SU-27 need corrections in FC2.0

[Reason]

possibly most of us "loves" SU-27 flanker. We dont change it.....we like to fly with this aircraft.

when I buy Lock on FC2.0 I thought that I was going to see something different.

And is true. I saw different grapfics....wich I adore them. I saw details that I never seen before. even the realistic damage of the aircrafts (still need some corrections) it is a perfect game....

BUT.....

I was very dissapointed when I saw that there are several mistakes on SU-27...especialy on weapons of SU-27. A new game in 2010 that have a Su-27 like it stuck back in 1980's.

On the following link is the weapons that a REAL SU-27 can take.

http://adiewicaksono.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/su-27skm_sheme_b_eng.gif

 

including the R-77 Amramski(it is writen as R-VV AE), Kh-31 P&a, Kh-29 and other more. This is the REAL, I reapeat, THE REAL weapons load of a Su-27. after some search that I done I decided to post it here. So the people in Eagle Dynamics to correct Su-27 weapons load. To make it "real" in the game. If they wanted to make F-15 better......Why they didnt put F-22 insteed the F-15.

 

In Lock on....Unfortunatelly they made it very poor.I was very dissapointed because the Su-27 is still one of the best aircraft in the world better than F-15A and C edition. and here they just "kill" it, or better....They "shot it down". they destroy the balance of the Russian and American aircrafts.

I hope what I wrote. someone to see it. To agree or to dissagree with me or to discuss about that.

I hope also Eagle Dynamics people to see it and to re-think about the SU-27 by correcting the Su-27 with a patch. Because untill now there are a lot of Variants of Su-27 that they could put in the game if they dont want to change Su-27.

 

Thank you.

 

Tiger... ED is make FC2.0 for f15c pilots... we know that and all our questions and requests are vainly because ED dont wanna to hear our voice. Always give to us some politic "explanation" with hiden piont. Ok, we are unpowered to talk with ED.

 

So, gents we have ANSWER for wrongness maked on russian planes. Soon =RvE= dedicated server will aprove to SU27 to take r77 and lets dance. =SE= dedicated comming soon and r77 for SU27 will be aproved to. I hope so <51> dedicated agree with r77 to and conspiracy against russian planes will be finished forever soon. I call all other squads wich prefer russian birds to follow us!!!

 

P.S. cute pics in game with F15c details im changed with more cutest RUSSIAN BIRDS, now i see F15c only on my radar :P

[Boberro]

OMG again same silly thread about how Flanker has been crippled in Lo by ED....

 

I see everyone of forum's high-tech Sukhois engineers grab Wikipedia's information instead real ones.

[Boberro]

Tiger... ED is make FC2.0 for f15c pilots... we know that and all our questions and requests are vainly because ED dont wanna to hear our voice. Always give to us some politic "explanation" with hiden piont. Ok, we are unpowered to talk with ED.

 

So, gents we have ANSWER for wrongness maked on russian planes. Soon =RvE= dedicated server will aprove to SU27 to take r77 and lets dance. =SE= dedicated comming soon and r77 for SU27 will be aproved to. I hope so <51> dedicated agree with r77 to and conspiracy against russian planes will be finished forever soon. I call all other squads wich prefer russian birds to follow us!!!

 

P.S. cute pics in game with F15c details im changed with more cutest RUSSIAN BIRDS, now i see F15c only on my radar :P

 

 

So why don't you put whole Su-27 SM payload? Can't you get over that Su-27S is primary Russian Air Force model? :)

[Exorcet]

The same thing would happen to the 27 as did the other 100+ loses.....it would lose against the F-15.

 

This is the problem. People extrapolate the F-15's combat record absurdly. It is true that if you take a flash light and shine it down a forest path, and see that the path is mostly straight, that you can guess that the very next part of the path is also straight. However, if you try to deduce anything farther down the path than that, you will only be making a wild guess, you don't have any information.

 

It's the same here. The kill record itself is not evidence for the Eagle's performance relative to other aircraft at all. And even better, its record contains no Flanker kills.

 

If one were to do the same with the Su-27, which also has no combat losses, then that person could consider the Flanker invincible too. Now we have too invincible planes. Obviously, this doesn't make sense.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

If =RvE= server brings R-77's to Flankers, I am sure most of the players will play on that server. Although, Su-27S does not carry R-77's in real life.

[Fahhh]

I myself am not a huge fan of the LO F-15 and the tactics used by its pilots. Sometimes however I don't understand what the fuss is all about. I've said it before, We will fight with whatever we have. You want R-77's - go fly the MiG. This will in addition teach you to manage your fuel much better, and also make your search patterns more thorough and good, because of the limited range, you gotta work efficiently and fast, also react fast to threats. Last but not least - use teamwork. The same goes for the Flanker. Tougher eagles will give pilots of the russian birds more of a challenge, so whoever wants to get more proficient and better in air-combat, be it BVR or CAC, will benefit from this.

 

Giving the flanker R-77s is not much of a solution... Yeah I would like to have 9 tons of fuel and 8 R-77s under my wings, but we will be back to the 'good old Full burners take off, climb, spam all of your ARH's, run fast and land' tactic.

 

I'd like to play the game the way it was designed, so we'll just have to overcome some of the advantages of the eagles, by adapting and employing different strategies and tactics. I enjoy a kill much more when I outsmarted the enemy, and not out-fueled/out-ammo-ed, out-run him. That is the decision, not a fix for the flanker, but rather a fix in the thinking of how a fight against an eagle should be fought!

[SEFalcon]

Fact 1. SU27S dont have r77 in list of its arment. and never had and never will in realty.

 

Fact 2. Russia didnt have any conflict where they will need r77 on su27s.

 

BUT:

 

Fact 3. hipoteticly, and we are there in lockon, if russia have need to put r77 on su27s, what do u think how much time will they spend for that isue. my opinion is about 15 min?

 

We have only 1 diffrent between US and Russia. US is constanly in war from II WW and they have need of ARH missle. Russia dont. and that is it. I will repeat 1 point of my view. hipoteticly if Russia and US have direct conflict, and dont use nuke, russa would use r77 on su27s, and i think that is fact.

 

Guys, Russia and US are in WAR in FC!

 

 

P.S. @Admin... sry for my mistake and login with old account with nickname "Reason", i

dont know why my Opera (ctrl+enter) login me like that. This is my old acc and i dont wanna be hiden or use two account. Im make new one because cant change Nickname... sry for that. Curently use =SE=Falcon.

[zakobi]

This is the problem. People extrapolate the F-15's combat record absurdly. It is true that if you take a flash light and shine it down a forest path, and see that the path is mostly straight, that you can guess that the very next part of the path is also straight. However, if you try to deduce anything farther down the path than that, you will only be making a wild guess, you don't have any information.

 

It's the same here. The kill record itself is not evidence for the Eagle's performance relative to other aircraft at all. And even better, its record contains no Flanker kills.

 

If one were to do the same with the Su-27, which also has no combat losses, then that person could consider the Flanker invincible too. Now we have too invincible planes. Obviously, this doesn't make sense.

 

But... Isn't the answer 42? :doh: :D

[kulbit]

Yes, they kept Soviet Era capabilities. Sorry to break it to you, but there are only two squadrons of SM's in Russia, and there's no data on it.

The SK is an export version of the S; the SKM is similar for the SM IIRC.

 

There are only two squadrons of SU27 SM because from now all the SU27 (and SM too) will be replaced by the newest SU35.

Sukhoi Company started implementing state contract on Su-35S multifunctional highly maneuverable fighter jets delivery to the Russian Defense Ministry. The contract was signed last August at the MAKS 2009 aerospace show on the delivery of 48 Sukhoi Su-35S before 2015 to the Defense Ministry. This is the largest purchase of modern fighter jets by the Russian Air Force in the past two decades. The Sukhoi’s Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aviation Production Association (KnAAPO) in accordance with the approved schedule has already started production of component parts. Contracts were signed with sub-contractors for supply of necessary units, mechanisms and equipment. The assembly of the first serial planes is scheduled for 2010.Long-term contracts for the fighter aircraft delivery to the Russian Air Force and foreign customers allow Sukhoi Company to provide for a steady work load of its serial plants by combat aircraft production and make a shift from modernizing aircraft in the Russian Air Force inventory to production of new products. Delivery of new Su-35S fighter jets will strengthen the country’s defense potential and allow re-arming of combat aviation. The Su-35 is a substantially modernized highly maneuverable multifunctional 4++ generation aircraft employing technologies of the 5th generation. They make it superior to all other 4th generation fighter jets now under development worldwide such as F35, Typhoon and others.The Su-35, originally known as the Su-27M, is an improved derivative of the successful single-seat Su-27 Flanker designed as a 4+ generation multi-role fighter. Building upon Su-27 advanced aerodynamic design, the new aircraft features super-maneuverability, more powerful NPO Saturn 117S Thrust Vectoring Control (TVC) engines, new avionics, extended service life, and advanced air-to-air and air-to-surface precision strike capabilities. TVC engines provide no angle of attack limitation and enhanced maneuverability which outperforms all known fourth and fifth generation fighter aircraft. Under the Su-27M/Su-35 designation Sukhoi and KnAAPO have built 17 aircraft, 16 single-seat (five Su-27-based prototypes, two static-test airframes, six pre-production and three production aircraft) and one two-seat airframes.

From its inception in the early 1990s, the Su-27M/Su-35 program has suffered the Russian Federation/Russian Air Force turmoil circumstances which delayed its development and changed the program's scope. The program scope was last updated in the mid-2000s with Sukhoi and KnAAPO projecting the first production Su-35 aircraft on active duty by 2009. One of the program's scope is to get a hardened airframe. The final Su-35 may incorporate more titanium alloys thus extending the aircraft's service life to 6,000 flight hours or 30 years. Overhauls are extended to every 1,500 flight hours or 10 years of operation. Another key feature of the Su-35 program is the X-band radar cross section reduction in the front hemisphere covering +/- 60 degrees.

 

The aerodynamic layout is leveraged from the Su-27 which means no canard foreplanes despite what was seen on the prototypes unveiled in the 1990s. The flight performance will be enhanced thanks to the three-channel KSU-35 fly-by-wire system being developed by MNPK Avionika. The upper air brake has been discarded and its function is taken over by differentially deflected rudders and the landing gear has been strengthened. The internal volumes re-design has allowed a fuel capacity increase by more than 20 percent to 11,500 kg which can attain 14,300 kg adding two 1,800-l external fuel tanks.

The production aircraft will feature X-band Irbis advanced phased array radar system capable of traking even a plane with very low rcs as the "stealth" F22, more powerful 117S engines, the latest Russian-made communication and radio-electronic equipment, glass cockpit with MFI-35 15-inch color multi-functional LCD displays, digital computers, HOTAS (Hands On Throttle and Stick) flight controls, wingtip-mounted ECM pods, drogue-and-hose air refueling system with a fuel transfer ratio of 1,100-liter/minute, OLS-35 Infrared Search and Track (IRST) System, and optional targeting pod as well as new avionics and weapons. Provided with 12 external hard-points the Su-35 would be able to carry an 8,000 kg payload.

The weapon options during air engagements include: one internally-mounted GSh-301 30mm cannon; eight R-27ER1 and four R-27ET1 or R-27EP1 or twelve RVV-AE/R-77 medium range air-to-air missiles (AAMs) even in the new IR seeker head version R-77R; up to six R-73E close-range AAMs. In the air-to-surface role the Su-35 may carry: six Kh-29TE or Kh-29L missiles; six Kh-31A anti-ship and/or Kh-31P anti-radiation missiles; five advanced Kh-59MK long-range anti-ship missiles as well as five Kh-58UShE extended-range anti-radiation missiles; three Club-family long-range anti-ship missiles (3M-14AE/3M-54AE1); or a single Yakhont heavy long-range anti-ship missile. The guided bombs include: up to eight TV-guided KAB-500KR/OD; or KAB-500S-E (Russian JDAM counterpart) and/or KAB-500L; up to three KAB-1500KR or KAB-1500L. The aircraft may be equipped with rockets and alternate weapons under development.

The first Su-35 aircraft performed its maiden flight summer 2007 and was displayed at the MAKS 2007 airshow in Moscow. The trials program started on February 20, 2008, and is expected to extend through early 2009. The Su-35 should be ready to enter active service with the Russian Air Force and foreign customers in 2010-2011 timeframe. According to Sukhoi, the Su-35 aircraft is intended for both Russian and export markets. It was reported by the Russian press that Venezuela may convert its existing order for 24 Su-30MK fighters into Su-35s thus becoming the first export customer.

 

Yes it's time to change!

Edited April 8, 2010 by kulbit

[Vault]

Custom LOPE'd unrealistic payloads FTW!!, big rofl.

[Exorcet]

But... Isn't the answer 42? :doh: :D

 

You didn't factor the square root, it's 26.

 

 

But seriously, I don't mind R-77 on the Flanker if there is a way to do it realistically (I'm not an expert on the 27 varients, so I'm not sure how different the R-77 and non R-77 Flankers are, though the answers is probably in this thread somewhere). I might actually like to give it a shot.

 

But again, why not simulate a 70's/80's conflict. AMRAAM entered service in the 90's. If the fight happens before then, no AMRAAM. Everyone is using SARH, everything is more balanced and still realistic.

[RedTiger]

Can someone in the know please make a thread explaining the ins and outs of the Su-27 modeled in the game vs. the reality of the 1990s post-Soviet industrial military complex vs. the F-15C modelend in FC 2.0 vs. the 30 years worth of on-going improvements and constant day to day tweaks of radar software?

 

Pretty please? Maybe EvilBivol? Because with the interest in FC 2.0, this is going to pop up a lot. Newbies reading Yefim Gordon books or that one Australian guy's web page wondering why the Flanker in FC can't track 10,000 targets and firing on over 9000 of them from 250 km away.

 

Maybe a simple chart?

 

Su-27 developement timeline:

 

first conceived -> [----------------THE 1990s-] <- now

 

 

F-15 development time line:

 

first conceived -> [----------------------------------------------------------] <- now

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

(continuing development uninterrupted due to the lack of economic and political collapse)

 

I'm sorry if someone takes offense at the reality of the events of 1991. However it happend. I saw it. The wall came down and the Soviet Union ceased to exist. Unfortunately for the Su-27, its development suffered. There are no politics involved in this statememt, do not infer any. This is simple history.

 

If you do what I do and take the planes for what they are, with the history behind them, you will enjoy it more. This is one reason why I fly the MiG-29A often and personally hope with see a DCS version some day. I'm confident that we will, seeing as there is a lot of info out there on it.

 

I love the fact that its so simple, so lightly armed, a natural successor to the MiG-21. I imagine it like a pilot-driven arrow launched at invaders en masse to repel attacks over home soil. I like that it was so greatly respected and talked about despite its simplicity and rather limited capability. I like the rumor that it changed NATO tactics because it was the first to have true look-down capability. The fact that it wouldn't stand a chance vs. the F-15C is meaningles to me.

Edited April 8, 2010 by RedTiger

[near_blind]

I guess if we're demanding high tech 2000's era Flankers, The APG-63(V2) is needed for the Eagle :music_whistling:

 

The 27ER travels faster and the Flanker carries more of them per sortie. I find it much deadlier in FC2.

Edited April 8, 2010 by near_blind

[Frostie]

If im going to fly with R-77's on a Flanker I want the avionic upgrades to go with it including uprated Flanker TWS, its not happening as the info required is not known.

I'll just carry on regardless with this unbalanced sim, flying 20th century Flankers Vs 21st century F-15's. :)

[Szelma]

Antonio Tiger GR

Are you EMO ?

:smilewink:

[kingneptune117]

This is the problem. People extrapolate the F-15's combat record absurdly. It is true that if you take a flash light and shine it down a forest path, and see that the path is mostly straight, that you can guess that the very next part of the path is also straight. However, if you try to deduce anything farther down the path than that, you will only be making a wild guess, you don't have any information.

 

It's the same here. The kill record itself is not evidence for the Eagle's performance relative to other aircraft at all. And even better, its record contains no Flanker kills.

 

If one were to do the same with the Su-27, which also has no combat losses, then that person could consider the Flanker invincible too. Now we have too invincible planes. Obviously, this doesn't make sense.

 

The eagle has WAY better avionics than the flanker. It is also built of higher quality materials. The flanker is a budget plane, its that simple. Just compare the two planes minimum turns radiuses, the eagles is smaller.

[DarkWanderer]

Actually, the fact that only the Su-27SM carries R-77, does not mean that Su-27S needs the full SM set of avionics - since MiG-29C, which is of the same "technology level", can carry it. Actually, the only things that need to be changed are WCS firmware and (possibly) pylon electronic interface.

What I mean is that since LRM sacrifices realism for gameplay reasons, I don't see a reason for not putting R-77's in limited amounts on Su-27 on the servers that use it - for the very same gameplay reasons.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

I am against R-77's on current FC 2.0 Flankers. If you want ARH missiles, take Fulcrum S. Mission designers should always implement GCI on a side that uses Flankers and Fulcrums because these aircraft are designed from ground up to use GCI's.

[Frostie]

I am against R-77's on current FC 2.0 Flankers. If you want ARH missiles, take Fulcrum S. Mission designers should always implement GCI on a side that uses Flankers and Fulcrums because these aircraft are designed from ground up to use GCI's.

Exactly, the only reason i can see people wanting 77's is because they've lost the ability to MD and run.

 

FC2.0 is how it should be now, flying a Flanker is for heroic team work where as the MiG's and Eagle's are suited for the lonewolf fanboys.:D

 

The eagle has WAY better avionics than the flanker.

Im guessing you've tested both of them, because you have WAY too much info to be an average Joe.

[Vault]

I understand why people want the Flanker donning R-77's because the Flanker sucks big monkey balls, but that's still no excuse for sacraficing realism over favouritism and ego's. :D

[Madman777]

ED...if you simulated the entire world...there would still be people complaining that you forgot to include the moon and mars.:huh:

Edited April 8, 2010 by Madman777
spelling :-)

[Fahhh]

I understand why people want the Flanker donning R-77's because the Flanker sucks big monkey balls, but that's still no excuse for sacraficing realism over favouritism and ego's. :D

 

Now this is how forum flaming wars start. I'm pretty damn sure, that the Flanker in the hands of a well-trained squad, such as the 51st PVO will kick(and they have kicked) almost any F-15 equipped squad right in the butt, with the 'sucking' Flanker... I think I've had enough of this, this was my last post in this thread...

[Vault]

Now this is how forum flaming wars start. I'm pretty damn sure, that the Flanker in the hands of a well-trained squad, such as the 51st PVO will kick(and they have kicked) almost any F-15 equipped squad right in the butt, with the 'sucking' Flanker... I think I've had enough of this, this was my last post in this thread...

 

Wow some people are so uptight! Chill out it's only a game. That comment was a tongue in cheek reply to the comment below. ;)

 

FC2.0 is how it should be now, flying a Flanker is for heroic team work where as the MiG's and Eagle's are suited for the lonewolf fanboys.:D

Edited April 8, 2010 by Vault
Spelling

[MoGas]

I don't see any reason, to put the Flankers down always......., I get more kills in a shorter time with the Flanker then with the Eagle.

 

Some guys think, the can apply every tactic on each plane the same way, on the Flanker u have to use a different tactic as the F-15's for example.

[Bouddha]

Now this is how forum flaming wars start. I'm pretty damn sure, that the Flanker in the hands of a well-trained squad, such as the 51st PVO will kick(and they have kicked) almost any F-15 equipped squad right in the butt, with the 'sucking' Flanker... I think I've had enough of this, this was my last post in this thread...

 

 

In FC2 ?

 

Maybe they can share what tactic they apply to do so.

 

regards