F-15C + AIM120 So Unfair!

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Second of all, firing solutions are different for every each weapon - the firing solutions calculated for the R-27ER are next to useless for the R-77.

However, the hardware that provides data can be the same. It is the software that will calculate firing solution and come up with „ПР“ :)

 

Third of all, the R-77 just operates differently as an ARH missile - this raises huge issues in software and hardware compatibility.

Actually, ARH and SARH work exactly the same way until the terminal stages of the flight. While it is understandable that each will have its own specifics of launch and flight and etc, it is reasonable to assume that the hardware that can provide launch data for R-27ER can also provide the launch data for R-77.

 

Got to go now …

[GGTharos]

However, the hardware that provides data can be the same. It is the software that will calculate firing solution and come up with „ПР“ :)

 

Actually, ARH and SARH work exactly the same way until the terminal stages of the flight. While it is understandable that each will have its own specifics of launch and flight and etc, it is reasonable to assume that the hardware that can provide launch data for R-27ER can also provide the launch data for R-77.

 

Got to go now …

 

 

 

Actually, not they do not. That's like saying that a Mac OS and WIndows 3.11 work in exactly the same way.

 

The results might be similar, but they sure don't work 'the same way'.

 

I'm sorry but you've offered zero arguments as to why a Su-27P/S would carry R-77.

 

This is no different than the 'R-27ET with datalink'.

It was assumed that the R-27ET had a datalink because the R-27ER had it.

 

It later turned out that hey - guess what? Bad assumption! No datalink on the ET.

 

Your assumption is precicely the same type.

 

Yes, the hardware -could- be the same. The fact that upgrades were needed even for the MiG-29S to carry this weapon however seem to indicate that the hardware is -not- in fact the same.

If you really want details on how/why, I suggest joining an AF which flies the MiG-29S ;) At that point you'd have all sorts of access to info.

 

Until then, please spare us the 'it could be the same so it could do it' stuff - just because you wish it to be so, does not make it so. It has -not- been done wether you like that or not, for whatever reason.

[D-Scythe]

However, the hardware that provides data can be the same. It is the software that will calculate firing solution and come up with „ПР“ :)

 

Actually, ARH and SARH work exactly the same way until the terminal stages of the flight. While it is understandable that each will have its own specifics of launch and flight and etc, it is reasonable to assume that the hardware that can provide launch data for R-27ER can also provide the launch data for R-77.

 

Got to go now …

 

And if the software is not updated with the R-77 data, then how would the hardware know *what* kinda data to use to calculate the R-77 firing solutions/targetting data upload? Technically, most of the hardware associated with the weapons system on ANY plane can support ANY weapon - it's just that they don't have the software. The point you're making is, frankly, stupid. By your logic, an F-15C should be able to carry the AIM-54C Phoenix "just because" the F-14 can and the AIM-120/AIM-7 aren't all that different from the AIM-54C apart from the extra range.

 

Give it up.

[Tropikal]

Guys, thanx to many that have given their input and tried to suggest on how to behave when facing an F15 armed with 120s. Thanx to those who understood the spirit of the question and tried to help this noob out..

 

The rest of you guys that keep on and on about the hardware and datalinks and whatnot.. get together and square it off, get over it, or open another post cause that is NOT on topic.. k thanx

[169th_TomAce]

Hey Tropikal,

 

As most the others have said it's all about the tactics and how you play the game.

 

At present we are stuck with how the game is, the only thing you can change is the way you use it. My lot prefer to fly it more closely to real life then just an AirQuake, who cares if you have 20 kills if you have half that amount or more in deaths.

 

Find a group of like minded guys and wing each other it's so much more rewarding using team work.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Actually, not they do not. That's like saying that a Mac OS and WIndows 3.11 work in exactly the same way.

 

The results might be similar, but they sure don't work 'the same way'.

 

I'm sorry but you've offered zero arguments as to why a Su-27P/S would carry R-77.

 

This is no different than the 'R-27ET with datalink'.

It was assumed that the R-27ET had a datalink because the R-27ER had it.

 

It later turned out that hey - guess what? Bad assumption! No datalink on the ET.

 

Your assumption is precicely the same type.

 

Yes, the hardware -could- be the same. The fact that upgrades were needed even for the MiG-29S to carry this weapon however seem to indicate that the hardware is -not- in fact the same.

If you really want details on how/why, I suggest joining an AF which flies the MiG-29S ;) At that point you'd have all sorts of access to info.

 

Until then, please spare us the 'it could be the same so it could do it' stuff - just because you wish it to be so, does not make it so. It has -not- been done wether you like that or not, for whatever reason.

 

Yup, it usually takes more than software changes. Add a weapons system with a new capability, you need a whole new set of "happy boxes" to make everything talk to each other. Software is actually extremely limited in the aviation world as to what it can and can't accomplish. If I want to add a data-link to a G1000 system, software is a necessary component, but I also need to add a GDL and the associated wiring, along with appropriate antennae. And that's just a civilian system looking for a simple weather download from a satellite service...its not even a military FCR trying to guide a specific missile to its target. :)

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Until then, please spare us the 'it could be the same so it could do it' stuff - just because you wish it to be so, does not make it so.

 

The point you're making is, frankly, stupid.

 

Give it up.

 

Geeees, you guys get awfully defensive here. I feel desperation in trying to hide something.

[Force_Feedback]

Guys, thanx to many that have given their input and tried to suggest on how to behave when facing an F15 armed with 120s. Thanx to those who understood the spirit of the question and tried to help this noob out..

 

The rest of you guys that keep on and on about the hardware and datalinks and whatnot.. get together and square it off, get over it, or open another post cause that is NOT on topic.. k thanx

 

This is the only post that makes sense on these pages.

 

The R-77 needs the aku-170 pylon, if the su-27 has been upgraded with the needed wiring and software+hardware upgrades to the radar/weapon control system, then it can fire the R-77, if not, then not.

 

The R-77 is obsolete, its production has stopped a while ago, and the emphasis is on a completely new missile medium-long range ARH A-A missile for the MFI, which (the missile) SHOULD be ready in 2010 for mass production. But knowing eastern block schedules, I'd say 2015 and later.

Although the fact that the R-77 is being regarded as obsolete by the RuAF, is an indication of its capabilities, and maybe quality...

The problem is that in the next 5 years the R-77 will be the only missile that can be used, or they should do some maintenance of the R-27 stockpiles.

 

The R-27EA has been made just half a year ago, and is designed and made in the Ukraine, and it's not a completely new missile, just an ARH seeker head for the R-27E®(T) missile, to extend the capabilities. read: 'the stockpiles are big and crappy, and they need something that will hit something besides the ground'.

 

So, neither the R-77, nor the R-27EA fit into lomac's time frame (1994 or something)

 

And please stop ranting GG, D-Scythe, veljko and others, we know you have your opinions, don't show them in every thread in abundance please (no pun intended, just to stop the troll wars)

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

The rest of you guys that keep on and on about the hardware and datalinks and whatnot.. get together and square it off, get over it, or open another post cause that is NOT on topic.. k thanx

Tropikal,

 

Balanced gameplay in Air to Air engagement was lost the moment EA missiles were removed from Flanker. I am not saying that this was a wrong move from ED. I do know that flying Flanker in on line battles did not make any more sense after that.

 

Real Flanker was designed from ground up with one purpose in mind, and that was to defeat F-15. Flanker came out almost a decade after F-15, and well in time when Russian (Soviet) ARH missiles were available.

 

When I saw your post about balanced gameplay where you complained about F-15 ARH missiles, the first ting that popped in my mind was R-27EA and R-77.

 

I purchased a book from Amazon few weeks ago (Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker - WarbirdTech Volume 42 by Yefim Gordon). When I quoted the book, it was dismissed. I accepted that and will continue to search for information that is more reliable and generally more acceptable.

 

And to make a long story short, ARH missiles on Flanker would make gameplay more balanced. I am looking for reliable information about ARH capabilities of real Flankers.

 

Regards,

[Pilotasso]

Geeees, you guys get awfully defensive here. I feel desperation in trying to hide something.

 

 

Not defensive, this is a friendly discussion here. :) What they...we want to see from you, is your sources. Not "would be's" from early 90's books nor your suppositions and speculations.

 

Do as I did on page 6. Scan your sources.

 

Oh and for the sake of it dont use cheesy internet sites as your source, and its "would be's" either.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Not defensive, this is a friendly discussion here. :) What they...we want to see from you, is your sources. Not "would be's" from early 90's books nor your suppositions and speculations.

Book I was quoting is April 2006 edition.

 

Do as I did on page 6. Scan your sources.

You’ve just violated copyright laws. You should go back, contact the publisher, get written permission before scanning and posting text and images.

 

Oh and for the sake of it dont use cheesy internet sites as your source, and its "would be's" either.

Young man, you’ve got a lot to learn …

[Pilotasso]

Book I was quoting is April 2006 edition.

 

Hmmm I went back to all your posts in this thread, either I missed the one, or I dont see book quotes at all. :noexpression:

Only "it should be" passages, several times over.

 

point me to the post.

 

Edit: I have only see a braif sentence you bought a book. No quotes though. Also you should check if its a reedition from an older version.

I have books written back in 1985 with 2001 dates on them.

[GGTharos]

Geeees, you guys get awfully defensive here. I feel desperation in trying to hide something.

 

Actually it is because the circular arguments you're starting are getting old.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Hmmm I went back to all your posts in this thread, either I missed the one, or I dont see book quotes at all.

The quotes were not on this thread.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Like I said guys, it's a LOST cause trying to talk to him, now report that Hajduk:harhar:!!!

He, he, he. You are funny guy! :megalol:

[Guest IguanaKing]

The quotes were not on this thread.

 

So, if they were in another thread, point everyone to them. ;)

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Actually it is because the circular arguments you're starting are getting old.

Page 136 of our own Flaming Cliffs manual are making the same as my argument. It clearly states that at least Su-33 / 10-14 can carry R-77.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Where does that page in the manual state that ARH and SARH missiles work exactly the same way? I believe that is the circular argument GG was referring to...in THIS thread anyway. You stated it...now back it up. :D Give us all your insights about how the datalinks between these two types of missile are exactly the same. This should be interesting. :thumbup:

[GGTharos]

And ED will tell you it is a typo.

[Ardillita]

Tropikal,

 

Balanced gameplay in Air to Air engagement was lost the moment EA missiles were removed from Flanker. I am not saying that this was a wrong move from ED. I do know that flying Flanker in on line battles did not make any more sense after that.

 

Real Flanker was designed from ground up with one purpose in mind, and that was to defeat F-15. Flanker came out almost a decade after F-15, and well in time when Russian (Soviet) ARH missiles were available.

 

When I saw your post about balanced gameplay where you complained about F-15 ARH missiles, the first ting that popped in my mind was R-27EA and R-77.

 

I purchased a book from Amazon few weeks ago (Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker - WarbirdTech Volume 42 by Yefim Gordon). When I quoted the book, it was dismissed. I accepted that and will continue to search for information that is more reliable and generally more acceptable.

 

And to make a long story short, ARH missiles on Flanker would make gameplay more balanced. I am looking for reliable information about ARH capabilities of real Flankers.

 

Regards,

 

 

Well, in some point, I was agree with your point of view, but after reading this post from you, I must agree GG and others... You definitly have no point, and it seems that also you don´t know how to fly a flanker.

 

Let´s see if you and others can understand something: a battle will not, I repeat, WILL NOT, be decided by a missile. You just don´t win a battle because you have a good missile, and so, you definitly can not say that the thing is unbalanced because the eagle has de 120s... haveing a good missile or a missile with XXX features could give you JUST 1 advantage from some point of view. But you are forgetting a lot of other factors, you are forgetting all the advantages the flanker has against the F15. And still all of this you dare to say that the flanker is ablsolete in the froint line?????

 

If you can not fight useing a flanker without r77... then plase choose another plane please and don´t post so many posts without arguments please. You can choose also to fly Flanker 2.51, there you have not only r77, but LG missiles, TV guided misiles, a more realistic kh-41 (this one is really good, ot the crap we have now)

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

And ED will tell you it is a typo.

There is awfully lots of “typos” with Soviet Union AA ARH missile(s). That’s fine. I will just continue collecting “typos”.

 

By the way, do you or anybody else on this forum have an actual photograph of R-27EA. I would like to compare it with R-27ER in details. Again, I need a photograph, not a rendered drawing.

[GGTharos]

Perhaps now you'll tell me they did this to Flanker so that the Eagle has an edge in the game? To appeal to western customers?

[Guest IguanaKing]

LOL. I'm also waiting for someone to say ED gave US aircraft an advantage out of some sort of bias. BTW...since some of us are hung up on early, theoretical capabilities...why don't my B-1s fly above Mach 2? I've been cheated!!! And I can post numerous links that say the B-1 SHOULD have this capability. Just kidding, of course, to all the people who know the differences between the A and the B. ;)

[GGTharos]

Yeah. And how about some ASRAAMs? ;)

Where's that ASAT for my F-15C?

How about the thrust vectoring and canards from the F-15 ACTIVE?

[Guest IguanaKing]

Oh...the ASAT. I LOVED that missile, I remember that Hasegawa once had a super-detailed F-15C carrying an ASAT. If I could find that model again, I'd be in hog heaven. Just one of many programs on the US side cancelled by Congress due to their strategic significance...hmmm...much like the Politburo (USSR) or parliament (RF) have done. Great concepts on paper...but...as they say, no bucks, no Buck Rodgers. :D