Pilotasso Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 If you read the previous thread you would see while it may be true that all those ETmissiles can be carried , though only for logistical puposes, because all R-27 variants share common parts including the rail mount sled, but it will tell you nothing about the capability of making those missiles operational in each of those pylons but those who are equiped with the external refrigeration system. The manufacturer says 2, stating clearly that there is different technical designations for ET pylons and the others without the cooling system. Books such as those (and mine too) were often led in mistake by photos of russian aircraft wich the URSS then did nothing to clarify, as it was its tradition. One flagrant example of this mislead was when the mig-23 was reported on the west to be the Mig-25 foxbat for several years untill the real plane was displayed at Demagovo air show. IF the 504 server ever swiches to 6 ET capability, it will be the only one. It will be notorious for that and Im not sure if everybody will apreciate it. The ficticional capabilities of the ET ingame and the 6 R-77 load on the mig is already more than enough. On another note, your personal quest after this comes from the fact that this particular missile is flawed ingame, otherwise wouldnt even be worth to take more than 1. .
GGTharos Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 *Yawn* Sigh. 'We soooo wish the Flankers could carry more ETs! Well they must, because we wish it to be so! Forget that our Evidence is inconclusive!' I think it's time the F-15C started carrying some iron, then. Are you guys completely ignoring everything else that's been said here? How about the ejector racks having no coolant for the seeker? Right off the bat - can't use an IR missile on those, right there. Oh, right, well 'you can' ... it just won't be able to see squat with an uncooled seeker. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Pilotasso Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 Im sure the 504 admins will not change anything as they didnt in other previous occasions this matter came up. .
Force_Feedback Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 So you are afraid of being beaten online or something? If there are pylons that have the gas canisters, and if they're in game, then the Su-27 should carry the R-27(e)T. So, are there AKU-470s with the nitrogen bottles in them or not? If there are, mount the R-27T on them. Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy:
Pilotasso Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 Im not afraid of anything that can happen with bytes sent me over the net. But it would turn the game into an air mine spam fest. Not fun and definatly not realistic. .
Kenan Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 How about the ejector racks having no coolant for the seeker? Right off the bat - can't use an IR missile on those, right there. How can you be sure those underbelly pylons don't have coolants or is impossible to have those installed at all? Is it comprehensible those Su27s got slighlty upgraded for additional ET capability? Would that upgrade be of high cost or rather simple modification? Draw a conclusion. Do you have a specific source that is 100% confirming this and if yes, what makes that source more valid then the one I posted? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Commanding Officer of: 2nd Company 1st financial guard battalion "Mrcine" See our squads here and our . Croatian radio chat for DCS World
Pilotasso Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 ^^^^your missing alot of posts. LOL the threads just gotten UNIFIED. .
Alfa Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 I decided to open a new topic since the old one got pretty long (10 pages+) ..... Use this original thread for the discussion. - JJ. JJ
Shaman Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 But it would turn the game into an air mine spam fest. Not fun and definatly not realistic. It's already been done by amraam-whores :) 51PVO Founding member (DEC2007-) 100KIAP Founding member (DEC2018-) :: Shaman aka [100☭] Shamansky tail# 44 or 444 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] 100KIAP Regiment Early Warning & Control officer
GGTharos Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 You're forgetting the R-77 carriers and the 'Spam every IR missile I have at the target' dudes, too. ;) Straw man. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Force_Feedback Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 Okay, I can start a horrible flame by saying Russians are imperialistic aholes and want to conquer Ukraine, and that I'm seriousely pissed off at Moscow and their goverment, BUT, if the su-27 does have ejector pylons with coolant in them, then let it fly. If not, and there is some kind of confirmation to the fact why (and why there are photos of su-27s having them there), then it's okay. But not if three/four members team up saying "nah not true", while there is some physical proof that they can be carried there. The Su-27S manual isn't that a reliable source, as it's for the export version. Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy:
GGTharos Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 Yes, they can be carried there. The A-10 could even carry AMRAAMs (you can fit the proper rack). And? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Kenan Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 GG, please answer my question: How can you be sure those underbelly pylons don't have coolants or is impossible to have those installed at all? Is it comprehensible those Su27s got slighlty upgraded for additional ET capability? Would that upgrade be of high cost or rather simple modification? Draw a conclusion. Do you have a specific source that is 100% confirming this and if yes, what makes that source more valid then the one I posted? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Commanding Officer of: 2nd Company 1st financial guard battalion "Mrcine" See our squads here and our . Croatian radio chat for DCS World
Pilotasso Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 It's already been done by amraam-whores :) AMRAAM was made to be maddoged and this technique is not of much use beyond 10 miles anyway. If you dont get at least a TWS lock most likely it will be a wasted missile, BTW TWS wont give you warning, how do you know its maddoged? Of all my missiles about only about 5% are maddoged and then fewer will find their targets and fewer even will hit at all. Go elsewhere for the excuses :P .
GGTharos Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 In principle the 'Mad Dog' capability is there for dogfighting (similar to the AIM-7's FLOOD mode), not for throwing the missiles at long distances, as such a thing will deny any lofting and thus cut down the missile's range. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
GGTharos Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 GG, please answer my question: How can you be sure those underbelly pylons don't have coolants or is impossible to have those installed at all? Is it comprehensible those Su27s got slighlty upgraded for additional ET capability? Would that upgrade be of high cost or rather simple modification? Draw a conclusion. Do you have a specific source that is 100% confirming this and if yes, what makes that source more valid then the one I posted? Do -you- have a source that 100% confirms that you CAN launch the ET's in combat from those pylons? Because there are certainly sources showing that -other- aircraft will transport missiles or weapons on positions they can't or shouldn't launch them from. In other words, since your proof is about as valid as everyone else's (Ie. no 100% certainly) then there is no point in doing anything but leaving things as they are right now. ;) Personally, I found it difficult to get details on the flanker's missiles pylons/rails, but the info's out there regardless. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Pilotasso Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 If the decision to take 6 ET's is taken on 504 server I would like to hear an official word about it. And I think I speak for most of us too. .
TucksonSonny Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 Also, if the ET wasn't WAY over modelled in LO would we even be having this debate? The fact is the missile needs fixing ... Also, if all the online kamikaze pilots would stay out the ET’s No Escape Zone (-15 km) would we even are having this debate? The missile is just fine! DELL Intel® Core™ i7 Processor 940 2,93 GHz @3 GHz, 8 MB cache | 8.192 MB 1.067 MHz Tri Channel DDR3 | 512 MB ATI® Radeon™ 4850 | 500 GB 7200 rpm Serial ATA | Samsung SM 2693 HM 25.5 " | HOTAS Cougar Thrustmaster |
GGTharos Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 If environmental effects were modelled, would people be maddogging ET's? ;) Maybe, but no one would care! ;) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
D-Scythe Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 How can you be sure those underbelly pylons don't have coolants or is impossible to have those installed at all? Is it comprehensible those Su27s got slighlty upgraded for additional ET capability? Would that upgrade be of high cost or rather simple modification? Draw a conclusion. Do you have a specific source that is 100% confirming this and if yes, what makes that source more valid then the one I posted? 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 How can you be sure those underbelly pylons don't have coolants or is impossible to have those installed at all? Is it comprehensible those Su27s got slighlty upgraded for additional ET capability? Would that upgrade be of high cost or rather simple modification? Draw a conclusion. 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.
D-Scythe Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 Also, if all the online kamikaze pilots would stay out the ET’s No Escape Zone (-15 km) would we even are having this debate? The missile is just fine! 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.
Recommended Posts