Moved from Patch Wishlist 1.13 thread

[RvEYoda]

Strange you should say that when you know full well that in LO you just need to fire an AMRAAM without even knowing where the bandit is and the missile will find it for you even if he isn't anywhere near your Boresight. Not too realistic IMO.

 

 

My post regards real life naturally, or maybe you missed the point

about me wanting to reduce scan angles.

Edited May 5, 2009 by =RvE=Yoda

[Frostie]

LRM aims at preventing this missile to be used as if it was an IR AMRAAM, wich it isnt.

I think you mean a 'LockOn IR AMRAAM'.:D

 

The abolishment of ET override will just open up an old can of worms even wider if the scan cones are not addressed aswell.

As it stands maddog missiles are the main fear for both sides when Eagle faces Flanker, either side can maddog and run from 20+km (totally unrealistic from both sides) but the doubt remains for both side whether to press a running bandit.

 

If the Override gets abolished then only Eagles will be able to perform this exploit and press running Flankers with no worries while Eagles run free, this is the balance that needs to be addressed.

 

Obviously AMRAAM, R-77 and Aim-9 (maybe others) needing more speed is essential.

 

Maybe this edit won't get a trolled.

[GGTharos]

... and you keep dreaming about things you can't do. ;)

 

Fighter radars operate on different frequencies to ensure they don't screw up each other's shots; similarly, if you mount a PESA/AESA radar in that flanker, you can guide your two SARH's simultaneously to two different targets. Otherwise feel free to forget about it. ;)

 

Su-27 - I'd like to see it able to paint targets for buddy's semi actives, and be able to track and attack 2 targets at once with semi-actives =p

[Vault]

I thought using launch override on a Russian fighter was for ditching weapons in an emergency!?.

[Pilotasso]

Are you making all this up right from the tip of your nose?

 

The ET is not an anti-supersonic-bomber missile. Why? It has the same range as the ER. Assuming you were right about the pointlessness of IR-missiles in BVR, then why would the Russians waste an ET for a job that can be done with an ER just as well? This doesn't make sense.

 

 

No Im not making this up. You should read some more before arguing. First Kinetic range is not a determining factor on its own. the ET's range is limited by its sensor specialy in the forward hemisphere. IR is absorbed by watter vapor and the engine is at the back of the aircraft. how can you argue arround this?

 

Adding to the fact the R-27ET has no datalink and being an IR missile it wont aquire any target after a mid course datalinked assitance to allow a launch before seeker lock.

 

The russians didnt waste a missile with the ET, its just used for different tasks than those you idialized.

 

 

Are you making all this up right from the tip of your nose?

 

 

The stuff about balancing the plane is hilarious. The Flanker has a FBW control system. It will not roll because of there being 4 missiles on its right and 5 missiles on its left. That is not the reason for salvoing missiles.

 

 

Hilarious? Su-27S/P have only analog tripple channel in pitch. Early versions had midwing stations that carry the R-27ER each weighting in 350Kg. Later they added 2 extra pylons.

 

Su-27 FBW serves the aircraft in a different way than western digital FBW and relaxed stability.

 

Analog pitch FBW only prevents the pilot from overcontroling pitch. You still have to trim it, not only to pitch but to unnassisted roll as well. Guess what, more weight on one side makes it roll. it is described the procedures of combat depitcting multiple missile launches, usualy in pairs, both by 2 SARH missiles as well as IR/SARH mix with the double purpose of increasing the probability of kill and balancing the aircraft.

 

I think this has been written here from the Su-27 manual somewhere.

 

 

 

Also the IR ranges are not the same anymore as they were 20 years ago. The NVA MiGs taken over by the Bundeswehr were said to be having 8nm range for their IRSTs. They were equipped with R-73s which had seekers that could lock onto it's target from some 5-6nm. But that was 20 years ago and it was "export gear" back then already. Modern IRST system are claimed to have ranges of 100km (45km head-on). Modern seekers are claimed to have ranges of 45km (18km head-on). Such seekers are good enough for BVR, if the missiles is guided in similarly to an AMRAAM and if the target is forced to break away.

 

And while it's true, that IR is not suitable in a cloud one also gotta say, that there is not always clouds everwhere. And even less often there are many clouds at 4+ km altitude. Especially in large parts of Russia, and even more so during Russian winter. I think you can figure this out yourself.

 

And now you made me write this without me actually wanting an improvement to the heaters. Have you been trolling me?

 

Even past 20 years we still didnt change the laws of physiscs with tehcnology. It still doesnt see through cloud mist. As far As i recall engines dont afterburn forward either. And IRST doesn not sweep the sky like a radar. ;)

 

You have to spot the target first.

Edited May 5, 2009 by Pilotasso

[Pilotasso]

I think you mean a 'LockOn IR AMRAAM'.:D

 

The abolishment of ET override will just open up an old can of worms even wider if the scan cones are not addressed aswell.

As it stands maddog missiles are the main fear for both sides when Eagle faces Flanker, either side can maddog and run from 20+km (totally unrealistic from both sides) but the doubt remains for both side whether to press a running bandit.

 

If the Override gets abolished then only Eagles will be able to perform this exploit and press running Flankers with no worries while Eagles run free, this is the balance that needs to be addressed.

 

Obviously AMRAAM, R-77 and Aim-9 (maybe others) needing more speed is essential.

 

Maybe this edit won't get a trolled.

 

I dont expect ED to fix maddog abilities for russian missiles and leave the AMRAAM like that. Your assuming the worst possible case from your point of view. Besides it is much easier to avoid a missile that is slow and gives warning than faster missiles like the R-77 or another that doesnt give warning at all, the R-27ET.

 

In any case its bad for both sides, if this is adressed there wont be a can of worms to be opened just new habits have to be learned for every player.

 

 

I dont see how the f-15 is the most deadly plane in the game, sure its TWS radar featue is neat but the slow missiles takes the fangs away. you can have all the eyes you wish but without fangs you dont get the kills.

 

Whenever F-15's or migs are put in the same side online, the mig is usualy preferred. Why is that?

Edited May 5, 2009 by Pilotasso

[RvEYoda]

I could tell you what an r27ET of the lockon era(or even after, think early 2000, late 1990s)

could have in terms of seeker range, although i'd be jumped from 10 different people by doing so ;).

From someone I talked to with first hand experience with this missile's seeker...

 

Let's just say... In order to use this missile in real life in BVR against an enemy fighter,

what you would need to do to fulfill both the kinetic and seeker requirements,

you would need to have the target plane flying towards you with good speed,

flying backwarrds(!), showing its afterburners to the missile seeker...

 

and it would also need to be cloud free.

 

This over dependence in lockon on ETs can only be solved if the chaff/radarFloor/barrell problems

get fixed properly, in combination with increasing the kinetic power of most missiles while removing

the dumb LA override sploit with ETs.

Edited May 5, 2009 by =RvE=Yoda

[Breakshot]

LOL... this is truly low... to move the thread, and to rename its topic to create a mockery in another is just beyond disrespectful... im deleting the whole thing as this is just as low as it gets by whoever is moderated it... shame shame on you :megalol:

[nscode]

Asymmetric loading limits your max G. It does not make you unflyable.

[504Goon]

I thought using launch override on a Russian fighter was for ditching weapons in an emergency!?.

 

You're right, that's exactly and only what it is for.

[Wilde]

You should read some more before arguing.

 

Ehemmm, only recently someone quoted the flight manual of the Su-27SK in these forums. Yes, that's the export version from 1991.

 

take a look

 

Now go ahead and tell me to read a bit more. Obviously someone else isn't following his own advices...

[Pilotasso]

Dude...go back and tell me where that quote goes against anything I said.

[Wilde]

A Hot glow can be seen some 18km away in clear skies

 

It was only a couple of hours ago...

[GGTharos]

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/es310/IR_prop/IR_prop.htm

 

Not entirely convinced that the Su-27SK manual speaks of EOS performance alone, but I think this performance is actually reflected in LO for the IRST.

 

Modern IRST:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/mfc/Photos/MFC_IRST-ProductCard.pdf

 

(And yes, the modern ones are much more efficient and sensitive in some respects)

Edited May 5, 2009 by GGTharos

[Pilotasso]

It was only a couple of hours ago...

 

It doesn not differ from the figure the manual speaks off neither the stated conditions, does it?

[Wilde]

Not entirely convinced that the Su-27SK manual speaks of EOS performance alone, but I think this performance is actually reflected in LO for the IRST.

I agree with that. I played around with EOS a bit and I managed to achieve locks on reasonable targets in between ~15 to 30 or 40 km. ED didn't screw up this one.

 

And yes, surely modern aircraft like the Typhoon or the prototype Su-35BM probably can achieve even bigger ranges. But that's beyond LOFC actually. I don't see a good reason to simulate this.

[Wilde]

It doesn not differ from the figure the manual speaks off neither the stated conditions, does it?

Wait, you said a "hot glow" can be seen from 18km in clear skies. What is a hot glow? I'd assume thats the direct look into someones afterburner?

 

The 18 year old export-version Flanker manual says that it's EOS can track such targets at 90-100km.

 

The difference is some 500-550%

Dude, as you called me, that's not even remotely close...

[GGTharos]

Yep - keep in mind though that this does not reflect missile seeker performance. Their apertures are far, far smaller and so is their range. Calling the R-27ET a BVR missile is not likely to be very correct. I guess it could be technically correct (the best kind of correct!) but the ET does not use any range increasing measures such as lofting and MCUs - it does straight PN navigation, so rmax will be smaller to begin with just for that reason.

That and missile seekers have traditionally had issues with head-on aspects at least against fighters ;)

[Wilde]

Again I agree, GGTharos. The ET is not intended to be used head-on against a fighter. Sadly it works this way in FC. I *think* the normal procedure should be something like queuing ERs to the bogey to keep him defensive and shoot an ET after him once you're in reasonable range of the ET (20-25km?) while he is still defensive.

[GGTharos]

Yeah, I'd go with that against a fighter. It is also a great anti-bomber weapon when that B-52 turns your radar off with its jammer O.o

 

Another thing to consider - in that generation of missiles, best for hear on = RH, best for tail on = IRH.