The R-73, schlemming, and you...can you really get a good PK off-bore?

[Frostie]

Variant, like a Mustang and a Model-T are variants of Ford, so to speak.

[Crayola]

Helmet Off Bore launches seem to work for the python 4 :P

[patricio_z]

A little bit of history ...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-132_ASRAAM

 

I find it amusing that they heap on ridiculous praise on the R-73 there - that it had better seeker qualities than ASRAAM with an FPA is uh ... mind-boggling. Haha funny.

 

I think I've read somwhwere else that they choose to keep the 9X program because of the large quantities of fuselages already made that could be converted to X specs, saving lots of $$$, but I could be wrong

 

Isnt the ASRAAM design originaly from Israel???

[59th_LeFty]

I'm happy about this thread, because if anytime we get a Ka-50-like (or more) detailed fighter aircraft, these things may be imlemented.

[RedTiger]

I'm happy about this thread, because if anytime we get a Ka-50-like (or more) detailed fighter aircraft, these things may be imlemented.

 

You bet! Thats why I ask! :smilewink:

[Alfa]

Like 76.8% of the internet, wikipedia is officially sponsored by Sukhoi, Mikoyan, and Vympel! :lol:

 

Your internet(and world) must be very different from mine :) .

[RedTiger]

Your internet(and world) must be very different from mine :) .

 

I was half kidding. It was GG's comment about them adding "ridiculous praise" to the R-73.

 

BS runs downhill both ways to be sure, and each side has its fan boys, but if you made a cursory search for info on Russian kit, you could come away very misinformed. You have to get to some fairly serious discussions (well beyond the casual person's interest) between experts, pilots, and those with first hand knowledge before you get a clear picture. Hell, even then I have some doubts about the info given and reserve judgement.

 

In the mean time, the lay person buys a Yefim Gordon book because 23 out of 23 people gave it 5 stars on amazon.com. (I am guilty of this. I still like those books though despite the perceived bias. Good info on development and Mr. Gordon is a prolific photographer with amazing access to OKB photos and videos). Someone else might read YouTube comments, or find a website with a biased Australian chap who sounds like he's quoting missile ranges from the Flanker 2.0 encyclopedia. Hell, somone could look at the LOMAC encyclopedia and not go any further!!

 

Maybe we really are looking in different places? I don't really go actively seeking information on Western hardware as much because what I really am interested in is how the Soviets used their kit. I guess I perceive Western info to be easier to come by. I mean, we have an Eagle driver on this board. Where's our MiG pilot who served in the VVS during the Cold War? Do we have anyone active in the Russian military who can comment on any of this?

 

We know what US brevity code is. What about Soviet/Russian brevity code? Did the Soviets and do the Russians use something like an overhead break to land, or do they just go straight in? How reliant were they REALLY on GCI? How good were the GCI controllers? "Speed is life"? Then why make your planes work so well at slow speeds and high alpha?

 

I'm like those guys who are historical reenactors. I can dress up in Roman armor or a Confederate uniform and I can carry around a gladius or musket. All of it is meaningless if I'm not employing those tools they way they were intended. :)

Edited October 15, 2008 by RedTiger

[Alfa]

BS runs downhill both ways to be sure, and each side has its fan boys...

 

Indeed :)

 

...but if you made a cursory search for info on Russian kit, you could come away very misinformed.

 

If you want some actual information on technical matters, the trick is to find out who manufactures it and then look for those organizations rather than searching for the particular kit directly :) .

 

You have to get to some fairly serious discussions (well beyond the casual person's interest) between experts, pilots, and those with first hand knowledge before you get a clear picture. Hell, even then I have some doubts about the info given and reserve judgement.

 

That goes both ways RT. I would even say that it goes further for Western stuff, because manufactures are far more "tight-lipped" about their stuff than their Russian counterparts - and internet forum discussions between people who claim to be this or that and therefore "in the know" is a poor substitution for verifiable sources :) .

[RedTiger]

 

If you want some actual information on technical matters, the trick is to find out who manufactures it and then look for those organizations rather than searching for the particular kit directly :) .

 

Wha...? :huh:

 

Now I agree, this logically makes sense, but whenever something from the manufacturer gets cited, you have those who will give you the "brochure" retort:

 

"Did you get that from a brochure?"

 

The implication being that the manufacturer will embelish upon the good features and not address the bad ones. On the surface this is a weak argument, but I'll be damned if it hasn't made me stop and think. Its easy to be pesimistic and think that the manufacturer is just saying what General Joe Blow wants to hear. And some of the past procurement practices, in the US military at least, don't exactly make that unreasonable.

 

Now, regardless of whatever people say, that is a good tip. Thank you.

 

 

 

That goes both ways RT. I would even say that it goes further for Western stuff, because manufactures are far more "tight-lipped" about their stuff than their Russian counterparts - and internet forum discussions between people who claim to be this or that and therefore "in the know" is a poor substitution for verifiable sources :) .

 

Indeed. Let me be more specific though, because I don't want you to think I'm taking this stuff on face value. Often times the serious discussions between people who claim to be this or that are the only thing that prompt finding more information. Ideas are often not immaculately conceived.

 

I know you're very knowledgable about stuff like this, and this is the probably the product of active research. You wanted to know something, so you went out, researched and found out. This often not the case for me. I have no claim of expertise. Sometimes I will try to hunt something down, but its usually prompted from a counter argument or some bit of info provided about something I though I already had a good understanding of. Call it "passive research!" :D

 

I hesitate to even call it "research" really...its just reading stuff. :P The only thing I can honestly say I researched in my free time was how to build myself a PC.

Edited October 15, 2008 by RedTiger

[Vekkinho]

 

I'm like those guys who are historical reenactors. I can dress up in Roman armor or a Confederate uniform and I can carry around a gladius or musket. All of it is meaningless if I'm not employing those tools they way they were intended. :)

 

Yeah, I see Your point but to be able to employ those tools the way they're intended you must have properly modeled tools which in case of LO-FC/MAC is not true. So if you stumble upon a trustworthy AIM-9 manual you'll notice that some of the tools we have in LO are modeled upon assumption of the developers. (belittled or overestimated to create some red/blue balance).

 

So avoid recreating lifelike conditions here, 'cause that Confederate musket you got there shoots blanks and your Roman gladius is actually a dildo! Develop your own ways of employment that will provide best kill ratio!

[Alfa]

Wha...? :huh:

 

Now I agree, this logically makes sense, but whenever something from the manufacturer gets cited, you have those who will give you the "brochure" retort:

 

"Did you get that from a brochure?"

 

You might want to answer that with a question - namely where they get their information ;) .

 

There are really only two parties with actual information on military hardware - the people who build it and the people who use it....and good luck trying to get it from the latter :) .

 

The implication being that the manufacturer will embelish upon the good features and not address the bad ones.

 

It doesn't matter RT - if the information comes in the form of actual specs and description of functinality, then you have something of substance to form your opinion on. It might not reveal the exact performance or any short comings, but it is nevertheless a better approach than trying to probe common concensus on an internet forum :P .

 

Besides, even people who have actual first hand experience with something can easily have differing opinions about the same thing :) .

[RedTiger]

Yeah, I see Your point but to be able to employ those tools the way they're intended you must have properly modeled tools which in case of LO-FC/MAC is not true. So if you stumble upon a trustworthy AIM-9 manual you'll notice that some of the tools we have in LO are modeled upon assumption of the developers. (belittled or overestimated to create some red/blue balance).

 

So avoid recreating lifelike conditions here, 'cause that Confederate musket you got there shoots blanks and your Roman gladius is actually a dildo! Develop your own ways of employment that will provide best kill ratio!

 

No thanks. I'll continue to approach this sim using whatever information I can find. Yes, the tools are not modeled as accurately as they could be. However, you will find that most of the inaccuracy comes from the player, not the sim. Employment and tactics are just as important than whatever the sim has going on under the hood.

 

I could fly my MiG-29S with 4 R-77s at 40,000 feet, super-cruising around mad-dogging missiles. But I don't.

 

I fly with a hard cap of about 25,000 feet and will make missions with enemy aircraft well above that. I avoid relying on my look-down capability and instead force myself to fight from a look-up position. I limit myself to 2 R-27s and 4 R-73s, even in the MiG-29S. Why? Because I really don't believe R-77s on Fulcrums would be all that common. It seems far more likely that a regular front-line Fulcrum would be armed with more common weaponry. The only reason I fly the MiG-29S is that, to my understanding, even the A should have some sort of GCI datalink but it does not. I do tend to use AWACS as a surrogate for GCI OR I set up a quick intercept where it is assumed GCI has already vectored me to the bandit and his range and altitude are known. I put this in the mission description.

 

I also limit myself to relatively short range missions, either DCA or maybe a very quick and crude CAS mission, limited by the lack of precision weapons. Either way, its a simulation of a defensive mission. In order to limit the effectiveness of the beriosa, I like to saturate the mission with radar emitting units. Friendly and enemy EWR, AWACS, SAMs, CAP aircraft not in the mission area, etc.

 

I do the best I can with what I have. :) There's a great deal of things I have no idea about, but I do my best to use the fighter for what it was designed to do. Some things are beyond my control, but you can do a lot with a little bit of thought.

 

I bring up the Fulcrum because it seems to be, by far, the easiest Russian fighter to find info on. It also seems to be the easiest to abuse unrealistically. ;) I have other "templates" I follow with the Su-27. I have some with F-15C as well.

Edited October 15, 2008 by RedTiger

[RedTiger]

You might want to answer that with a question - namely where they get their information ;) .

 

There are really only two parties with actual information on military hardware - the people who build it and the people who use it....and good luck trying to get it from the latter :) .

 

 

 

It doesn't matter RT - if the information comes in the form of actual specs and description of functinality, then you have something of substance to form your opinion on. It might not reveal the exact performance or any short comings, but it is nevertheless a better approach than trying to probe common concensus on an internet forum :P .

 

Besides, even people who have actual first hand experience with something can easily have differing opinions about the same thing :) .

 

Good advice here, thank you! :)

 

EDIT: any tips for finding older stuff...as in stuff no longer manufactured?

Edited October 15, 2008 by RedTiger