Capn kamikaze Posted November 21, 2015 Posted November 21, 2015 Since your ability to understand compound sentence structure is clearly lacking, let me break this down for you into simple, declarative sentences: 1) There are multiple sources of information on R-27 performance 2) Some of these sources claim effective range values as low as 60 km 3) Other sources claim effective ranges as high as 120km 4) I notice that you often use Wikipedia for your citations. 5) Wikipedia states the following information: <Block quote from Wiki follows> Now, tell me again where I contradicted myself? Look if you're going to continue to communicate in such a condescending manor then you can just sod off, you said it, I've already quoted you to yourself, the fact you have not understood what I am referring to is your problem, not mine.
ShuRugal Posted November 21, 2015 Posted November 21, 2015 (edited) Look if you're going to continue to communicate in such a condescending manor then you can just sod off' date=' you said it, I've already quoted you to yourself, the fact you have not understood what I am referring to is your problem, not mine.[/quote'] No, you didn't quote me. You took part of my words and re-arranged them to suit your purposes. If you don't like being condescended to, then you should not put words in my mouth and then tell me that I'm being wishy-washy. Manufacturer's specifications for the R-27R and -ER: http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/503/527/ I've cited that page to him in the past, he doesn't care for it because the source is "biased". Edited November 21, 2015 by ShuRugal
Capn kamikaze Posted November 21, 2015 Posted November 21, 2015 You said it, maybe you didn't mean to but you did. You don't want to accept accounts of actual real world performance, so don't call me biased!
ShuRugal Posted November 21, 2015 Posted November 21, 2015 You said it' date=' maybe you didn't mean to but you did.[/quote'] would you care to break it down from my quote? Perhaps English in America has diverged sufficiently from English in the UK for my words to have radically different meanings in the two places. If this has occurred, it is entirely possible that I inadvertently represented myself as making a definite claim of two contradictory things, when my intention was to state the existence of a range of possibilities, the veracity of each dependent upon which source one chooses to believe. You don't want to accept accounts of actual real world performance, so don't call me biased! account. one small-scale conflict is insufficiently large to warrant the plural. That account also lacks critical data which would be required to determine whether or not the number represent practical performance values. For instance, if any of those 24 launches were made at retreating targets already beyond 16km, then the pK for that shot drops of rapidly. If the pilots chose not to support their missiles through to splash (they are, after all, mercenaries. Getting dead doesn't pay.), then the pK is 0. Perhaps the one shot that hit was the only shot launched within valid parameters and fully supported to splash? If that were the case, then we could use this single example to state that. when correctly employed, the R-27R has a 100% probability of splash. But that would be ridiculous, because we would be making broad, generalized assumptions based on incomplete information and a tiny sample size. Oh wait...
Capn kamikaze Posted November 21, 2015 Posted November 21, 2015 You're making assumptions based on nothing other than theoretical performance... 1
Frostie Posted November 21, 2015 Posted November 21, 2015 Yet every complaint I've seen has been about not being able to succeed against AIM-120 armed opponents. Then you're skipping over a lot of posts, when the AIM-120 is mentioned it is regarding range, not comparing effectiveness. If you want to argue that then you're really getting away from the point of the thread. Nobody has mentioned the R27 needing to be equal or better than the 120. "[51☭] FROSTIE" #55 'Red 5'. Lord Flashheart 51st PVO "Bisons" - 100 KIAP Regiment Fastest MiG pilot in the world - TCR'10 https://100kiap.org
Darkwolf Posted November 21, 2015 Posted November 21, 2015 I'd never trade my R-27 against Aim-120 :P [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] PC simulator news site. Also....Join the largest DCS community on Facebook :pilotfly:
Falcon_S Posted November 21, 2015 Posted November 21, 2015 Su-27 'flanker' actually means evade incoming F-15C all the time? No. Trust me! ;) Quote Немој ништа силом, узми већи чекић! MSI Tomahawk MAX | Ryzen 7 3700x | 32GB DDR4 3200MHz | RX 5700 XT OC Red Dragon 8GB | VPC Throttle CM3 + VPC Constellation ALPHA on VPC WarBRD Base | HP Reverb G2 Youtube | Follow Me on TWITCH!
Frostie Posted November 21, 2015 Posted November 21, 2015 Look at the title' date=' it implies a lot.[/quote'] It implies not going BVR against an F-15 which shouldn't be the case, which part of that are you not understanding? The fact that all missiles are affected by this BVR failing when it gets down to the actual kill zones of these DCS missiles there is little chance against an AIM-120 and no room for BVR tactics to be applicable. "[51☭] FROSTIE" #55 'Red 5'. Lord Flashheart 51st PVO "Bisons" - 100 KIAP Regiment Fastest MiG pilot in the world - TCR'10 https://100kiap.org
Darkwolf Posted November 21, 2015 Posted November 21, 2015 oh 90% of the time BVR works great. Shoot missile. Shoot another missile. Watch guy get defensive. Snake if he Rmax'ed a Aim-120. Shoot another missile. Watch the guy fleeing/exploding. If guy fleeing, Shoot another missile. thru those 60seconds, if ever plane did not got a missile in his ass, you are nearly WVR with great position. R73 will finish the job. haven't tested recent patch tho- I stopped su-27 when Mig-21 was released. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] PC simulator news site. Also....Join the largest DCS community on Facebook :pilotfly:
Capn kamikaze Posted November 21, 2015 Posted November 21, 2015 (edited) If you're talking about the F-15 vs Su-27, then you're talking about the AIM-120 and the R-27, and if you go back and check the first few posts in this very thread you will see both those missiles posted about. There is no reason you can't go BVR against an F-15, you just have to use the right tactics, and the right tactics is to send a volley of missiles, not rely on only one. Edited November 21, 2015 by Cap'n kamikaze
Capn kamikaze Posted November 21, 2015 Posted November 21, 2015 oh 90% of the time BVR works great. Shoot missile. Shoot another missile. Watch guy get defensive. Snake if he Rmax'ed a Aim-120. Shoot another missile. Watch the guy fleeing/exploding. If guy fleeing, Shoot another missile. thru those 60seconds, if ever plane did not got a missile in his ass, you are nearly WVR with great position. R73 will finish the job. Exactly.
Falcon_S Posted November 21, 2015 Posted November 21, 2015 oh 90% of the time BVR works great. Shoot missile. Shoot another missile. Watch guy get defensive. Snake if he Rmax'ed a Aim-120. Shoot another missile. Watch the guy fleeing/exploding. If guy fleeing, Shoot another missile. thru those 60seconds, if ever plane did not got a missile in his ass, you are nearly WVR with great position. R73 will finish the job. This! :megalol: Watch guy get defensive.F15 aces make many ''movies'' and in every video on YT we will hear: Fox Three, I`m defensive. I`m defensive. I`m defensive. I`m defensive. I`m defensive. I`m defensive. I`m defensive. :lol: 1 Quote Немој ништа силом, узми већи чекић! MSI Tomahawk MAX | Ryzen 7 3700x | 32GB DDR4 3200MHz | RX 5700 XT OC Red Dragon 8GB | VPC Throttle CM3 + VPC Constellation ALPHA on VPC WarBRD Base | HP Reverb G2 Youtube | Follow Me on TWITCH!
Darkwolf Posted November 21, 2015 Posted November 21, 2015 LOL [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] PC simulator news site. Also....Join the largest DCS community on Facebook :pilotfly:
Tello Posted November 21, 2015 Posted November 21, 2015 :smartass: - Yeah I suck and swallow ! [ame]https://youtu.be/Qrepe-js0DI?t=13s[/ame] This! :megalol: F15 aces make many ''movies'' and in every video on YT we will hear: Fox Three, I`m defensive. I`m defensive. I`m defensive. I`m defensive. I`m defensive. I`m defensive. I`m defensive. :lol: 1 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Darkwolf Posted November 21, 2015 Posted November 21, 2015 That is an epic fight ! :D [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] PC simulator news site. Also....Join the largest DCS community on Facebook :pilotfly:
Capn kamikaze Posted November 21, 2015 Posted November 21, 2015 So, no excuses then, you can go easily against an F-15, or 4 if you know what you're doing.
Frostie Posted November 21, 2015 Posted November 21, 2015 Just proves that missiles are in dire need of repair and BVR is dead. 1 "[51☭] FROSTIE" #55 'Red 5'. Lord Flashheart 51st PVO "Bisons" - 100 KIAP Regiment Fastest MiG pilot in the world - TCR'10 https://100kiap.org
Capn kamikaze Posted November 21, 2015 Posted November 21, 2015 ... that was BVR until the last kill, anything beyond five or so miles is BVR and those two kills were achieved with the R-27 against superior numbers, who were slinging 120's, so can the complaining stop?
ShuRugal Posted November 21, 2015 Posted November 21, 2015 (edited) You're making assumptions based on nothing other than theoretical performance... yes, because published manufacturer specifications are purely theoretical. No manufacturer has ever once tested their equipment before selling it. Especially not to the military. So' date=' no excuses then, you can go easily against an F-15, or 4 if you know what you're doing.[/quote'] Sure, if one of those four has no idea you are there and never engages (the non-TAW bird) and two of the other three send themselves into death spirals. That was effectively a 1vs1 fight, with a few free targets thrown in for the flanker to kill. One guy beating up on three guys who were flying with no coordination, two of whom shit themselves all the way to the ground in the second salvo, is not proof of anything, especially when the majority of the community, including well-known DCS Su-27 veterans, can all show you plenty of tracks where their missiles come off the rails and immediately go stupid. Edited November 21, 2015 by ShuRugal
Sweep Posted November 21, 2015 Posted November 21, 2015 You know...I really think R-27s have a better place as a long/medium range unguided rocket than an air to air missile. Lord of Salt
karambiatos Posted November 21, 2015 Posted November 21, 2015 You know...I really think R-27s have a better place as a long/medium range unguided rocket than an air to air missile. I don't know if a tank driver throws some bubble gum wrap it'll probably spoof it. 1 A 1000 flights, a 1000 crashes, perfect record. =&arrFilter_pf[gameversion]=&arrFilter_pf[filelang]=&arrFilter_pf[aircraft]=&arrFilter_DATE_CREATE_1_DAYS_TO_BACK=&sort_by_order=TIMESTAMP_X_DESC"] Check out my random mods and things
Capn kamikaze Posted November 21, 2015 Posted November 21, 2015 yes, because published manufacturer specifications are purely theoretical. No manufacturer has ever once tested their equipment before selling it. Especially not to the military. LOL, you can't just take manufacturers claims at face value, as you say they're trying to sell it.:megalol:
Recommended Posts