Hyperlobby Server with 80s weapons only

[A.S]

Just fly it guys later...you will see what fun that is... on a test day Mustang was guest in our coms and believe me ....that yalling on coms was indication of great thrill and kills :megalol:.

 

Combats really get closer but still alot "good" range kills were made even with AiM-7s and R-27s. Tactics Teamplay :smilewink:

Edited August 18, 2008 by A.S

[X-man]

Didnt say its useless, I only want you to try it.

I ahve, actually flew F-15 on this particular server the other day...Nice try :thumbup:

Besides Im am getting the impression this is becoming another F-15 versus the world thread because someone is picking only a few key words in my posts intead of the whole message again. ;)

You implied that the AIM-7 was usless :P

 

You're providing your point of view, Im providing my and everyone else theirs. In the end, it's RvE that decides the rules and mission...

[RvETito]

Well I'll try to bring it back to the subject- if you want to fly without active and longrange semiactive or IR missiles- RvE '80s server gives you that opportunity. This is how the server runs and we'll stick to this policy.

[Pilotasso]

No, but it's still SARH, and notching (breaking lock) should actually be even easier at longrange. I fail to see why AIM-7 is useless BVR...

 

I actualy prefer it sometimes compared to the amraam.

 

Just fly it guys later...you will see what fun that is... on a test day Mustang was guest in our coms and believe me ....that yalling on coms was indication of great thrill and kills :megalol:.

 

Combats really get closer but still alot "good" range kills were made even with AiM-7s and R-27s. Tactics Teamplay :smilewink:

 

I have several kills 10-15 nm in the 80s server

and one at 18 nm. All with aim7.

 

I have not tried the Rs at long range, usually i try to notch him to 10-15 nm or such

and then engage, if im in a mig.

 

If im in a sukhoi i try to use my superior weapon count and

expecially the 27T

 

I have tried the mission, reminds me of the Mig mission at 504, the most fun of them all.

 

The R-27T is not that much better than the 73, me thinks. Its range is slighly longer but also much less manueverable.

[RvEYoda]

The 27T is more maneuverable at its medium firing

range compared to r73 at its medium firing range in my tests.

 

Example Try barellrolling a mach 2 r73 vs barellrolling mach 2 r27t.

much easier vs r73 for me. Why this is I dont know.

 

For me its something like this:

 

Barelling missiles (when it passes you mach 2)

 

aim9 (easiest, will only reach mach 2 at very high alts in lockon)

r73

amraam/r77 same

R-27/Aim7 are especially more difficult than the others.

[GTengineer]

snip

 

AS, will you guys make this mission available to download for those of us who play only offline? This seems like a lot of fun.

[A.S]

AS, will you guys make this mission available to download for those of us who play only offline? This seems like a lot of fun.

 

Once finished ( 2-3 days, with opitmization in combat scenarios and FPS-tests ) they will be on server.... available for everyone to save them and to brief tactics.

[GTengineer]

Once finished ( 2-3 days, with opitmization in combat scenarios and FPS-tests ) they will be on server.... available for everyone to save them and to brief tactics.

 

 

Cool, thanks

[RvEYoda]

If there is serious interest in improving the sidewinder we could

do something on our server .

 

The basis on why we would improve it is the following :

 

 

Tht is the aim9L, taken from this document by motorola :

 

http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/1979/PV1979_91.pdf

(pay for document if you want the full version)

 

Using these numbers of real life Aim9L compare to lockon AIm9M and

also simulate ourself the performance of Aim9M.

 

What we get is this :

[GGTharos]

Thanks Yoda.

 

Minizap is a little ballistic simulator (the 'MZ' lines were made with minizap) written by SwingKid. As you can see it is a reasonable predictor of ballistic missile behavior if you take care to adjust a parameter here and there.

 

The Math in minizap is based on real physics - although the drag coefficients are taken from the R-27R (the only available missile data at the time of MZ's creation). It is not a predictor for maneuvering target engagements - only ballistic shots. Despite this it servers as a means for reasonable comparative study of missiles.

 

 

For those who do not understand the above graphs: The AIM-9L is capable of attacking a target 4-5nm away at sea level, head on. At 20000', this range expands to about 10nm (beyond seeker capability probably).

 

Halve those ranges for tail-on engagements.

 

The LOMAC AIM-9M is useful at less than half of those ranges.

 

Hopefuly that clears things up.

Edited August 18, 2008 by GGTharos

[Teknetinium]

I would say it will be hard even for working flights between mig-29s/Su-27s to tangle F-15s in this case.

Sovjet Mig-29s didt fly without awac/ewr, I assume they didt use their useless radar for scanning. Turned it one when already directed heading/range/alt to the target.

Other air forces use Mig-29A differently which doesn't change what Mig-29A was designed for.

Edited August 18, 2008 by Teknetium

[jonob66]

4 of us from the 159th flew this mission last Friday, we had a blast. I've never shouted as much in my life. Total immersion!! Best flown as part of a team. Well done RvE!! :thumbup:

[RvETito]

Stay tuned, there will be more ;)

[Frostie]

Congrats on the server guys its an excellent idea. Some balls out engagements for sure.

 

I flew F-15 on the server the other day and felt all powerful over the weak Migs, the only problem seems to be when you get too deep in enemy numbers and can end up getting overwhelmed.

Its fairly easy to make the Migs your plaything with superior radar, fuel etc. you can control the engagements so their R-73's don't even come into it when your constantly forcing them into defensive positions.

 

Im hoping that you don't go along with the decision to replace the Aim-9 with the R-73 as everyone except the diehards know that it was a generation behind the Archer. Russian birds should have this advantage in the merge.

 

Also I would be genuinely interested to hear from where the impression of real low flanker avaliabilty comes from?:)

Edited August 19, 2008 by Frostie

[GGTharos]

Im hoping that you don't go along with the decision to replace the Aim-9 with the R-73 as everyone except the diehards know that it was a generation behind the Archer.

 

Actually, they're the same generation - the R-73 has a slightly wider gimbal than the 9M, and TVC vanes. It expands the the OBA envelope. Otherwise? Same.

 

Not sure where you came up with the idea that the AIM-9M was a generation behind. I'm also not certain who this 'everyone' you refer to is; are you talking about the internet crowd? ;)

 

Russian birds should have this advantage in the merge.

 

Except their advantage isn't just at the merge; it's everywhere where IR missiles are involed, which is pure, unadulterated BS. The Russian birds hav Shlem and a great turn rate which DO give them the advantage; but I guess not everyone realizes this or knows how to take advantage of it.

 

Also I would be interested to hear from where the impression of real low flanker avaliabilty comes from?:)

 

Hm, I don't know. How about the fact that the flanker wasn't even properly accepted into service until 1990 due to problems? Dig a little. The truth is out there.

[Frostie]

Actually, they're the same generation - the R-73 has a slightly wider gimbal than the 9M, and TVC vanes. It expands the the OBA envelope. Otherwise? Same.

 

Not sure where you came up with the idea that the AIM-9M was a generation behind. I'm also not certain who this 'everyone' you refer to is; are you talking about the internet crowd? ;)

You forgot to mention that the aim-9 also has 2/3 the range of the R-73. Just these openly known differences mentioned makes something different or am I missing something?

In the 80's the West (bar you, obviously) recognised the superiority of the 'Archer' and begun the ASRAAM program which later brought on the US aim-9x program due to slow progress and other issues.

 

Hm, I don't know. How about the fact that the flanker wasn't even properly accepted into service until 1990 due to problems? Dig a little. The truth is out there.

If you don't know then why guess?

The Flanker actually entered full service with deliveries to PVO regiments beginning in mid'85. And had large numbers operating in '86, it was then declassified in '89.

[GGTharos]

You forgot to mention that the aim-9 also has 2/3 the range of the R-73. Just these openly known differences mentioned makes something different or am I missing something?

 

Yes, you are. Did everything mentioned so far in the thread not click? The Archer isn't that much longer ranged; its fuel/mass ratio is similar to sidewinder's, and the mass of both missiles is relatively close (actually the propellant mass itself seems to be close). I think these 'openly known' differences are about as reliable as the 'openly known' fact that the R-27ET is datalink was.

 

In the 80's the West (bar you, obviously) recognised the superiority of the 'Archer' and begun the ASRAAM program which later brought on the US aim-9x program due to slow progress and other issues.

The west - bar you, of course - correctly recognized that the Archer was not a leap in generations, but offered a vastly expanded short range OBA envelope compared to sidewinder. While the west had toyed with TVC missiles before, they made the mistake of cancelling all those projects.

Instead the AIM-9M ended up being equipped with a 40deg gimbal seeker, capable of reasonable OBA using radar cueing, which was less convenient and narrower than archer's implementation, as well as the archer having a superior close-range turn-to-target performance for obvious reasons.

 

But the archer was NEVER anything near a 'generation ahead' in anything resembling propellant, fuze, or seeker technology.

 

While TVC is a significant advantage in the short range arena, it doesn't affect the laws of physics which unfortunately cause sidewinder and archer to have similar ballistic ranges. Now, do the rollerons on sidewinder cause kinematic range problems for it? ... who knows.

 

If you don't know then why guess?

The Flanker actually entered full service with deliveries to PVO regiments beginning in mid'85. And had large numbers operating in '86, it was then declassified in '89.

Let's see. Accepted in service in '84, but manufacturing defects kept it from being produced at high rate until '86. By then, the Russians had a hundred airframes, maybe a little more.

 

Due to ... difficulties with the avionics, the Su-27 was not officialy adopted into inventory until 1990.

 

A hundred airframes by '86 sounds like a rather limited amount of aircraft ;) Sounds like an F-22 problem almost.

 

IIRC by 1990 they had 367 airframes. That's a production rate of maybe 80/year or so - pretty limited numbers unless you're playing rather -late- 80's. Of course, the really interesting details are in the deployment schedules ... if you look at cold war deployments of Su-27's and F-15C's you'll see rather interesting things.

Edited August 19, 2008 by GGTharos

[Frostie]

I luv your maybe's and probably's they are so accurate.

There is only one fact I can take from this and every other post from yourself , you never credit russian equipment over US.

[RvEYoda]

GG and Frostie kindly have this personal discussion somewhere else,

we dont want to get a locked thread ;).

 

Naturally you are free to debate missiles r73 vs sidewinder, but before going

personal on each other I ask you to try that somewhere else.

 

My own understanding is that while r73 is clearly a superior missile in a dogfight, there

is not much suggesting it would outrange the aim9. If you have

sources contradicting this please name and show these so we can draw proper

conclusions. Also make sure you are talking about the 1980s first version of the r73 and not

the newer models with extended range.

 

From the facts already posted in this thread it is though totally obvious that the Lo 9m is

kinematically range wise undermodelled by a great amount, however we do not have information on the r73s real life

energy envelopes (like the aim9 graphs), and before such are shown we will not

change the f-15 payloads to anything exotic like r73.

Until the someone can provide real data on the real energy performance of the

archer (like the Sidewinder above), I hope you accept this matter as CLOSED for discussion in this thread.

Edited August 19, 2008 by =RvE=Yoda

[Frostie]

http://warfare.ru/?catid=262&linkid=1673

 

R-73m1 30km

R-73m2 40km

[RvEYoda]

http://warfare.ru/?catid=262&linkid=1673

 

R-73m1 30km

R-73m2 40km

 

Frostie these ranges unfortunately are not what I'm looking for.

It all comes down to : What we need is a graph displaying its flight

accellerations, burn time and drag.

 

I appreciate your effort to provide the info though :)

[Frostie]

You know this ain't going to happen.

[RvEYoda]

You know this ain't going to happen.

 

oh, well it happened for the aim-9L.....click page 9 in this thread.

Maybe some day it will happen for the archer :).

For the moment server stays with lockon aim9 for f-15.

[RvEYoda]

Server update.

First steps to dynamic campaign are taken, as the server expands into the

three mission campaign detailed by AS in previous pages.

[A.S]

Currently Running

 

3 Missions objectivebased auto-rotating starting from Middle (The Outbreak) and changing depening on which side won. The "Last Stand Missions" comings soon.

Also, secondary objectives for Fighters are going to be added in near future.

 

For details please join server (or/and save) Mission for tactical briefings

or planings.

 

UDATE and FINAL

 

MAP: http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/5178/campaignsx9.jpg

Edited August 19, 2008 by A.S