Shouldn't the SU33 be able to carry 4x R27ET's?

[Gazehound]

No Gaze, it only states that for 27SK, Not 33!

O yeah it dosent say for the 33....

but it does for the other 12 pylon flankers and they have 2 max it would seem.

The adder thing makes it look dubious but these guys MAKE the plane. I would say it was THE definitive source of information - not to be thrown away :p

[GGTharos]

Your comparison is wrong and has nothing to do with the topic. What we're talking here about is something that actually makes sence. This is not about us trying to change payload just for fun, we just want all the possibilities explored.

 

And once again, we are yet to be proven wrong by anyone here. Untill then, we stick to our oppinions.

 

Yeah, well ... my comparison is precicely as relevant as yours in the light of the LOMAC ET having a datalink when the real one didn't ... all because it 'made sense'.

[504 Wolverine]

Should the Su-33 be able to carry 4 R-27ET = No

 

if this is the case, we may be enabling this option on our 504th server.

 

What's Zorlac's take on this? It's his decision after all.

[ECV 56 Gorrion]

- they cannot be carried between engines because their IR homing head needs to be able to see and lock on to target before launch.

Cheers,

- JJ.

 

 

Consult about the R 27 T/TE

 

Does this missile need to acquire the target BEFORE being shot or does it capture it in autonomous form after a flight controlled by the automatic pilot?.

I had understood that it captures their target pulling up their sensor IR after an inertial flight of the same one. (Or perhaps with correction of aided to half of the flight).

[GGTharos]

No, there is no correction during the flight. Straight from the MiG manual.

[Guest Cali]

Anybody want to talk about the real abilities of the Su-33 to take off from a carrier with full fuel/missle loads?

 

 

I guess not...they are trying to hide from your question GOYA

[Dudikoff]

As I recall, R-27T/ET needs additional coolant lines built into its launcher for its seeker and only one launcher per wing has them installed. That's why it carries only two of them.

[Maverick-90]

Aim-54 needs special radar on its frequency to operate it I think, Also it is so heavy that the F-15 doenst have the pylon holders to even hold the damn thing.

well the F-15 can Also Carry MK-84s underwing and on Center, F-15E can even carry the Ultra-Bunker-Butsre GBU-28.....so a phoenix shouldn't be a weight problem :cool:

[RvETito]

I don't know man... I've never seen R-27T/ET mounted anywhere except on the 2 inner wing pylons. What about the MiG-29S? Can you put 4 R-27T/ET on the number 2,3,5,6 pylons?

[Force_Feedback]

The Su-33 is well capable of taking off with a full A-A load and full fuel from the 1st and 2nd strating point, but in real life they use the 3rd position (the su-25UTG position; 180m of run-up) to be on the safe side. In normal operations they don't fuel the emergency fuel tank though, giving the su-27k the maximum fuel load of 9400kg.

 

So, when are we getting UPAZ modules for the su-24m and su-33 in lomac? ;)

[tomcat1974]

As I recall, R-27T/ET needs additional coolant lines built into its launcher for its seeker and only one launcher per wing has them installed. That's why it carries only two of them.

 

Bingo. That's the only reason.That and the lack of the wiring for it. Same reason that no real life Mig29 A (iz9.12) never carrier R-27T (clearlly seen in the manual of combat...only missiles present there are R-27R1 and R-60MK).

[Pilotasso]

Personaly I would like to know beforehand about a decision on the 4 ET's carrial or not, please.

 

Personaly I think it may be fun for a whole squad sniping people out of the sky in team effort, but the innadequacy of any other plane to match that lethal level, and bring the F-15 to its rightfull effecteviness will make the general public be wary of joining a game in such conditions.

 

You may also shoot yourselves on the foot when considering if such a decision is made, this will be the only server having user arbitrated loadouts.

 

I had a blast on 504 server even when I loose, and this sugestion doesnt correspond with the image I constructed all this time when meeting fine lads such as the 504 menbers online.

 

Cheers!

[RvETito]

Same reason that no real life Mig29 A (iz9.12) never carrier R-27T (clearlly seen in the manual of combat...only missiles present there are R-27R1 and R-60MK).

 

This is a manual of the 9-12B export version. The russian version features the initial version of the R-27R along with the R-73. The 9-13S variant features also the R-77(4 pcs) and R-27ER/ET/T(4 pcs).

[Force_Feedback]

This is a manual of the 9-12B export version. The russian version features the initial version of the R-27R along with the R-73. The 9-13S variant features also the R-77(4 pcs) and R-27ER/ET/T(4 pcs).

 

Negative, the 9-13S can carry 6 RVV-AE missiles in real life, not 4 like in lomac. Alfa, please, please don't forget to mention it this time. I hate to change the meint everytime a patch comes out. Please mention this before 1.2 will get released.

[Kenan]

Regarding the SU33, I've sent email to knaapo asking them about this. Let's just hope we get something more then a server-rejected message or an automated response.

[Dudikoff]

The 9-13S variant features also the R-77(4 pcs) and R-27ER/ET/T(4 pcs).

 

Also, it cannot carry 4 R-27 missiles. It has only two suitable launchers.

[S77th-GOYA]

The Su-33 is well capable of taking off with a full A-A load and full fuel from the 1st and 2nd strating point, but in real life they use the 3rd position (the su-25UTG position; 180m of run-up) to be on the safe side.

 

On what do you base that assertion?

[tomcat1974]

This is a manual of the 9-12B export version. The russian version features the initial version of the R-27R along with the R-73. The 9-13S variant features also the R-77(4 pcs) and R-27ER/ET/T(4 pcs).

 

Doesn't matter regarding the R-73 if is russian or not. R-73 entered in service in 1987. If the book came after 1987 then it might be the 9.13S.

[Force_Feedback]

On what do you base that assertion?

 

I base it on an article in "Aviatsiya i vremya" (Aviation and time) nr. 3 of 2004, which featured a special on the su-33 and su-33KUB. The information was in the su-27k section of the article, so they weren't talking about the KUB.

 

The article states that during the flight testing, "with a full fuel load and 4 missiles (mass is almost 30000kg), the fighter took off effortless from the 1st starting position (lomac's default starting position) with a speed of the cruiser of 7 knots."

Further on this is said: "With a speed of 15 knots, take-off of the plane with a full fuel load and full missile complement (mass: 32200kg) is allowed from the 3rd starting position (run-up distance: 195m; sorry on that, thought it was 180m)" "The flight testing was done with waves of 4-5 units"

 

Doing the math gives this: empty mass (19600kg)+ Full missile complement (3200kg; 4xR-73+8xR-27E)= 22800kg The take-off mass for the 3rd position is 32200kg, substract the 22800kg from that and you get 9400kg of fuel. Hereby confirming that the emergency tankt is not filled during peacetime, so Alfa is right again :p

 

Regarding the SU33, I've sent email to knaapo asking them about this. Let's just hope we get something more then a server-rejected message or an automated response.

 

Hope you sent the mail in Russian, and if you sent it in English, then I hope you've used an Arabic address, othewise you won't fit the profile of a "potential customer".

[504 Wolverine]

Pilotasso: I really doubt that this will be changed on the server. First it would have to be agreed by the community that it is realistic, then agreed by the Squadron that it is in the communities best interest that the change is made and even after this it is down to Zorlac (our server owner) to decide wether or not he should make the change.

 

One example would be the 6xR-77's for the MiG-29S has been agreed by the community and even by the 504th as a squad (its even in my squad skin pack mod) but we have yet to impliment it to the server.

 

As Kenan has said, it is his and Breakshots view that the Su-33 should carry 4xR-27T/ET's. It is mine and Gazehounds view that it should not. So far all the evidence points to 2 T/ET's only. So until evidence from a credible source is shown that it can carry 4 then I am sure that the server will continue to only allow 2.

 

Our Squadron takes pride that it is able to identify, name and then ban anyone that uses "illegal" loadouts and I'm sure that we will continue to do this.

http://www.syn-ack.com/vvs504/stats/vvs504-hall-of-shame.shtml

[Pilotasso]

Roger that wolf. I would also like to add that I fly every plane, not just the F-15.

 

Another thing: The 6 R-77 Mig although realistic is not that realy efective. The best missile Mig config is 2x R-73, 2x R-77 and 2x R-27ET IMHO. I have flown mig several times and concluded that this is best for the mig to go ambush CAP with Fire and forget weapons and with the least warning to the target or missile dependency for guidance as possible. Currently ARH missiles have very poor perfomance against an allerted and trained pilot, specialy against the ground.

[Kenan]

Hope you sent the mail in Russian, and if you sent it in English, then I hope you've used an Arabic address, othewise you won't fit the profile of a "potential customer".

 

Well, I got the reply and it's kinda..well..u take a look at it guys and let me know what you think of it:

 

"Dear customer,

 

Our staff is currently online playing LOMAC, which means our servers are just too busy and can't handle your request, thus, it will be rejected.

 

Sorry for any inconveniance,

 

Knaapo PR sector"

[Force_Feedback]

Well, I got the reply and it's kinda..well..u take a look at it guys and let me know what you think of it:

 

"Dear customer,

 

Our staff is currently online playing LOMAC, which means our servers are just too busy and can't handle your request, thus, it will be rejected.

 

Sorry for any inconveniance,

 

Knaapo PR sector"

 

LOL, that was a joke from you, right? (you can't see sarcasm right away online, hence the question)

[Gazehound]

Roger that wolf. I would also like to add that I fly every plane, not just the F-15.

 

Another thing: The 6 R-77 Mig although realistic is not that realy efective. The best missile Mig config is 2x R-73, 2x R-77 and 2x R-27ET IMHO. I have flown mig several times and concluded that this is best for the mig to go ambush CAP with Fire and forget weapons and with the least warning to the target or missile dependency for guidance as possible. Currently ARH missiles have very poor perfomance against an allerted and trained pilot, specialy against the ground.

I prefer ERs instead of ETs for the long range/hi alt/hoj goodness, and to catch people off guard....but yeah you often miss those 73's and their off-boresight goodness when you dont bring them :). Was thinking of using maybe 1 73, 1 ET, 1ER, 3 77s, but i'd get shot to hell cycling through them :D

[tomcat1974]

The 6 R-77 Mig although realistic is not that realy efective. The best missile Mig config is 2x R-73, 2x R-77 and 2x R-27ET IMHO. I have flown mig several times and concluded that this is best for the mig to go ambush CAP with Fire and forget weapons and with the least warning to the target or missile dependency for guidance as possible. Currently ARH missiles have very poor perfomance against an allerted and trained pilot, specialy against the ground.

Realistique is not because the weapon system can't know more than 2 different weapons. So such things like 2xR60 +2xR73 +2xR27R are just for demo and maybe for using without using the weapons system