D-Scythe

What on earth is the 509th Bomber Wing doing in an F-15E OOB? Why on earth would F-15Es be assigned to a BOMBER wing? The 509th flies B-2A STEALTH BOMBERS. Active F-15E units are (off the top of my head): 3rd FW (one squadron), 4th FW (4 squadrons), 366th AEW (1 squadron), 48th FW (2 squadrons). FW = FIGHTER Wing. Again, please, please get your facts straight.

Actually, you'd be surprised. A lot of times, over Iraq and Serbia, a couple F-15Es will carry a mixed load of 6 AAMs and 2 GBU-12Bs (maybe even a JDAM or GBU-24 on the centreline) and be tasked with sorta a "multi"-CAP, to be available for air-to-air or air-to-ground taskings as required. Of course, if there are F-15Cs around, those are obviously going to get the A/A taskings first. But Mudhens have flown pure, defensive BARCAP missions as well - but no OCA MiG sweeps or anything.

Unless any of the names bolded above is a secret designation for F-15C, again, where on earth does anyone get the 10 F-15C to 1 MIG-29A ratio? I'll take F-15C, F-15 Charlie, light greys, hell, I'll even take "Eagle." But no where above do I see ANY of these possible names. F-15E comes close - really, it's just off by one letter - but sorry, don't think that's a typo. Facts people, facts.

Where do you keep getting the idea that there are 10 F-15Cs to 1 MiG-29A? I already PROVED this wrong. "There were roughly just as many F-15Cs participating in Allied Force as there were MiG-29As in the Serbian air force. The 493rd FS deployed 12-14 F-15Cs to Aviano, then redeployed to Cervia, in Italy, for Allied Force. Six Alaskan F-15Cs also deployed to Italy towards the end of military operations over Serbia." If you know anything about F-15C squadrons at all, you would know that the ONLY squadron to deploy to Cervia AFB in Italy for the ENTIRE war was the 493rd FS, the "Grim Reapers," part of the 48th FW, stationed at Lakenheath, England.

Yes, C-A-N-A-D-I-A-N. The country to the north of the U.S. that can actually run a fair election ;)

My perception is that some of your *facts* regarding the AIR-to-AIR engagements in Allied Force should *not* be called facts. At best, they are unconfirmed, unsubstantiated, facts - they have absolutely no proof whatsover. Until someone comes up with proof that "USAF pilots needed to spam AMRAAMs" that did NOT come from some nut-job playing make-belief on some internet forum, some of the statements from your party are completely questionable. If you really wanted to find out if USAF pilots needed to spam AMRAAMs, I suggest you contact a Capt. Mike Showers, of the 493rd FS (as of 1999). He was F-15C pilot who had to shoot 3 AMRAAMs to bring down a Serb Fulcrum - and that is the highest RECORDED number of AMRAAMs needed to bring down a target in Allied Force. About the only thing that is right is that NATO had a much larger air force in Allied Force than the Serbs did. And the AH-64 and the A-10 factor into the AIR-to-AIR equation just how, exactly?

What facts? All I see is BS. And no, I'm not talking about Black Shark.

HAHA, you're kidding right? There were only at MOST 48 AMRAAM-capable aircraft in the first Gulf war. Those would be the F-15Cs belonging to the 33rd FW. AIM-120Cs? You really really enjoy your fantasies don't you? The reality is that ONE Dutch AIM-120B (the AIM-120C was never bought by the Dutch) was shot at 11 miles which destroyed the MiG. Yes, I didn't miss that part. Unfortunately for you, the REALITY is that only about 400 NATO aircraft CAPABLE of firing AMRAAMs participated in Allied Force. There were roughly just as many F-15Cs participating in Allied Force as there were MiG-29As in the Serbian air force. The 493rd FS deployed 12-14 F-15Cs to Aviano, then redeployed to Cervia, in Italy, for Allied Force. Six Alaskan F-15Cs also deployed to Italy towards the end of military operations over Serbia. Of course, 1 to 1 in your land of make-belief somehow equals 10 to 1.

You're kidding, right? It's called ADRENALINE.

Even 1200 AMRAAM capable fighters is fiction. In reality, only the 14-24 F-15Cs, 24 F-15Es, and couple squadrons of F/A-18Cs and F-16MLU/Cs were AMRAAM-capable. I don't know off the top of my head since I didn't memorize NATO's Allied Force OOB, but I would guess the ACTUAL number is closer to 500 at MOST. And the majority of that force are STRIKERS - i.e. not MiG hunting. See what happens when you pass off your opinions as facts? They get shot down, fast. Next.

Actually, sci-fi books are usually based on more facts than this guy's opinions. Most of the stuff he says leaves me shaking my head in wonder. Like if you really really really want something to be true, than by golly it is.

Do you even know what you're talking about? You're information contradicts just about everything I've ever read. And again, you're only source is a "USAF pilot" on a public forum. Yeah, right. Come back when you can provide at least ONE viable source. Even a crappy internet site would do, so long as it isn't from some dude claiming to be a USAF pilot.

Well, first of all, ARHs were NEVER part of the Su-27's armament (except for the R-27EA, but that's basically a fictional weapon). if you really look at it: - F-15C has no IFF, even though it was born with it - the APG-63 is not really modelled in any detail, to say the least - R-77 lofts (even though IRL it doesn't), has the same PK (which it shouldn't, cause it's AIM-120A tech at best) and has a longer-range than the AIM-120C (which it doesn't, cause it doesn't loft) - equal or worse ECCM for the F-15 - BVRAAMs are easily evaded anyway, due to the lack of WAFM and WASM Considering 90% of the game the F-15 plays is BVR, it's pretty safe to say that things are skewed to the Su-27's favour as of now. In reality, the baseline Su-27, 1980s-tech (as in LOMAC) would come out the loser 9 times out of 10 in a confrontation with a late-1990s F-15C with AIM-120Cs. And people complain the Su-27 is undermodelled... Yup.

Yes, most public internet sources ARE full of crap. Again, you are mistaken. Yes, the baseline AIM-120C was first being delivered in '96, but usually military programs don't reach full service capacity until a couple years later. Thirty AIM-120Cs for 350 F-15s and 1000 F-16s can hardly be considered "in service." There is no Russian fighter in the 1990s that could fire the R-77 except for a handful of late-build MiG-29S fighters operating near Murmansk. Wow, they had ONE Su-27 capable of firing an R-77 in 1994. Congrats, IOC reached. My timelines are perfectly fine. Firstly, in theory, the F-15C can engage at least SIX targets simultaneously. Secondly, the F-15C should be a better BVR fighter HANDS DOWN when compared to the vanilla Su-27 (which is really F-15A technology). The match for the F-15C in BVR is the Su-27SM, but LOMAC doesn't model the SM because it just entered service. Nobody is "western-tech biased." It's simply a fact that the U.S. has more F-22A Raptors than Russia has Su-27SMs. Not because the U.S. is better or anything, but because the U.S. didn't suffer an economic collapse 20 years ago. Whether you like it or not, money TALKS, especially with regards to new equipment.

If having a handful of missiles to show at air show displays is your definition of "full scale service," than your missing something. If you think the baseline R-77 is "competition" for the AIM-120C, then you are definitely missing something. The first Su-27 variant capable of shooting the R-77 entered service last year (may have been this year). That's the Su-27SM. No, there weren't. "Invented," but never implemented. It IS a Flanker from 1994. And they did it in ONE shot 8 out of 10 times. Statistically, it is by far the most successful missile ever fired in combat. You should get your timeline straight. That's absolutely false. AIM-120C entered service in 1998-99. Su-27SM entered service in 2005-06.

Well, even if this was the case, he still has a right to complain if his point about BVRAAMs are valid. Sure, he may have expressed his opinions better, but does anyone here actually think LOMAC models BVR missiles realistically? It's easily one of the top 3 least most unrealistic aspects of Lock On, and I'm not saying that because I have an agenda against ED - it's a simple fact. So I guess, what I'm trying to say here, let's try to have a civil conversation?

So you rather have fun than realism? Cause IRL, once the no-escape zones overlap for opposing fighters, things start dying - fast. Maybe not 1 shot 1 kill - but definitely 1 shot 0.9+ kill. Lock On is supposed to be a simulation - if 1 shot 1 kill is the way it is, than it should be simulated.

It's a FACT that NATO pilots were more worried about MANPADS than from EO-guiding/tracking SA-2/3/6s. The only Serb missile NATO aircraft stayed out of range from were MANPADS, hence the 15 000ft floor. If NATO aircraft were actively avoiding SA-2/3/6s, than the 15 000 ft floor makes absolutely no sense. EO sensors can easily pick up aircraft flying at 15 000 ft (honestly, it's less than 3 miles against a clear sky - how much more ideal do you wanna get?), and every one of the aforementioned SAMs are kinematically capable of aircraft flying much higher. Thus, the Serbian non-MANPADS defenses were completely ineffective, so long as you don't do something stupid like fly the same ingress route every single day. NATO aircraft could fly wherever they wanted with impunity up until the end of the conflict (above 15 000ft of course), which is not indicative of any major threat posed by Serbian anti-air defenses.

.......right.

- the 15 000 ft limit was against MANPADS; every other Serbian SAM had a ceiling far in excess of 15 000 ft (and visually, you can pick up an aircraft flying silhouetted against a blue sky flying much higher than 15 000 ft, which is less than 3 miles) - No CAS operations were flown because there was NOTHING to give ground support to Two words: night operations. And optically guided SAMs are really not that lethal. When a radar system like the Tor and Kub are relegated to optical tracking, you might as well be shooting large unguided rockets. Just once though, cause after the first launch, you're getting an LGB shoved deep into your TELAR.

:notworthy::notworthy:

First of all, the F-15E is not just a 2 seat variant of the F-15. See the italics and bolding? It is soooooooo much more :smartass: And secondly, Canadian here too :thumbup:

Um, I was fairly certain that I was talking about not having an F-15E in LOMAC...

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/10/05/Navigation/177/209633/%e2%80%98Not+your+father%e2%80%99s+Oldsmobile%e2%80%99+Boeing+F-15E%2b+Super+Eagle.html And we still don't have an F-15E yet.

Well, only the current, conventional method of stealth retains low observable characteristics to all forms of long-range airborne sensors (radar, IR, etc. - even it's paint is designed to break up its shape to optical sensors). Plasma stealth, even if it does potentially work, severely compromises the ability of an aircraft to hide from IR/EO sensors. Nonetheless, the theory behind the concept is very fascinating, and I hope someone can put it into practice effectively within the next couple decades. BTW, glowing isn't that bad in some cases - one of the reasons why it's so easy to see an aircraft high above is because it doesn't glow ;)