disappointing arcade depictions

vanir · March 9, 2009

Look, this is just killing me. Now I love the graphics on LOMAC, for screenshots circa 90s era popular models you just can't beat it. Love it. Got screenshots all over my desktop.

But I'm a super enthusiast on these models, got details of the D30F2 Aviadvigatel, the Soyuz-Tumanskis, overspeeding, throttle restrictions at high mach, cruise ratings, bench tests, pilot comments, historical documentation, all over the place. I write books, I'm into research.

Now I'm not an engineer, or a real pilot (just a handful of hours in civvies), just a hobbyist. But a well read one.

And I really love a top notch flight sim. Thing is graphics, I just can't get immersion in something any less the graphical quality of something like LOMAC, I like the regional setting and the models are all my favourites. As a game I love it. For screenshots I love it.

But its technical accuracy on just a few points is killing me. I play SP offline, and use AI controlled models like the Flogger and Foxbat (say, a Ukrainie scenario involving breakaway sentiments from the Russian Federation but much greater foreign adversity from western interests, hence an independent Ukranie versus NATO/Georgia/Middle East issue that the Russian Federation comes in on later to save the day...yep I just love flying Flankers and honestly believe the RAAF should've picked 'em over the JSF Plagiarism and Super-70s Northrop).

So to start with I'm really looking at the Foxbat PD/PDS and all RB models (ie. Foxbat-B, D, E, F) with the Soyuz-Tumanski R15-BD-300 improved non-bypass turbine (circa. 1000hrs service life, 86.24/110kN bench tested static sea level, three-ring reheat, water injected, 7:1 compressor).

The models in LOMAC 1.02 are Foxbat-B and Foxbat-E (RBT and PD).

The first glaring problem I'm feeling is the fluffed Foxbat performance back to Eagle standards. I mean the things perform more like an Eagle than a Foxbat (not saying one is better than the other, for air-superiority the Eagle is definitively better, but this is a lengthy discussion topic with many more considerations to bear).

Obviously for LOMAC the Foxbat modelling serves to provide an Eagle drivers AI equivalent for the older Soviet era equip depictions in SP mission building. This is a purely arcade style assertion by ED.

The Foxbat does NOT perform anything at all like any Eagle variant in reality. Its engineering specifications alone utterly prohibit the contention, it is the realm of physically impossible.

So we are in the situation with LOMAC, like it or not of weighing arcade style "game balance" (cough) with actual performance standards, wrt to AI aircraft types modelling for offline SP mission building.

I can't help feeling a little sold out here. Like LOMAC was really made for all you online gamers and the SP military aviation enthusiasts looking for a sim with LOMAC's kind of layout got screwed.

Now I'm not challenging an apparent, extreme (reasonable) accuracy for all player controlled aircraft and a damn good job on weapons/defence systems overall (regarding gameplay, technical accuracy and computer-sim restrictions). Given a mid-90s environment LOMAC comes up trumps for this according to everything I've read around the traps (problems I think come up where online players begin to assert mid-2000s era AIM-120C performance etc. I think, and general manufacturer claims and military hardware salesmanship for the international market).

LOMAC rocks. I love it. Can I say that again? I love it. Top job ED, you guys are the bee's knee's, the possum's pussy, the eagle's talon.

Back on topic. I'll do this point by point.

Inlet and exhaust design features for the Foxbat and Eagle = different.

Engine and airframe structural design between them = different.

Avionics outlay and weapon systems = different.

Operational doctrine = different.

Cosmetic similarities are wholly superficial.

Performance should not at all be similar.

Due to the LOMAC modelling most people are pretty familiar with Eagle's general performance parameters. But they do not apply to the Foxbat. A very different approach needs to be used when combating them. They are not like an F-4 (but are closer to this than an Eagle) and are not like a Flogger (but are closer to this than an Eagle).

LOMAC incorporates very well the vast difference between US manufacturer claims and specialised ("cleaned up") record breaking attempts, and actual combat performance using combat loads. It enforces these constraints on all aircraft Soviet/Russian and American/European. But it is not entirely accurate.

I'm not going to go into the F-X design features or the exaggerated assumptions of the Foxbat. Just simple engineering facts, widely published since the mid-90s.

As we know the razor thin wings of the Foxbat and large diameter exhaust nacelle is designed for mid range climb rate and high Mach cruise performance to propagate between 68000 and 78000 feet, for missile release. Radar is designed to burn through ECM at good range for targets roughly in front of the interceptor, general doctrine is GCI with pilot control virtually for missile release only. Airframe restrictions are 0.98 Mach at sea level and 2.83 Mach at altitude (ref. Mikoyan design bureau). The maximum performance envelope of the Tumanskis lay roughly between 36000 feet and 55000 feet supersonic. Airframe rigidity is an impressive 4.5g supersonic, clean (benefit of an approximately similar construction to the Grumman Tomcat bar variable geo). Best climb rate starts something like 20000 feet, just gets better and doesn't even start dropping off until somewhere like 45000 feet. It begins a very strong climb from around 18000 feet. Zoom climbs in vanilla models can return 80000-100000 feet with a good run up (presumably burning all fuel, clean layout and hitting maximum airspeed at around 55000 feet), but 78000 feet is maximum service ceiling sustained for up to 2min with various loads/engine fitments in a combat scenario (routinely tested in service, 68000 feet minimum service ceiling is actually typically quoted but this is for Foxbat-A with full-heavy missile load).

It's a high altitude specialised interceptor, we all know that. Actual engineering technology is old tech, using the maxim: if you survive the mission, it's a good mission. If you kill the enemy, even better. If you don't, maybe don't think about surviving the mission.

Well then here is why. The Tumanskis are non-bypass and that means overspeeding issues (like several American engines of similar basic design). Much was done in airframe development to reduce intake airspeed, increase lift and lower overall supersonic drag but nevertheless the common redline for conventional airframe/engine matching (foregoing highly specialised developments like the Lockheed variable inlet-interior/high-bleed/compressor-bypass hybrid weirdo engine some say gets its rocks off at 3.5 Mach but loves a good flameout at any speed and can't stand an angle of incidence or anything remotely resembling a turn), is 2.5 Mach. Simple figure. 2.5 Mach if you want regular turbine engines. Slow exhaust speeds with really big diameter and you can up this a little, but the Tumanskis are non-bypass and have that overspeeding issue. Quite simply at that speed it defies the engine management control.

So the Tumanskis forego quite a bit of low airspeed exhaust velocity to really do well up around 2.5 Mach. Cruise speed for any Foxbat with any weapon load is 2.35 Mach. Following the engine overspeed of an Egyptian Foxbat-B (reaching 3.2 Mach according to Israeli ground stations, but destroying its engines), Mikoyan placed a general speed restriction on all Foxbat models of 2.5 Mach under normal conditions (except in emergency wartime conditions). Above 2.5 Mach according to pilots using maximum throttle would easily cause overspeeding and had always been unwise.

One of the E-155 prototypes was modified for the closed circuit speed record attempt of 1967, which was essentially a MiG-25 airframe with no combat equipment and rather large wingtip tanks fitted with fins, for extra fuel. It recorded 2.802 Mach absolute speed over 1000km using the R15-B-300 engines (circa 150hrs service life). This is the basic outlay of the MiG-25P Foxbat-A.

This model in service could reportedly achieve its maximum airframe speed in level flight with two heavy missiles fitted at 42500 feet. It could climb to 78000 feet for 2min. With four missiles speed was reduced and only 68000 feet could be attained in level flight.

The MiG-25R actually entered service slightly earlier and was quickly modified on two important counts, the engines were improved to the R15-BD-300 with increased thrust and 1000hr service life, plus a precision, all-weather, high altitude/high Mach bombing capability added, with provision for external stores on the four wing hardpoints plus one centreline (for a total of six FAB-500 bombs typical loadout). Mikoyan OKB claims top airframe speed at 42500 feet is achieved in level flight with a full external bomb load of 3 tons (ref. Janes 93-94). A 5300 litre centreline fuel tank may be substituted in loadout on any RB-series. Essentially the Foxbat-B was a reconnaissance-bomber with higher spec engines by the time the interceptor Foxbat-A entered service, and it was one of these which hit 3.2 Mach over Israel in 1973.

This brings us to the part which concerns LOMAC directly, the 1978-82 mid-life Foxbat update. The Foxhound (initially MiG-25M) had been in development since 1973 and prototype testing since 1975 (it was an E-155M which set the final word on airbreathing altitude world records at 123000 feet without rocket assist in 1975). But a new direction was taken with the design and overall it was protracted so as not to appear before the mid-80s. An interim was needed for strategic interception by PVO (this is the Russian home defence network of EW, SAM and GCI, they use strategic and tactical interception with ground base support where the US uses Missile defence technology and the Air National Guard...in 1977 for aircraft terms it consisted of the MiG-23P/modified-ML for GCI and MiG-25P which was always GCI, P designation means specialised interceptor and is never used for other tasks such as counter-air, it refers to GCI modifications to the avionics and direct pilot control is minimal although it regularly features all modern variant improvements of counter-air versions regarding ECM and other tactical features).

This is the MiG-25PD and RBT variants listed in LOMAC. Both contain the R15-BD-300 engines and both are equipped with ECM suites. The PD is fitted with an IRST sensor below the nose and the radar system has been updated to a limited lookdown/shootdown type (Saphire model 25, an improvement on the original Foxfire which could not discriminate ground clutter and it is regarded by NATO as equivalent to the Highlark of the MiG-23M with demonstrated lookdown/shootdown capability...search range 100km tracking 75km, chaff and flare fitouts, RWR, 3 communications radios, general avionics improvement).

Loadout modifications included the provision for either R60T on twin mounts for each outer pylon and later Archers have been exhibited in service. The RB centreline tank provision was also included on PD models.

The PDS is the vanilla Foxbat-A updated to PD or Foxbat-E standard. This was for earlier airframes which outlived their engines, a common occurance, and included all the other PD improvements. In 1978 in fact, when the PD was first being delivered it was discovered Ukrainian pilots had flown their P variants so infrequently in an attempt to conserve engine life they had to be retrained. One instructor said nobody in the Ukraine knew how to fly them anymore.

In 1982 the RBT/V/S was used as a basis to produce the BM defence suppression model (Foxbat-F), perhaps the most important of the final Foxbat series where camera equipment was replaced with enhanced ECM packages in the nose and and four Kh-58 anti-radar missiles could be carried. This model was produced until 1985.

So...in LOMAC the Foxbat-B and Foxbat-E which are included should be subsonic at sea level and exhibit poor acceleration, climb and manoeuvre characteristics to 2000m. They should handle like a brick and get their backsides handed to them by my little sister in an F-15. They should have chaff/flares and limited ECM but very poor comparative radar performance and whilst powerful warheads and lethal range, poor missile technology. However due to signal strength and at least some attempt to interpret data electromechanically, they ought to resist ECM attempts quite well for SARH missiles (reportedly even the old Foxfire radar could "fry rabbits on the runway at 250 metres" during ground maintenance, one Foxbat-A pilot said, "the radar was so powerful it could burn through any ECM attempt at missile range [but could not distinguish ground clutter]"), the Saphire only ultimately added improved data interpretation (but therefore also the possibility of beaming for defence).

At 5500 metres the Foxbat-B and E begins to really perform as it should. It ought to find approximate equivalence to aircraft like the F-15 at supersonic speeds at this altitude.

From 11000 metres the Foxbat should totally come into its own. At this altitude these models should have little or no trouble achieving their 2.35 Mach cruise with any weapon loadout and a good acceleration to approx 2.5 Mach. By 13500 metres they can well exceed it but there is a danger of engine overspeeding without careful pilot control measures. Its climb rate is listed by Mikoyan as 8.9min to 20000 metres at 2.35 Mach from a standing runway start, with full weapons load. 8.2min to 19000m for RB variants with full weapons (6.6min clean).

From what I've heard I believe the Eagle is pressed breaking 2.5 Mach with weapons at around 17000 metres and at much lower altitudes 1.8 Mach might be a more reasonable figure. Presumably the low-bypass engines help with altitude efficiency but their comparative exhaust speed/diameter doesn't. The Eagle was in part designed for extreme transonic performance, where the MiG was pure high speed interceptor.

So I get in LOMAC and I do up a mission, and the Foxbat acts like an Eagle. In fact with two missiles fitted to a Foxbat-E the best speed I could manage over 170km @11000m was 2.4 Mach. In the Foxbat-B with only two R60 I managed 2.5 Mach @11000m over 150km at best. Longer flight plans than this and you run out of fuel. Any other altitude reduces speed capabilities.

So for Foxbats, we've got Eagles. Similar story to the Foxhound, which needless to mention is a greatly improved Foxbat and ought to trump an Eagle at altitude big time. But in LOMAC it's a Foxbat, which is an Eagle.

vanir · March 9, 2009

Demonstrated weapons loads and figures:

MiG-25P 1972-75 Foxbat-A

-4x R40 under wings (generally 2x R40R and 2x R40T)

-2x R40 under wings (more common, 1x R40R and 1x R40T)

max internal fuel 14570kg

Soyuz-Tumanski R15-B-300 non-bypass engines 73.5/100kN 150hrs life

service ceiling 20700m for 2min (23750m with 2 missiles)

range supersonic (presumably circa 1.5 Mach) 1250km

range subsonic (presumably circa 0.85 Mach) 1730km

g-rating at supersonic +4.5

max wing loading 598kg/m^2

takeoff run 1250m and 360km/h

landing run with brake chute 800m and 290km/h

MiG-25PD 1978-82 Foxbat-E

-4x R40 under wings (as above)

-2x R40 + 4x R60T under wings

-2x R23 + 4x R60T under wings (ie. identical to MiG-23P standard loadout)

-2x R23 + 4x R73 Archer under wings

max internal fuel 17660kg with provision for 5300 litre external tank on centreline underbelly

Soyuz-Tumanksi R15-BD-300 non-bypass engines 86.24/110kN 1000hrs life

service ceiling 23750m for 2min

claimed reliable 3000km/h true at 13000m with full weapons load, 2.35 Mach extended cruise

MiG-25RBT 1978-82 Foxbat-B (update, R variant 1969, RB variant 1970)

slightly reduced wingspan (13.418m from 14.015m)

6x FAB-500 bombs (4 under wings, 2 under fuselage centreline), precision geographic sighting system for use at 20000m/supersonic

provision for 5300 litre external tank under fuselage

Soyuz-Tumanski R15-BD-300 non-bypass engines

service ceiling 21000m (presumably unrestricted)

max wing loading 671kg/m^2

range supersonic 1635km, with external tank 2130km

range subsonic 1865km, with external tank 2400km

MiG-25BM 1982-85 Foxbat-F

-4x Kh-58 kilter antiradiation missiles under wings

camera modules switched for further enhanced ECM suite

otherwise as RBT/V/S series

vanir · March 9, 2009

Now the Foxhound, where do we begin? The D30F6 engines have a demonstrated reliability of "several hundred-thousand hours by 1992" (ref. Perm Scientific and Production Enterprise, formerly Shvetsov, formerly Soloviev) with a 0.57 bypass and overall pressure ratio of 21.15:1, four flame rings in the high volume afterburner and a FADEC control system. Rated 93.2/151.9-186.1kN, now this is just space shuttle territory. Design features are 2.83 Mach cruise at 11000-21000m and 1.25 Mach at sea level.

The Foxhound itself is listed by Mikoyan for 2.35 Mach cruise, 0.85 Mach economy cruise (60% range improvement) and 3000km/h true at 17500m outright or 1500km/h at sea level.

Supersonic g-rating is 5g, with overall structure at least 16% titanium and 50% nickel steel (with light alloys and some composites).

max internal fuel is 20250kg with provision for two underwing external tanks of 2500 litres each, there is also a retractable refuelling probe.

radius of combat action with 4x R33 missiles is 720km at 2.35 Mach

CAP radius with 4x R33, two underwing tanks and one flight refuelling is 2200km using econocruise.

max wing loading is 750kg/m^2

airframe speed restriction is 2.83 Mach

Now the real trick here is vastly improved low altitude performance over the Foxbat, partly by reducing exhaust diameter and yet gains in altitude performance with the improved efficiency of low-bypass turbines (the exhausts are still pretty big) for a net gain on both counts, though actual top speed limitations are unchanged.

It does take almost 8min to get a full weapon load from a standing start to 10000m, but like the Foxbat the MiG-31 really shines once you've already got some altitude and airspeed up and it is still very fast in a straight line down low. Not many aircraft can make 1500km/h at sea level.

Idea was, intercept the B-1B at 50m altitude, intercept its standoff missile launches, match BVR air superiority with a Tomcat at 12000m, scare off an SR-71 at 25000m and launch an ASAT to take out military satellites at 500km. Ambitious, yes.

But Kelly Johnson said when the USAF decided to forego high Mach strategic development for extreme transonic performance coupled with improved weapons/survivability technologies (a doctrine which remains to this day), it was the biggest mistake they ever made. The true test of this comment will remain with the F-22/F-35 and future Soviet models, which benefit from mass produced high Mach development.

A quick comparison is the Fulcrum versus F-16, although in fairness the Viper was originally aimed at combating something like the Flogger. Another is the F-15 versus Flanker, which broke many of its performance world records with 2 and 4 ton weapons loads (time to altitude armed for combat remains unmatched in the world).

Still, American aircraft/missile avionics trumps the Russians all the way to the bank except for the excellent Archer, EOS and helmet designator combination. Soviet radar avionics claims are largely unproved, but equally impressive.

Yet it is a mistake to think Soviet airframe design itself is strictly old tech whilst American is new tech, this is the product of manufacturer salesmanship and regional culture. It would be far more reasonable to assert both nations decided to head down entirely different paths, rather ignorant to think one is really better in all circumstance to the other. Soviet military and technological doctrine always concentrated on the strategic aspect. The US went the route of tactical engagements and policing actions, deferring to a doctrine of likelihoods in immediate deployment.

Soviets played chess, Americans played checkers.

The Russian PVO claims simply American overflights of Russian airspace by the SR-71 promptly halted when the Foxhound was fielded and began intercept sorties. They're quite proud of it, though the American story is model obsolescence, improved international relations and airframe wear.

The Foxhound itself is seen to have a limited deployment opportunity in the current environment. The Russian Federation has been trying to sell them, or fund further development projects of the type but has met with no interest, not even for the ASAT modification for the Chinese market. It is said only a bare handful of the original 300 or so remain serviceable.

But for supersonic performance and handling, from sea level to the very highest altitudes nothing remaining in service can match it, and to attempt it would require a beast like the YF-12 which could barely function at low-medium altitude.

The Foxhound is very, very expensive but it can chase down just about anything, just about anywhere, under just about any conditions. I enjoyed reading Israeli F-15 drivers commentary on older (Syrian?) Foxbats, which they claimed were the only serious threat they faced at the time but were indeed quite alarming. The IAF quite simply did its very best to ensure most, if not all were destroyed on the ground. Of the few engagements between F-15s and Foxbats some were inconclusive due to the MiG's ability to simply leave the engagement at will. One should have to assume the Foxhound exaggerates this benefit somewhat, since it cannot be denied it vastly improves the Foxbat performance envelope.

In LOMAC this plane should definitely not handle just like a Foxbat with two seats and a new weapons option, let alone that the Foxbat doesn't handle like a Foxbat anyway.

RedTiger · March 9, 2009

I have to be the bearer of the TL: DR notice, but...TL: DR.

Please realize that LOMAC is a 6 year-old survey sim. It looks like your complaint is about the Foxbat. The flyable planes aren't nearly as realistic as they could be, let alone one that is AI-only. I'm not even sure those even have proper flight models. The "arcade factor" of LOMAC has been discussed for years. I realize that it might be new to you, but being disapointed now is a little after the fact, IMO. The product reached the end of its life cycle a while back, I'm afraid.

Edited March 9, 2009 by RedTiger

golfsierra2 · March 9, 2009

I was thinking of tweaking the meinit.xml a bit:

IMHO, it should be possible to manipulate the acceleration and the max speed by adjusting the values for

EmptyWeight="20000" and MaxTakeOffWeight="41200"

and maybe one could even swap the whole physical model with another by keeping the Shape="MIG-25P", but changing the WorldID.

Anybody here who tried this before ?

Maybe, with another combination it is possible to change the flight characteristics for the MiG-25 more to what vanir expected.

192nd_Erdem · March 9, 2009

Thanks for very informative post :)

But I think you're approaching very complicated to the sim. It's not. Every aircraft except the flyables use very very basic flight models, because they were not important at that point. Even DCS aircraft haven't taken big steps about this as far as I know. Our best bet is an air superiority aircraft module like Su-27 or F-15 so that ED will consider having realistically modelled AI aircraft.

Lock-On was a fabulous simulation indeed, but it wasn't a very detailed or realistic one. That's why ED has started DCS series, and all we can do is wait now. Don't forget to nag them regularly about better AI and AI FM modelling too :D

EDIT: Do you have a blog where you post these kind of articles? I really really enjoyed reading them :joystick:

Edited March 9, 2009 by 192nd_Erdem
awesome

Kuky · March 9, 2009

golfsierra2, I don't think changing those values would work... I think I tried it before and seems those values are just for info on the aircraft only and FM is coded somewhere else.

GGTharos · March 9, 2009

Thanks for the interesting information, but ... on another note ... congratulations on getting fixated on an AI aircraft :)

vanir · March 10, 2009

Okay, well thanks for the replies fellers. I think I understand the game a bit better now.

I'll give the adjustments golfsierra suggested a try, but it may indeed be doubtful they'll work. Here's fingers crossed :)

Since I play SP offline it's pretty natural I'd get fixated about AI aircraft performance. That's what I'm fighting in any of my missions. I actually tend to use flight sims like this and Il2 as an inspiration for speculative fiction.

edit: yah I had a look and it seems I need a dedicated script editor with Russian language support...and Russian language skills. Either that or a Russian version of notepad and Russian language skills...I could install cyrillic script into windows but I'd still need to learn Russian. Dammit.

I at least made cosmetic adjustments for correct weights and airframe loadings in the xml file for MiG-25PD, RBT and 31, so I assume the object viewer will stop lying to me. Some figures were way off.

Hey just a sidetrack of interest. I actually found additional performance benchmarks released by Mikoyan for the MiG-31 more recent than those I had. Its time from runway start to 10000m is indeed 7.9min (4x R33 carried) but its continued climb 10000m-20000m takes only 1min longer, which I think really expresses the performance differences we need to be seeing in any reputable flight sim intending to represent them accurately.

It is of course a given this was not a priority for LOMAC...but can't I wish for a patch or opened code?

Edited March 10, 2009 by vanir

vanir · March 10, 2009

Thanks for very informative post :)

But I think you're approaching very complicated to the sim. It's not. Every aircraft except the flyables use very very basic flight models, because they were not important at that point. Even DCS aircraft haven't taken big steps about this as far as I know. Our best bet is an air superiority aircraft module like Su-27 or F-15 so that ED will consider having realistically modelled AI aircraft.

Lock-On was a fabulous simulation indeed, but it wasn't a very detailed or realistic one. That's why ED has started DCS series, and all we can do is wait now. Don't forget to nag them regularly about better AI and AI FM modelling too :D

EDIT: Do you have a blog where you post these kind of articles? I really really enjoyed reading them :joystick:

Thankyou for your kind words. I'm a hard copy writer looking to get published and haven't even figured out how to make a webpage yet to be honest :D

First step is generally inspiration, in which I get a little excited at times (hence my serious decision to become a writer).

Some more info for your enjoyment: I was running around updating my info on the Foxhound and ran into some interesting current expenditure at Mikoyan OKB. Firstly no less than 650 Foxhound-A were equipped in service with the PVO based at Archangelisk and the Far East (modern Kazakhstan and around Vladivostok). Some 150 are currently listed as serviceable with around 300 in operating condition. My figures were less than half this, but well out of date.

The mid-90s improvement project MiG-31M was indeed cancelled due to escalating costs and economic collapse. The later MiG-31D ASAT project was also indeed the subject of international disinterest, with 3 prototypes built and then abandoned. There was a civilian project which is still current based on this, for putting small satellites in orbit using the Foxhound as a launch platform. This is available.

Two further variants are current as at late 2008.

The MiG-31BM is a multirole update based on the M project and the PVO is currently in the process of updating all Foxhounds in service to this standard, with MFDs and other general avionics updates, R-77 capability and a wide variety of ground attack hardware available. It is listed as an air-superiority and ground attack type with extreme airframe performance. The main basis is the Flash Dance radar which NATO still admits is the most powerful ever fitted to a fighter aircraft to date. Effective missile lock range is claimed by Mikoyan as 280km with up to 8 targets engaged simultaneously and rearward hemisphere targeting due to pure signal strength. The entire front of the airframe is used as the antenna, with digital "virtual movement" of the search zone (the dish itself does not need to gimbal). ECM is of course similarly updated.

The MiG-31F is an export version of this, currently available for purchases at a hefty price. According to some reputable speculators it is a good match for the avionics/weapons complexity of any other 5th generation model at BVR and the penetration strike role and of course unmatched for high Mach performance in general.

Word is development of the R-37 has restarted too.

The Foxhound fleet is projected to be brought back up to full strength, with contemporary features and avionics/weapons/ECM/datalink performance and kept in service until at least 2015.

I should add the way I've read what has been listed and claimed may be subjective to a degree as I am not an aircraft engineer or experienced military pilot, just a civvie. My take on the claims might be different to actual real world performance.

Edited March 10, 2009 by vanir

Sign In

disappointing arcade depictions

Recommended Posts

vanir

vanir

vanir

RedTiger

golfsierra2

192nd_Erdem

Kuky

GGTharos

vanir

vanir

Recently Browsing 0 members