), but judging from the R-73's performance kinematically it should easily be comparable to anything out there. The million dollar question is whether it's seeker can keep up.

You guys are questioning *Alfa's* knowledge of Russian naval weaponry?

Yes, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. The point is that fill-rate is NOT gonna be hundreds to thousands of times heavier, as you have suggested (unless you're running on some super-high tree density setting, but then if you are then you're probably running with a pretty good GPU in the first place).

You ever hear of mipmapping/LODs? ;)

The old ones were actually about 32*64. There might've been a few select ones at 64*128, but the vast majority were painfully low res. I thought the new ones were still being worked on, but that may be just me.

Lol, GG is not an admin, he wasn't trying to start an argument and he probably doesn't think you said anything nasty. He was just referring to the responses from the "admins" that you quoted - some are so dry or snippy because the issue has been dealt with a hundred times before. Anyway, I'm not trying to be nasty or snippy either. I just think you sorta misread what GG was trying to say. It's paranoia when nobody's out to get you ;)

Again, there are only 14 F-15Cs deployed to Cervia AFB at the start of Allied Force. How much more clear do I need to make this? THE RATIO OF F-15Cs to MiG-29s was 1 to 1! ONE to ONE. So stop saying that there were 10 F-15s to 1 MiG - that's was NEVER the case (well, except at the end of the war when all those MiGs were destroyed on the ground and the Eagle numbers stayed the same).

Wherever you got that source, it's wrong. All those F-15Es and F-16CJs operating in a bomber wing? Stationed half a world away in Whiteman, USA? Yeah, right. And where on earth did those 72 F-15Es come from? The 48th FW was the only F-15E unit that participated in combat operations over Serbia, and they have only 48 F-15Es PAA. One squadron (18 I think - may have been more) was sent to Aviano, and the other squadron flew a couple combat sorties straight out of Lakenheath. That only accounts for 48 F-15Es at most. I'd like to see your source please.