AIM120"C" and AIM9"M" TEST TEAM READ!

[GGTharos]

F-15s did 5G turn testing at M1.2, of that I'm certain ... but 5g is not 8g.

Lastly the F-15 has no limiters whatsoever. You better know what it can and cannot do - there are plenty of stories of pilots over-g'ing their F-15's ... I believe at least one of them was over-g'ed so hard that it is now a display piece ... and we're talking 11g+ here.

[Force_Feedback]

So it's cheaper to put them into a museum rather than replace/repair (dunno about that, microfractures are unrepairable, right, unless it's a composite with internal glue capsules, but that hasn't been fielded yet on aircraft) the wing load bearing structures?

 

And shouldn't the F-15 be able to take 13.5G without direct component failure? I know the M-2000 can take 11.5 or 12.5 without any 'damage' at all (no upset crewchiefs). Or does the 150% rule not apply to military jets?

[GGTharos]

So it's cheaper to put them into a museum rather than replace/repair (dunno about that, microfractures are unrepairable, right, unless it's a composite with internal glue capsules, but that hasn't been fielded yet on aircraft) the wing load bearing structures?

 

And shouldn't the F-15 be able to take 13.5G without direct component failure? I know the M-2000 can take 11.5 or 12.5 without any 'damage' at all (no upset crewchiefs). Or does the 150% rule not apply to military jets?

 

 

The issue is not really immidiate structural failure. THe problem is that you bend the jet - all jets are sucbject to this and they stay bent. Depending on how hard you over-g, the airframe will be fine and flyable, but too much over-g and you bend it out of shape so much there's just no point.

[-razor-]

Okay lets do it like this, all of u that dont belive me, go pay and fly a su27 in moscow, and ask them to go supersonic at low alt like 5000feet, and ask them to make i 9g turn, if thay want to do it (what thay will not). if u survice u can tell me how it was. ask them alsow how much it will coust to repair the aircraft after its done.

[-razor-]

Notice the G meter in the HUD (upper left corner)...

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7817306389102405830&q=aerobatics+F-16&hl=en

 

Mach number doesn't matter when it comes to g forces. 8 g's is 8 g's whether a plane is flying 400 MPH or 1800 MPH.

 

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=101

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:n-K3dl_bXu0J:www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88590main_H-2266.pdf+supersonic+g-load+aircraft&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

Above URL in PDF Format: www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88590main_H-2266.pdf

 

 

"[F-15's Top] Speed: 1,875 mph (Mach 2.5 plus)"

 

 

Guess what? The F-16 (shown above doing 8+ G's) is a 1970's era aircraft.

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=103

"The F-16A, a single-seat model, first flew in December 1976. The first operational F-16A was delivered in January 1979 to the 388th Tactical Fighter Wing at Hill Air Force Base, Utah."

 

 

 

WRONG!

1-- A delta wing (and near delta wing i.e F-16, F-15) aircraft requires little, to no, input from the pilot to adjust for adverse yaw.

High-wing airplanes with flat-bottom airfoils are the most susceptable to 'adverse yaw.'

http://www.auf.asn.au/groundschool/umodule4.html

"Modern aileron systems have minimal adverse yaw, such that it is barely noticeable in most turns."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileron

 

2-- The F15 and A-10 have SAS/CAS computers to correctly transition pilot inputs and adjust for sideslip.

"Cross-coupled controls: One of the most effective solutions to adverse yaw is to couple the ailerons and rudder so that both surfaces deflect simulataneoulsy. As the ailerons create a yaw motion in one direction, the rudder automatically deflects to create a yaw motion in the opposite direction. The two effects counteract each other eliminating the undesired yaw. This form of cross-coupling was often built into the cable-and-pulley control systems of older aircraft. The problem was recognized even as early as the Wright brothers who incorporated such controls into the Wright Flyer. In addition, most major aircraft today utilize some sort of computerized fly-by-wire control system, and it is rather trivial to program cross-coupled control measures into the automated systems."

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/dynamics/q0045.shtml

http://www.f15sim.com/operation/f15_flight_control_system.htm

"Nguyen and his team had participated in the development of the flight control system for the F-15 for high-angle-of-attack conditions. (See Langley Contributions to the F-15.) They recognized that the concept used by the F-15 to reduce the adverse effects of the horizontal tails as roll control devices at high angles of attack would be an ideal solution to the F-14 problem. With this knowledge, an automatic rudder interconnect (ARI) for the F-14 was implemented and evaluated in the DMS."

http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Partners/F_14.html

 

 

So, you think making the game have less realistic speeds will improve the game? Being less realistic will make it more fun? I'm glad you aren't in charge at ED.

 

 

For someone who seems to be claiming to be a fighter pilot (may be miscommunication, since English is not your first language) you should know that G's have everything to do with missile evasion. There's even a formula which describes the exponential load increase of a missile to keep up with an aircraft turning at a certain g-load.

 

 

 

And here's what it all boils down to. I love when Falcon guys come here spewing this stuff. Anyway, Allied Force got it wrong. The F-16 in the video at the top of the page is pulling 8+ G's, and the pilot still lands her, safe and sound.

 

 

it is about how fast u can get out of a messiles wey, not how many Gs, when u fly at 330mph and 6g for example, your turn rate may be 25dregrees per sekond, if u fly at 550mph your turnrate is like 15-20 degrees per sekond. that meens when u fly slower u can faster beam the messile. But yes this is a game. so keep flying and protend u are the best polit in the world, but dont belive anything of what u "learnd" in lomac will work in a real jet. And amraam ignores beam, almost immune agains chaafs, long as u keep a solid and good lock on the bandit for the 2/3 of the flightpath, it wont miss. and if it dose, it will explode next to the gye and kill him/damage the airplane, end of conversation.

[TekaTeka]

Okay lets do it like this, all of u that dont belive me, go pay and fly a su27 in moscow, and ask them to go supersonic at low alt like 5000feet, and ask them to make i 9g turn, if thay want to do it (what thay will not). if u survice u can tell me how it was. ask them alsow how much it will coust to repair the aircraft after its done.

 

A retired Japanese pilot wrote in his book that he used 9g maneuvers often in F-15.

[S77th-GOYA]

and belive me i know this bussnies.

 

-razor-, how do you know this business? Do you have any experience as a pilot or crew for fighter aircraft?

[Frostie]

Yeah ,he flys an F16 in F4AF so ofcourse he knows exactly what its like to fly the real thing.:doh:

[-razor-]

-razor-, how do you know this business? Do you have any experience as a pilot or crew for fighter aircraft?

 

 

First my father is a test pilot for saab at Lindköping, right now he is testing jdam on gripen, he knows it, and all of it weapons inside out.

 

my self, im at Blekinge flygflottilj (F17) where im lerning how to fly jas39 gripen, i first flew ja37 viggen when i was 14 years old, after that i flew sessna 172 until i was 17 years, then i made 12month as a medic in an airborne company, and the last summer i began my studdy to gripen aviator.

 

but ofcourse, u have played lomac so u know bether than me, im sorry.

 

S!

[Force_Feedback]

Yeah ,he flys an F16 in F4AF so ofcourse he knows exactly what its like to fly the real thing.:doh:

 

The real deal too flips down at high AoA and near 0 speed :p

[Frostie]

First my father is a test pilot for saab at Lindköping, right now he is testing jdam on gripen, he knows it, and all of it weapons inside out.

 

my self, im at Blekinge flygflottilj (F17) where im lerning how to fly jas39 gripen, i first flew ja37 viggen when i was 14 years old, after that i flew sessna 172 until i was 17 years, then i made 12month as a medic in an airborne company, and the last summer i began my studdy to gripen aviator.

 

but ofcourse, u have played lomac so u know bether than me, im sorry.

 

S!

You better study hard then cos I don't think you'll pass otherwise:D

[Frostie]

I think you see yourself as a bit of an up and coming Hotshot for the Swedish Airforce , thought you'd show those guys on HL how to fly ,and started freaking out when your AMRAAM's weren't killing and you were getting your ass wupped.

So decided to vent your frustration on these forums and blame the game and Ed for you severely bruised Ego.

Feel better now Lt.Pete Mitchell.:megalol:

 

You should try making kills with ER's with a Flanker that'll make a real man?Pilot.

[GGTharos]

Hey, hold on here. At least Pete Mitchell WON. ;)

[D-Scythe]

I think you see yourself as a bit of an up and coming Hotshot for the Swedish Airforce , thought you'd show those guys on HL how to fly ,and started freaking out when your AMRAAM's weren't killing and you were getting your ass wupped.

So decided to vent your frustration on these forums and blame the game and Ed for you severely bruised Ego.

Feel better now Lt.Pete Mitchell.:megalol:

 

You should try making kills with ER's with a Flanker that'll make a real man?Pilot.

 

Well, even if this was the case, he still has a right to complain if his point about BVRAAMs are valid. Sure, he may have expressed his opinions better, but does anyone here actually think LOMAC models BVR missiles realistically? It's easily one of the top 3 least most unrealistic aspects of Lock On, and I'm not saying that because I have an agenda against ED - it's a simple fact.

 

So I guess, what I'm trying to say here, let's try to have a civil conversation?

[Kenan]

but ofcourse, u have played lomac so u know bether than me, im sorry.

S!

 

Being arrogant is not gonna help you make your case here. While I'm at it, I'm gonna give u one negative rep for treating GOYA like that.

[pschelchshorn]

children! Lets all have a big Group hug and sing hakuna matahta!!

:D

Flip

[Force_Feedback]

children! Lets all have a big Group hug and sing hakuna matahta!!

:D

Flip

 

Don't forget to pass on the joint ;)

 

Too bad we don't have AFM on the F-15, wtihout G-limiter it could be fun, I see all kinds of interesting things happening, like wing sufrace 'mods', and subsequent landings. Oh, and engine stalls, cool. Sorry, I'm ranting.

[zare]

Correct me if i'm wrong...but i see somekind of misconception between fighter versions in LOMAC. Eagle was born mid-seventies, and Flanker was born mid-eighties. In the beginnings, both of these aircraft carried SARHs, right? AIM-7, and R-27R/ER. But, AMRAAM was in service somewhere around 1991, and Adder was in limited service before the Union collapsed, and it entered full scale service the same year as it's main competitor, the AIM-120C. The LOMAC's Eagle carries AIM-120C, yet, the LOMAC's Su-27 cannot carry Adder, altrough there were Su-27 variants in active service that carried Adders, with certain upgrades that alowed him to be equipped with R-77. Those weren't in significant numbers, because Su-30/35 was coming on as an logical replacement, but the point is, there were. The same digital bypass channel that India used on N001 radar of their Su-30, to give them R-77 ability, was "invented" and implemented in Russia for limited number of Flanker aircraft. Mind you, N001 is the original Flanker's radar.

 

Don't you think that is bit strange that two dirrect opponent aircraft in the game aren't of same "generation" of upgrades. If we have an F-15 from 1994, we should have an Flanker from 1994.

 

Also, i think that statement about "certain death of anything if hunted by AIM-120" is something for debate. The most "advanced" piece of flying technology that AMRAAM killed was Iraqi and Serbian MiG-29, and both of these were in horrible shape, and were used for something that's miles outta of "job description" of Fulcrum.

 

Be that AIM-120's performance disputable or not, my opinion is, if we have an ten year newer F-15 with active capability that Flanker, boosting AMRAAM's PK and performance to that of "realistic" level could ruin whole balance in the game. F-15 has better BVR in LOMAC, but Flanker has longer sticks, and can employ sneaking tactics with IRST and R-27T/ET. If you want to bring LOMAC to next-realism level, boost up AIM-120, i don't mind, but give us then a same-era Flanker that carries Adders. I didn't mind when they pulled out R-27AE and R-37 from payload lists, that is realistic, AE is an competition loser to R-77, and R-37 is not from that era. If i want a bit of fun, i can always edit an XML file, and fire Arrows from Flanker (!) like maniac. That was realistic, this is not.

 

The point is - when USAF had an AIM-120C capable F-15, VVS had an R-77 capable Su-27.

[D-Scythe]

But, AMRAAM was in service somewhere around 1991, and Adder was in limited service before the Union collapsed, and it entered full scale service the same year as it's main competitor, the AIM-120C.

 

If having a handful of missiles to show at air show displays is your definition of "full scale service," than your missing something.

 

If you think the baseline R-77 is "competition" for the AIM-120C, then you are definitely missing something.

 

The LOMAC's Eagle carries AIM-120C, yet, the LOMAC's Su-27 cannot carry Adder, altrough there were Su-27 variants in active service that carried Adders, with certain upgrades that alowed him to be equipped with R-77.

 

The first Su-27 variant capable of shooting the R-77 entered service last year (may have been this year). That's the Su-27SM.

 

Those weren't in significant numbers, because Su-30/35 was coming on as an logical replacement, but the point is, there were.

 

No, there weren't.

 

The same digital bypass channel that India used on N001 radar of their Su-30, to give them R-77 ability, was "invented" and implemented in Russia for limited number of Flanker aircraft. Mind you, N001 is the original Flanker's radar.

 

"Invented," but never implemented.

 

Don't you think that is bit strange that two dirrect opponent aircraft in the game aren't of same "generation" of upgrades. If we have an F-15 from 1994, we should have an Flanker from 1994.

 

It IS a Flanker from 1994.

 

Also, i think that statement about "certain death of anything if hunted by AIM-120" is something for debate. The most "advanced" piece of flying technology that AMRAAM killed was Iraqi and Serbian MiG-29, and both of these were in horrible shape, and were used for something that's miles outta of "job description" of Fulcrum.

 

And they did it in ONE shot 8 out of 10 times. Statistically, it is by far the most successful missile ever fired in combat.

 

Be that AIM-120's performance disputable or not, my opinion is, if we have an ten year newer F-15 with active capability that Flanker, boosting AMRAAM's PK and performance to that of "realistic" level could ruin whole balance in the game. F-15 has better BVR in LOMAC, but Flanker has longer sticks, and can employ sneaking tactics with IRST and R-27T/ET. If you want to bring LOMAC to next-realism level, boost up AIM-120, i don't mind, but give us then a same-era Flanker that carries Adders. I didn't mind when they pulled out R-27AE and R-37 from payload lists, that is realistic, AE is an competition loser to R-77, and R-37 is not from that era. If i want a bit of fun, i can always edit an XML file, and fire Arrows from Flanker (!) like maniac. That was realistic, this is not.

 

You should get your timeline straight.

 

The point is - when USAF had an AIM-120C capable F-15, VVS had an R-77 capable Su-27.

 

That's absolutely false. AIM-120C entered service in 1998-99. Su-27SM entered service in 2005-06.

[GGTharos]

Correct me if i'm wrong...but i see somekind of misconception between fighter versions in LOMAC. Eagle was born mid-seventies, and Flanker was born mid-eighties. In the beginnings, both of these aircraft carried SARHs, right? AIM-7, and R-27R/ER. But, AMRAAM was in service somewhere around 1991, and Adder was in limited service before the Union collapsed, and it entered full scale service the same year as it's main competitor, the AIM-120C. The LOMAC's Eagle carries AIM-120C, yet, the LOMAC's Su-27 cannot carry Adder, altrough there were Su-27 variants in active service that carried Adders, with certain upgrades that alowed him to be equipped with R-77. Those weren't in significant numbers, because Su-30/35 was coming on as an logical replacement, but the point is, there were. The same digital bypass channel that India used on N001 radar of their Su-30, to give them R-77 ability, was "invented" and implemented in Russia for limited number of Flanker aircraft. Mind you, N001 is the original Flanker's radar.

 

Don't you think that is bit strange that two dirrect opponent aircraft in the game aren't of same "generation" of upgrades. If we have an F-15 from 1994, we should have an Flanker from 1994.

 

 

Give us a 1994 F-15 first. Right now it's like a proof of concept prototype that can fight, but it sure is missing a lot of stuff!

 

Also, i think that statement about "certain death of anything if hunted by AIM-120" is something for debate. The most "advanced" piece of flying technology that AMRAAM killed was Iraqi and Serbian MiG-29, and both of these were in horrible shape, and were used for something that's miles outta of "job description" of Fulcrum.

It is barely up for debate. In what numbers was anyone fielding these things you talk about in 1994?

The AIM-120 was designed to cope with present AND projected threats, and it has been constantly updated to do so. It -is- the best medium range air to air missile out there right now. You don't actually have to like it, or believe it though.

 

Be that AIM-120's performance disputable or not, my opinion is, if we have an ten year newer F-15 with active capability that Flanker, boosting AMRAAM's PK and performance to that of "realistic" level could ruin whole balance in the game.

This I agree with. You want both sides screaming bloody murder, not just one. If it turns out to be only one side, the game's shot.

 

F-15 has better BVR in LOMAC, but Flanker has longer sticks, and can employ sneaking tactics with IRST and R-27T/ET.

No, the eagle does NOT have better BVR. ABSOLUTELY not. The AIM120 is too short-legged, too easy to decoy, and the radar blows compared to the real thing. The real thing will happily detect MiG-23's 80nm away. Will the LOMAC one? No (it is missing the modes that allow it to do this).

There isn't even an auto-center on pdt function, and the IFF is MISSING.

 

If you want to bring LOMAC to next-realism level, boost up AIM-120, i don't mind, but give us then a same-era Flanker that carries Adders. I didn't mind when they pulled out R-27AE and R-37 from payload lists, that is realistic, AE is an competition loser to R-77, and R-37 is not from that era. If i want a bit of fun, i can always edit an XML file, and fire Arrows from Flanker (!) like maniac. That was realistic, this is not.

 

The point is - when USAF had an AIM-120C capable F-15, VVS had an R-77 capable Su-27.

What you mean is ... when USAF had its F-15's armed with AIM-120C's, Russia had some 5 Su-27SM's?

 

I mean that's what the numbers look like, more or less.

 

 

I agree with you that stuff should be modelled in such a way that it is more or less equal but -without- sacrificing realism.

Right -now- realism -is- sacrificed.

So yes, I have no objections to a Su-27SM, but -only- and -only- if the F_15 gets the serious attention that it needs.

 

Note that when I say equal, I mean technologically equivalent, not a copy and paste of code. Each aircraft has strengths it can play to and weaknesses to exploit - this is realistic, and this is what I mean by 'equality' ... whereas realistically, a MiG-29A would have basically no chance against an F-15C BVR, and that is not equal.

[Guest Cali]

Come on guys zare and razor don't know what their talking about and haven't done any homework. But I do like watching this schooling.

[zare]

D-Scythe :

If having a handful of missiles to show at air show displays is your definition of "full scale service," than your missing something.

 

If you think the baseline R-77 is "competition" for the AIM-120C, then you are definitely missing something.

 

I am not missing anything, unless public internet sources lie. R-77 entered small scale service in eighties third quarter, but global conditions in USSR and Russia delayed the full scale production, witch started in 1993, and R-77 entered service in 1994.

 

I'm sorry for my error, 120C didn't enter service in '94, but in '96. And in LOMAC encyclopedia, it states AIM-120C. So it's a C version stated, but, seeing it's ingame characteristics, it's a B version. And B version entered in 1994, so we have an same type of missile, medium ranged autohomed, from the same year on both sides.

 

D-Scythe :

The first Su-27 variant capable of shooting the R-77 entered service last year (may have been this year). That's the Su-27SM.

 

As i stated, R-77 was installed, and tested, and fired in the air mid-to-late eighties. After that, smale scale production started. What carried it, Hindenburg?

 

It was tested on Su-27, using bypass channel on N001. Some Su-27 were altered on this way, and later carried R-77. Was there couple of Su-27 in active service with Adder in late eighties, on low production batch, or in 1994 when full production started, it doesn't matter. VVS had an Su-27 capable of firing R-77 in 1994.

 

D-Scythe :

That's absolutely false. AIM-120C entered service in 1998-99. Su-27SM entered service in 2005-06.

 

You need to get your timelines straight. AIM-120C entered service in 1996. You are right that Su-27SM entered VVS some time ago, but im not talking about SM. For god sakes, im talking about normal Flanker, with extra 100cm2 of digital electronics, so it can fire R-77!

 

GGTharos :

No, the eagle does NOT have better BVR. ABSOLUTELY not. The AIM120 is too short-legged, too easy to decoy, and the radar blows compared to the real thing.

 

How not? Ok, Flanker will get LA first, ER/ET sequence...But Eagle has better ECM package, in my expirience with LOMAC, F-15 pilots always get a first lock, it can engage multiple targets, and once his AIM-120 goes into terminal, he can turn around and go home. I would call this an advantage.

 

Eagle can engage three Flankers at the same time, in BVR combat, in theory. Flanker has ho chance against three Eagles in straight BVR. But Flanker can sneak around, it has loads of fuel, plus medium ranged thermal missiles, plus IRST. The 15's advantages are multiple engagement and active missiles, and those are great for straight up head on BVR. Flanker has the ability to stay longer in the air, so you have the time to prepare an sneaking tactics, and to remain sneaky using IRST and R-27T/ET.

 

So i would say that Eagle is better in heads on BVR.

 

GGTharos :

What you mean is ... when USAF had its F-15's armed with AIM-120C's, Russia had some 5 Su-27SM's?

.

.

.

Right -now- realism -is- sacrificed.

So yes, I have no objections to a Su-27SM, but -only- and -only- if the F_15 gets the serious attention that it needs.

 

Probably, i don't know the exact number. But it had them. The main reason about not implementing some LOMAC-generation stuff in the game was "the thing is not active anywhere". Well, that Flanker was active in Russia, in the same period when F-15C had AIM-120C. If F-15C is in the game, then there should be that era Flanker too.

 

Listen, GGTharos, i don't know if F15 needs attention or not, im not that familiar with it's true capabilities and history, as i am with twentyseven. Ok, if the Eagle can carry 120C in the game (it can't, there is 50km max range in LOMAC's AMRAAM, that means B version, but the whole topic is about getting the right C version in the game), then it would be nice if whole needed avionics were upgraded on the same level as 120C era F-15C. Not some hybrid stuff. Hovewer, Flanker then needs restoration too. How would you feel (i sense that you are western-technology biased), if you had, in LOMAC, first version of F-15 with AIM-7 Sparrow, and we had Su-30M? Not fair.

[D-Scythe]

I am not missing anything, unless public internet sources lie. R-77 entered small scale service in eighties third quarter, but global conditions in USSR and Russia delayed the full scale production, witch started in 1993, and R-77 entered service in 1994.

 

Yes, most public internet sources ARE full of crap.

 

I'm sorry for my error, 120C didn't enter service in '94, but in '96. And in LOMAC encyclopedia, it states AIM-120C. So it's a C version stated, but, seeing it's ingame characteristics, it's a B version. And B version entered in 1994, so we have an same type of missile, medium ranged autohomed, from the same year on both sides.

 

Again, you are mistaken. Yes, the baseline AIM-120C was first being delivered in '96, but usually military programs don't reach full service capacity until a couple years later.

 

Thirty AIM-120Cs for 350 F-15s and 1000 F-16s can hardly be considered "in service."

 

As i stated, R-77 was installed, and tested, and fired in the air mid-to-late eighties. After that, smale scale production started. What carried it, Hindenburg?

 

There is no Russian fighter in the 1990s that could fire the R-77 except for a handful of late-build MiG-29S fighters operating near Murmansk.

 

It was tested on Su-27, using bypass channel on N001. Some Su-27 were altered on this way, and later carried R-77. Was there couple of Su-27 in active service with Adder in late eighties, on low production batch, or in 1994 when full production started, it doesn't matter. VVS had an Su-27 capable of firing R-77 in 1994.

 

Wow, they had ONE Su-27 capable of firing an R-77 in 1994. Congrats, IOC reached.

 

You need to get your timelines straight. AIM-120C entered service in 1996. You are right that Su-27SM entered VVS some time ago, but im not talking about SM. For god sakes, im talking about normal Flanker, with extra 100cm2 of digital electronics, so it can fire R-77!

 

My timelines are perfectly fine.

 

Eagle can engage three Flankers at the same time, in BVR combat, in theory. Flanker has ho chance against three Eagles in straight BVR. But Flanker can sneak around, it has loads of fuel, plus medium ranged thermal missiles, plus IRST. The 15's advantages are multiple engagement and active missiles, and those are great for straight up head on BVR. Flanker has the ability to stay longer in the air, so you have the time to prepare an sneaking tactics, and to remain sneaky using IRST and R-27T/ET.

 

So i would say that Eagle is better in heads on BVR.

 

Firstly, in theory, the F-15C can engage at least SIX targets simultaneously. Secondly, the F-15C should be a better BVR fighter HANDS DOWN when compared to the vanilla Su-27 (which is really F-15A technology).

 

The match for the F-15C in BVR is the Su-27SM, but LOMAC doesn't model the SM because it just entered service.

 

Hovewer, Flanker then needs restoration too. How would you feel (i sense that you are western-technology biased), if you had, in LOMAC, first version of F-15 with AIM-7 Sparrow, and we had Su-30M? Not fair.

 

Nobody is "western-tech biased." It's simply a fact that the U.S. has more F-22A Raptors than Russia has Su-27SMs. Not because the U.S. is better or anything, but because the U.S. didn't suffer an economic collapse 20 years ago. Whether you like it or not, money TALKS, especially with regards to new equipment.

[Guest Cali]

How not? Ok, Flanker will get LA first, ER/ET sequence...But Eagle has better ECM package, in my expirience with LOMAC, F-15 pilots always get a first lock, it can engage multiple targets, and once his AIM-120 goes into terminal, he can turn around and go home. I would call this an advantage.

 

So i would say that Eagle is better in heads on BVR.

 

Just cause the 15 can turn around after the 120 goes active doesn't meamn crap in LO. I have shot down and been shot down by flankers while firing 120's at them and turning like you said. The 120's are very easy to dodge in LO. So throw that advantage out the door. It might work on a noob, but someone that knows a little about the 120 and Russian jets will defeat it.

 

First lock...doesn't mean crap in LO as well. All the Russian jet has to do is flash his ECM on and the 15 will lose lock on get a HOJ. So what if the 15 knows what angels your at, all you have to do is climb or dive with ECM on and now the 15 has no clue. And the Russian jets can fire first on the 15's (launch override) your missile might not have a chance, but it will make the 15 think.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

In my view, ARH's were removed from Su-27 in Lock On because Flanker with ARH's was superroir to F-15 (in Lock On).