D-Scythe

You completely misunderstand the F-22 program. The entire point of the F-22 is to provide the USAF with an undeniable threat over-match such that nothing in the next 30 years would even come close. The whole idea is to avoid the (possible) situation where the enemy does have something comparable to the Raptor, because if they do, that means more casualties that the American public can cry about. It's simple really. The US public does not like casualties. Raptor prevents American casualties, either directly by protecting other US aircraft in the air or indirectly by securing air supremacy and keeping ground troops safe/ensure continual air support. Yeah? We thought that about Germany in the 1930s too. And during WWII we had the same political/military goals as Russia as well. Look what happened. Arguably, the F-15E is not defensive technology either. Neither is the B-2A, the F-117A, the B-1B, the M1A2 SEP, F-15C AESA, F/A-18E/F, USS Nimitz-class aircraft carriers, guided missile cruisers, Seawolf SSNs, etc. No idea what you are talking about and how it relates to the F-22 here.

I did do the math. The Hulk can bench over a 100 tons. Wolverine's physiology is largely human. Thus, if the Hulk hit Wolverine, the physical force alone generated by the Hulk's fist would be enough to kill Wolverine a 100 times over. Thus, Wolverine going toe-to-toe with Hulk = bad comic book writing and HUGE fanbase. But hey, Wolverine also survived a few nuclear bombs going off inches away from his head before, so go figure. The guy's the epitome of over-ratedness.

That's heresy. Pure heresy :disgust:

I'm sorry, I just can't let this go ;) Wolverine is by far the most over-rated character ever invented by mankind since the dawn of history. He is in serious need of 2 things: a wax job, and his own girlfriend. Batman would bestow upon him 16 degrees of absolute pwnage cause that's how much Wolverine sucks. And FF, I'm a, uh, "front" man myself. IMO, Jessica Biel's best two assets are in front ;)

Come on, we all know that Batman, aka Bruce Wayne, has slept with basically every female being in the DC comic universe. The guy defines "billionaire playboy." I mean, Wonder Woman! Have you seen the size of those...ahem, nevermind. Actually, Robin has got his share of action as well ;)

Same category as the F-22 doesn't mean equal to the F-22. The Raptor is gonna be getting all the best tech the U.S. aviation industry has to offer. The JSF is nothing more than a B+/A- fighter designed from the outset to complement the F-22. F-22 = Batman. F-35 = Robin. Sure, they're both stealthy, but Batman's the master.

Hey, I'm with ya buddy. I'm all for a full-spec F-15C MSIP II in Lock On. Unfortunately, it's probably never going to happen. IRL, an F-15C MSIP II equipped with AIM-120C AMRAAMs (roughly late 1990s tech) would cut swathes into enemy MiG-29S/Su-27S formations. I've said it before and I'll say it again - the equal to the MiG-29S/Su-27S is the F-15A or a pre-MSIP F-15C with AIM-7F/Ms, not the F-15C MSIP II. The F-15C/AIM-120C combination is one of the best (if not *the* best) air superiority combination until the Su-30MKI/K, Eurofighter and F-22 reach full operational capability. It's late 1990s tech, versus the early/mid 80s tech in the MiG-29S/27S. It's not even in the same league.

I'm sorry, but I hardly consider Jane's IAF (or Jane's USAF) as a simulation. The A-10 has a freakin radar, for god's sakes. Chalk up the victory if you want, but IMO, it's all mine ;) And yes, I also understand ED's priorities - I probably am more intimate with them than you are. All I'm saying is that the people wanting updates to the F-15C and A-10 in LOMAC actually do have some truths to their position. They haven't really benefitted at all since V1.02 - the Su/MiGs got the updated radar and avionics, the Su-25 has got AFM, the Su-25T has got ALL the bells and whistles, and now so will the Ka-50. Meanwhile, the two western jets have...the AIM-120C, which is simply a broken missile made to be less broken rather than a completely new missile with WAFM/WASM. And you really don't think the full-spec F-15/AIM-120 would chew the MiG-29A/S and Su-27S to pieces (mainly BVR)? Better radar, better active BVRAAM, multi-targetting TWS and equal if not better kinematic evasion? Lots of things going for the Eagle here. Meanwhile, the Flanker/MiG-29A would be a piece of meat cause it's limited to SARH missiles, and the MiG-29S has a much weaker radar plus no multi-target engagement ability. If you want an equal to the full spec, F-15C MSIP II w/ AIM-120C, go for the newer MiG-29M/SMT and Su-27SM aircraft. Both the 27K and 29A/S are much, much older and nobody should expect it to hold its own against a fighter with much newer (and better) avionics and missiles. Anyway you look at it, the F-15C would tear the Su-27S and MIG-29A/S a new one, just like a Su-27SM would beat the tar out of the F-15A. Want to keep things even? Don't model AMRAAM or MSIP for that matter.

Name one flight sim in the past decade that has featured either the A-10 or the F-15C. Oh yeah, that's right - none. Actually, if you want the truth, both these aircraft shouldn't even BE considered in the same league as an F/A-18 or F-16. No glass cockpits, no primary FBW, no multi-role. On the other hand, the MiG-29 and the Su-27 have featured very prominently in the past decade of simming - they certainly have recieved FAR more exposure than either the A-10 or the F-15. And, speaking generally of the 'western' LOMAC community, fixing either the A-10 or the F-15 is just a logical way to appeal to western customers. The Su-25T and the Ka-50 are great, and although I love the KA-50 add-on, it would've been awesome to get a working APG-70 radar to boot. However, keep in mind that fixing the F-15C completely cuts both ways for ED. The F-15C/AIM-120 combination would cut the MiG-29A/S and Su-27S to pieces if modelled to its full spec. But right now, it's more or less balanced, with the less than capable AMRAAM, the not-yet complete APG-70 radar, and the R-27ET which is arguably even more effective than AMRAAM in most cases.

Unless they're porting the F-15 into the "Tank Killers" or "MiG-29 vs. F-16" project, I don't think ED said anything with regards to fixing the Eagle though. From what I understand, both Tank Killers and 29VS16 are stand alone sims that do not feature the Eagle. The F-15 is getting the 120C in LOBS, but the fundamental problems with the Eagle is definitely not getting addressed anytime soon. Speaking for myself ONLY, I'm not expecting the "main" bugs with the F-15 getting fixed, like IFF, working BVRAAMs, track-while-scan, look-down, etc. Maybe ED might surprise us, but each one of these major bugs can actually be passed off as a "feature" (you add IFF, you add AFM, you add measurements/simulation of proper BVRAAMs, you add algos to make the APG keep the PDT within gimbal limits in TWS, etc.). And, as we all know, "features" are mainly the stuff of add-ons, not patches. And LOBS is likely the *last* add-on for LOMAC. In short, best case scenario, one problem gets fixed, as a "feature" in a patch. For the others, well, as I said, unless LOMAC's flyables are being ported into ED new projects, chances are we'd see some pretty detailed and kicka$$ A-10s, Ka-50s and F-16Cs in a few years, but the Eagle is gonna be as is. For the F-15, the sun isn't creeping up on the horizon. Hell, the sun just set in LOMAC V1.02 ;)

Graphics aren't everything man. I spent over $60 on OFP and Jane's LB2 recently, and I've spent much more time on them lately than I have with newer, better looking games like LOMAC and BF2. Sure, soon I'll be right back on LOMAC, but BF2...definitely not.

While it's simply a fact that ED can only focus on the Ka-50 (and I wouldn't have it any other way), I simply can't bring myself to disagree with you :beer:

So what, fighters with the R-27ET own the airspace 15 km in front of them? Don't think so. Honestly, just google AKU-470 and see for yourself how it has no coolant for the R-27ET.

Read Swingkid's post in this thread. The catapult launchers installed in the fuselage can shoot both IR and radar Alamos, yes, but it does not have coolant for the IR variant. Only the normal, rail launchers do. So technically, yes, the Su-27 *can* shoot ETs from its belly, but you might as well be dropping LGBs from an F-15C. It's useless. http://forum.lockon.ru/showpost.php?p=222263&postcount=60 So what if it's simply a simple upgrade? The fact is that it is NOT done. This may be because the R-27ET is basically an obsolete and outdated missile anyway, and if the Su-27 can carry newer weapons like Krypton ARMs and R-77 AAMs, what's the point? The fact is, the R-27ET in real life is just not as deadly as it is in LOMAC. The fact that the RuAF wouldn't even want to waste a few dimes and nickles to wire their aircraft to carry more of 'em just shows how stupid and pointless this discussion is.

Maybe they've been playing Lock On and think that a Su-27/MiG-29 with R-27ER/Ts actually stand a chance against F-15s with AIM-120s :joystick:

No, you're wrong. Every air-to-air missile NEEDS an autopilot to fly to its target. The autopilot has nothing to do with the missile's datalink. Anyway, I think GG, Swingkid and Alfa have made it painfully clear that the R-27ET has no LOAL ability. At least, not in any useful capacity.

Did it specify 32 km in what situation? I can easily see the R-27ET seeker holding a lock 50 km away on an afterburning MiG-25 cruising at Mach 3+ at 80 000 ft in a tail chase. Seeker range is often just as complicated and dependent on environmental factors as missile range is. The fact that nobody disputes a 32 km lock on range may be because in certain situations the R-27ET's seeker may have a range much greater than 32 km, and in others very much less. Nobody's going to dispute a 50 km range for the AIM-120 either.

Not to mention the FOV issue. So fine, would you want ED to allow you to carry R-27T/TEs on the fuselage pylons but you can't fire them at targets, at all? The F-15A/C can carry PGMs/AGMs/bombs too - and it will be just as useless as well. I'm almost certain that the general consensus for that particular passage in the Su-27SK manual was determined by several members of this forum to be, at best, ambiguous when translated.

How much thrust do the Dash 220E's produce again?

We *need* an F-15E ;)

The MK-20 is an anti-armour cluster bomb, that can destroy tanks, AFAIK. And ERA doesn't protect you from everything - a 500lb MK-82/GBU-12 isn't even going to notice it when it turns the tank into a burning pile of metal. The newer, dual charge AGM-114K/L Hellfires (and other ATGMs) also likely would have no problem.

A clean kinetic projectile? You mean an APFDS-type round? Most ERA do not affect APFSDS rounds at all, except for the Russian Kontakt-5 ERA block. However, even K-5 does not necessarily deflect/cause incoming kinetic rounds to ricochet - it defends against APFDS rounds by acting like a guillotine, as when the ERA block "explodes" the inner and outer plates sorta cuts (physically, not explosively) into the incoming APFDS round, breaking it into smaller pieces or otherwise exerting physical stress on the penetrator to cause it to lose effectiveness. However, apart from K-5 (and maybe some Israeli ERA, not sure), other ERA blocks are next to useless against incoming kinetic penetrators. No idea. If you're shooting a tank with K-5 armour, chances are the 30 mm DU rounds would not penetrate, unless you hit an exposed area of the vehicle. IMO, the kinetic penetrator most able to defeat a T-80/90 with K-5 armour would be the M829E3 DU round fired from an M1A2, but that's just me. I try to keep up with armour stuff, but I cannot even consider myself an enthusiast ...just a noob.

Um...no. One, ERA does not change the flight trajectory of any incoming round, and two, current APSFDS and HEAT weapons do NOT ricochet. At all. ERA doesn't really destroy an incoming weapon either...primarily, explosive anti-tank weapons form a molten plasma dart (of sorts) to penetrate armour. When an ATGM explodes against a tank, it's actually forming this dart, and is not really a conventional explosion, but a 'shaped' explosion. The purpose of ERA is to explode outward into the space where this 'dart' is formed, stopping the dart from materializing completely and thereby reducing its effectiveness.

Yup. Buying one less F-22 would not save $361 million and buying one more F-22 would not cost $361 million.

I don't see why I'd have to subject myself to your biased *opinions* again. It's obvious that you think you're speaking facts here, when, you really aren't. BTW, I never said you were stupid, just really, really, really, really...really...biased.