D-Scythe

I don't want to say anything I'm not supposed to, but it is getting looked into (well beforehand, actually). One of the issues, not both though. Take a guess - chances are you'd get it within the first two guesses ;)

You are either highly misinformed or highly biased (my bet is both). It is a well-known fact that the F/A-18 is the *best* low-speed dogfighter out of all the "teen" series of U.S. fighters - i.e. the F-16, the F-15, AND the F-14.

The F-14 no longer fits into the type of smaller, smarter military the U.S. wants. It's a cold-war relic designed to protect U.S. Navy assets from fleets of Russian anti-shipping missiles and aircraft, and in its intended role it's an outstanding platform. But the threat of Tu-22M bombers and massive over-saturation attacks by Russian anti-shipping missiles have largely disappeared, and with it, the F-14's usefulness. The Americans aren't stupid, they just don't need the Tomcat anymore.

There's three tutorials in the training section.

There are training tutorials on missile evasion. Watch them. In LOMAC, either radar missiles are severely undermodelled or IR missiles are severely over-modelled.

Awesome for you UKR Alex. I'm assuming that you have no problems running LOMAC with everything cranked up? :)

Um, friction increases exponentially with increasing speed. It's not a linear relationship ;) And in terms of air density, the air at 60 000ft is MUCH closer in density to the air at 80 000ft. Again, the density of air does not scale linearly with altitude. The air at 5 000ft is WELL over 12 times as dense as the air at 60 000ft. Basic rule of thumb: linear relationships aren't really that common in real life - and they're rather poor approximations ;)

Who said the F-22's airframe heated up to 100 C? Furthermore, flying Mach 1.7 at 50-60 000 ft produce much less friction than say flying Mach 1 at 10 000ft. Thirdly, those satellites you're talking about ARE military ;)

Hmm, I think there was an issue with the Hellfire missile that caused it to near-miss basically every time. It might be patched in V1.12a - if not, it's definitely fixed in LOBS. Does the same thing happen at 100% missile effectiveness?

It is, but IR sensors STILL, and ALWAYS, will have a longer-detection range when locking onto an afterburning plane than if they just try to pick out a plane through body heat alone. Sure, IR sensors will track anything, provided that they are in range to see it. It's going to be hard to pick out a jet from any meaningful BVR range by relying on airframe heat alone. That's the point I'm trying to make - supersonic airframes do NOT attract IR sensors on their own to the extent that you can pick one up at 40-50 nm (which would be a useful BVR range). Conversely, there is much less airframe heating at high altitudes because air that high is *much* less dense, greatly reducing friction. Forcefeedback's Heat ~ Velocity^2 rule of thumb is just something to illustrate the relationship - it's by no means definitive or exact. Keep in mind, this is all BEFORE we factor in the IR stealth of the Raptor.

Um, doing the math for your little speed thing (SR-71 at Mach 3 deals with 300 C of heat and that heat increases by a factor of ^2), that would mean a plane travelling at Mach 1.7 would only have to deal with about 96 C* ;) Either way you look at it, even without active cooling measures, a plane going at Mach 1.7 doesn't generate enough body heat to make it a glow in the dark like some you are saying. Maybe its because all other fighters need AB to reach Mach 1.7 and THAT's what is throwing you off. Afterburners make you stick out like a sore thumb - body heat, not so much (yet) - but previously the speeds attained by a supercruising F-22 was only attainable by AB.

Definitely looking forward to it - considering a rig similar to yours myself :)

Awesome rig - the only way that I can see Lock On beating your system is if you set water to "Very High." Otherwise, very nice PC.

Um, what? The claim I made was that there is NO indication that PIRATE can detect the F-22 at any meaningful range, which doesn't mean that it CANNOT. It just means that there is NO indication of this. On the other hand, there ARE people saying PIRATE can pick out the F-22. If there is no evidence either way, how can ANYTHING be proven true or not true? As far as I'm concerned, you're nitpicking (badly I might add) and my statement is legit. BTW, I still would like someone to provide some solid evidence that IR and EO sensors are any good at reliably detecting *anything* without a HUMAN at the controls or without a crapload of false positives. Radar has doppler, IR and EO has...what? Black magic? Yes, I'm sure technology has advanced so much since the PIRATE program was initiated so that they can pack all the optical/infra-red goodies from a multi-ton satellite designed with the sole purpose of spying on things and thenpack it into the tiny IRST sensor that is now on the Eurofighter. It doesn't matter if optics advanced a thousand years - optics RELY on light to see anything. Disadvantages = night, sun, bad weather, haze, etc. One, Mach 2 is not hypersonic. Two, the F-22's airframe does have cooling features applied to it to lower its IR signature significantly. Yes, IR sensors can probably find an F-22 easier than radar can (if you don't mind sifting through a lot of false positives first), but since IR sensors have a lower detection range than radar anyway, the detection range is the same (100 nm * 0.1 [radar] is the same as 50nm * 0.2 [iR]) even if IR is twice as effective as radar.

Doesn't look like any of us had the wrong impression of the Pirate system. It's a powerful IRST system for sure, but there is no indication that it will detect an F-22 at any meaningful distance at all (which is TucksonSonny's claim). ...and? If that's all it can do, then there's nothing for an F-22 to worry about. The advanced optics can be mitigated easily in multiple ways, and post-processing IR imaging technology is nothing new. Track-while-scan of multiple targets is useless if it can't pick out even one ;) Sounds like something handy to have, for sure, but it's not the magical anti-Raptor tool that TucksonSonny is making it out to be.

The A-10 pilot may have better situational awareness in such a situation, but the advantage is *minimal* at best. If you're strafing a target, you're eyes are NOT scanning for other targets/threats - your eyes are gonna be on you gun piper and the target. Your priority shouldn't be *reacting* to threats - it should be hitting the target without any friendly casualties and then getting out of there ASAP. Also, the old adage "speed is life" is crucial here. Iglas and Stingers are easily more manueverable than a Hog at corner speed, thus the A-10's low speed agility is meaningless since the enemy missiles can beat your best turn. The options are to beat the missile kinematically, or decoy it - and the A-10 in most situations isn't going to beat ANYTHING kinematically. A strafing A-10 may put more rounds on target than an F-16, but the Viper is much harder to shoot down.

Probably true? Absolutely not. An A-10 would be FINE operating over a MANPADS-defended area, so long as it sticks to the basics and the tactical plan. That would mean: no lonewolfing, having flights of A-10s operating with other flights/strikers, minimizing time spent in the enemy's MEZ (i.e. below angels 10), popping flares when necessary, etc. Again, this argument that an A-10 is dead meat against IR SAMs is stupid. Sure, if they're operating alone, the MANPADS dudes will shoot a good chunk of the Hogs down. But the point is to NEVER operate alone. You will never have *just* A-10s hopping the fence by themselves - it's a tactically unrealistic scenario. It will NEVER happen. You guys might as well start saying that bombers are obsolete cause they're vulnerable to fighters on their own. Good SA? Even the best pilots aren't gonna see the guy hiding behind a bush with an Igla, in an A-10 or a Viper. It's *impossible* to have that kind of SA. If the A-10 flies low too much, it's dead meat, whether they're in contact with ground troops or not. Being in a fast mover is infinitely safer than being in an A-10 in such a situation. It is if you have FACs finding and designating the target for you. All you have to do is get within range and release the bomb, which seems pretty proficient to me. Correction: the A-10 is probably more adapted to deal with these novel targets, not threats. An insurgent technical is hardly a threat to any jet.

As long as I see a flash and a smokey streak spiralling towards the earth, that's a kill. I'm too busy to be looking at how my target exploded - so long as I can eyeball the bare minimum needed to confirm the kill, I'm off looking for somebody else. That's what a pilot *should* be looking out for in air combat ;) I...never asked for any of that "stuff" you deem detrimental. In fact, I specifically mentioned missile end-game behaviour above all else. And yet, these modern jet sims are still around. They have AMAZING longetivity, and it's not because of pretty explosions ;)

Don't forget the dual IR/RF seeker in the SM-2 Block IVs. Looks like that project is largely dead and they're moving on to the SM-6, which is equipped with an AMRAAM seeker. Interesting - definitely makes sense from a military viewpoint.

Yes, consider that a "second" notch. The first notch, the "beam" notch, is a result of your radar filtering out clutter from radar returns bouncing off the ground front of you - i.e. clutter in your mainlobe. The second notch, the one you're talking about, is the result of your radar filtering out radar returns bouncing off the terrain directly beneath you - i.e. returns from your radar sidelobes. Swingkid can explain this infinitely better.

Well, with the Flanker, since it's primary strength is the long-range of the R-27ER and the huge number of missiles it carries, I usually go for the low PK, long-range R-27ER shots myself (without any expectation for a kill - more like to set up the engagement in a manner which favours me). Buys me a few seconds, and if nothing else, delays a return AIM-120 shot for a second. I've never had much success with the double, long-range missile shot, with ANY missile. Usually, they both just miss - the first one because of decoys, and the second one is kinematically challenged because the target begins evasive manuevers sooner due to the first missile. But on the whole, I've found that there are a series of BVR maneuvers that are more efficient than the F-pole/A-pole, simply because Lock On isn't really programmed in a manner that gives the player any sort of advantage against the AI. You can put me in a single F-15C against 4 excellent Su-27s, and I'd win 75% of the time, but my tactics wouldn't be anything approaching 'realistic.'

You shouldn't give up nagging about A2A. Lock On might end with LOBS, but there is always hope that someone might surprise us in a follow-up LOBS patch ;)

Sure, but then you waste a missile. The AI reacts instantaneously, and there is no disorientation whatsoever subsequent to missile evasion, so they'll robotically turn back into you with their perfect situational awareness and shoot you with one of their own. Because of this, I found that the "shoot-first" principle only works in WVR against the AI. In BVR, the missile fly-out times are long enough to ensure that they'll have ample time to return fire if necessary. I actually have more success myself if I bait a long-range, low PK BVR shoot from the AI as I close into my own NEZ, as the AI won't shoot another missile so long as his first even has a remote chance of hitting you.

Much of the F-pole is useless in Lock On. Getting above the target equates to being notched - furthermore, flying higher and faster doesn't yield enough of a kinematic improvement in your own missiles anyway. In MP, much of the play is very dynamic and random, but in SP, you're better off staying below or level with your target. No notch to deal with.

You do know that that's how tactics work right? To use multiple weapon platforms to mitigate the limitations of each? No technology? What about the 5 B-2 shootdowns that Serbia was 'claiming'? Was that all make-belief or what? Lemme get this straight - Serbia didn't have the equipment/technology to defend itself against NATO but the KLA, basically a under-equipped militia, was somehow inexplicable supplied with radios (and the training) that enabled them to link them to NATO pilots which in turn allowed the execution of co-ordinated ground and air attacks on Serbian troops? Right... I'd hardly call them "facts," mainly because they're not, but further discussion of this is meaningless.