SU-27 need corrections in FC2.0

[Wags]

Agreed. There are certainly some strong feelings about this, but don't make it personal guys.

[Erdem]

Wow 8 pages? I believe the OP is an excellent troll. Well done.

[Breakshot]

How do you rate FC2 ERs compared to FC1 ERs?

 

I would say in overall performance they comparable to FC1, however they seem better at reaquiring dropped targets, and taking into account that ECM blinking is no longer at play you are bound to keep a better track, also the burnthrough has been moved out to about 40km (on F15s) which allows some nasty long range HOJ shots, and of course chaff resistance is def better, so id say their effectiveness/employment opportunities have been increased marginally, certainly enough to not take them for granted....

 

In simple terms, they are decent, as long as you get in a good position and stay there to guide them in... :)

[GGTharos]

THat was the goal :)

[kulbit]

About the real life russian BVR philosophy in air combat.....

The Russian paradigm of BVR combat has its origins in the Cold War period, when Soviet operational analysis indicated that the low kill probability of missile seekers and airframes, especially if degraded by countermeasures, would be a major impediment to success. By the 1970s the standard Soviet technique in a BVR missile launch was to salvo two rounds, a semi-active radar homing weapon and a heatseeking weapon. To this effect some Soviet fighters even included a weapons select mode which automatically sequenced the launch of two rounds for optimal separation.

The mathematics of multiple round missile engagements are unambiguous - the size of a missile salvo launched is a stronger driver of success than the actual kill probability of the individual missiles. If the missiles are wholly identical by type, then the following curves may be optimistic, insofar as a factor degrading the kill probability of one missile is apt to have a similar effect on its siblings in a salvo. However, where the missiles differ by seeker type and guidance control laws, then the assumption of statistically independent missile shots is very much stronger.

 

 

A question often asked is why are Sukhoi Flanker variants equipped to carry between eight and twelve BVR missiles? The answer is a simple one - so they can fire more than one three or four round BVR missile salvo during the opening phases of an engagement. In this fashion the aircraft being targeted has a difficult problem as it must jam, decoy and/or outmanoeuvre three or four tightly spaced inbound missiles. Even if we assume a mediocre per round kill probability of 30 percent, a four round salvo still exceeds a total kill probability of 75 percent.

 

A critical question which must be asked when assessing the effectiveness of Russian BVR tactics is that of Western tactics and the effectiveness of the Aim 120 AMRAAM, the principal Western BVR fighter weapon. The AIM-120A AMRAAM was introduced at the end of the Cold War to provide a "fire and forget" active radar guided weapon with a midcourse inertial guidance system and datalink support provided by the radar on the launch aircraft, allowing multiple concurrent shots. The AIM-120A was followed by the incrementally improved B-model, and then by the "short span" AIM-120C-3 sized to fit the F-22A weapon bay. The AIM-120C-4 has better kinematic performance introducing a larger rocket motor and shorter control section, and a better warhead, while the AIM-120C-6 introduced a better fuse. The latest AIM-120D introduces a redesigned seeker built for better durability in high vibration carriage environments, a two way datalink, GPS to supplement inertial guidance, incrementally improved kinematics, and better seeker performance against high off-boresight targets.

Most AIM-120 AMRAAM kills to date have involved 1980s export variants of the MiG-29 Fulcrum, with mediocre electronic warfare fit and often inoperative systems. These are not representative targets in the current Pacific Rim environment.

The performance of the AIM-120A/B/C models in combat to date has not been spectacular. Test range trials have resulted in stated kill probabilities of 85 percent out of 214 launches for the AIM-120C variant. Combat statistics for all three variants are less stellar, amounting to, according to US sources, ten kills (including a friendly fire incident against a UH-60) of which six were genuine BVR shots, for the expenditure of just over a dozen AIM-120 rounds. The important parameter is that every single target was not equipped with a modern defensive electronic warfare package and therefore not representative of a state-of-the-art Flanker in a modern BVR engagement. Against such "soft" targets the AIM-120 has displayed a kill probability of less than 50 percent

It is an open question whether the AIM-120D when challenged with a modern DRFM (Digital RF Memory) based monopulse trackbreaking jammer will be able to significantly exceed the 50 percent order of magnitude kill probability of prior combat launches, let alone replicate the 85 percent performance achieved in ideal test range conditions-

Where does this leave Western air forces equipped with the AIM-120 when confronting Flankers armed with up to three times the number of BVR missiles?

 

Illustrative examples are the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and F-35 JSF, the latter armed in an air superiority configuration with two, the former with up to six AIM-120s Assuming the Flanker driver does not exploit his superior missile kinematic range and shoot first - an optimistic assumption - then the best case kill probability for the AIM-120 shooter firing two to four rounds is better than 90 percent. However, if we assume that hostile jamming and manoeuvre degrade the kill probability to around 50 percent - a reasonably optimistic statistical baseline here - then the total kill probability for a two round salvo is optimistically around 75 percent, and for a four round salvo over 90 percent. Arguably good odds for the four round salvo, only if the missile kill probability sits at 50 percent, but the F/A-18E/F or F-35 JSF will have expended all or most of its warload of AIM-120s and be unable to continue in BVR combat. In a "many versus many" engagement, the low speed of both types leaves them unable to disengage and will see both types subsequently killed by another Flanker.

This best case "many versus many" engagement scenario sees the F/A-18E/F or F-35 JSF being traded one for one with Su-30MK/Su-35BM Flankers in BVR combat, which is the general assumption made for WVR combat between like opponents, and representative of many historical attrition air campaign statistics. To achieve this best case "many versus many" outcome of trading F/A-18E/F or F-35 JSF one for one, we have stacked a series of assumptions against the Flanker - dumb Flanker pilots not exploiting a missile kinematic range advantage, dumb Flanker pilots not exploiting a firepower advantage, Russian BVR missile seekers no better than the AIM-120, and Russian DRFM monopulse jammers achieving a less than 50 percent degradation of AIM-120 kill probability

A competent Flanker driver gets the first shot with three or four round salvo of long burn R-27 variants, with mixed seekers, leaving one or two remaining salvoes of BVR missiles on his rails, and the same Flanker driver will have modern DRFM monopulse jammers capable of causing likely much more than a 50 percent degradation of AIM-120 kill probability. With a thrust vectoring engine capability (TVC), the Flanker driver has the option of making himself into a very difficult endgame target for the AIM-120 regardless of the capability of his jamming equipment. Since all of the AIM-120s fired are identical in kinematic performance and seeker jam resistance, any measure applied by the Flanker driver which is effective against one AIM-120 round in the salvo is apt to produce the same effect against all AIM-120 rounds - a problem the Flanker driver does not have due to diversity in seeker types and missile kinematics.

Currently classified capabilities such as the use of the APG-79 or APG-81 AESA radar as an X-band high power jammer against the Russian BARS or Irbis E radar are not a panacea, and may actually hasten the demise of the F/A-18E/F or F-35 JSF in a BVR shootout. This is for the simple reason that to jam the Russian radar, the APG-79 or APG-81 AESA radar must jam the frequencies being used by the Russian radar, and this then turns the APG-79 or APG-81 AESA radar into a wholly electronically predictable X-band high power beacon for an anti-radiation seeker equipped Russian BVR missile such as the R-27EP or R-77P. The act of jamming the Russian radar effectively surrenders the frequency hopping agility in the emissions of the APG-79 or APG-81 AESA radar, denying it the only defence it has against the anti-radiation missile. A smart Russian radar software designer will include a "seduction mode" to this effect, with narrowband emissions to make it very easy even for an early model 9B-1032 anti-radiation seeker.

[kulbit]

 

The flipside of the electronic combat game is no better. The F-14A/B/D included the AAS-42 Infrared Search and Track set which allowed a target to be tracked despite hostile jamming of the AWG-9/APG-71 radar. It is clear that the addition of the podded AAS-42 to the Super Hornet and "air to air" use of the JSF EOTS are intended for much the same purpose. While this may permit the continuing use of the AESA radar to datalink midcourse guidance commands to the AIM-120s, it does nothing to deny the Flanker its own BVR shot. The notion that the defensive jamming equipment and infrared decoys will be highly effective against late model Russian digital missile seekers can only be regarded to be optimistic.

In electronic warfare terms neither side has a decisive advantage, but the Flanker does have a decisive advantage in aircraft and missile kinematics and in having up to six times the payload of BVR missiles to expend. The simple conclusion to be drawn is that operators of the F/A-18E/F or F-35 JSF should make every effort to avoid Beyond Visual Range combat with late model Flankers, as the best case outcome is parity in exchange rates, and the worst case outcome a decisive exchange ratio advantage to the Flanker. Given the evident design choices the Russians have made, this is not an accident, but rather a consequence of well thought through operational analysis of capabilities and limitations of contemporary BVR weapon systems.The achievable kill probability of any missile depends on its kinematic performance, especially during the endgame phase of flight, against the intended target, and the performance of its seeker and fusing subsystems, especially in a countermeasures environment.

Until the 1980s Soviet missile technology lagged the West in propellants, airframe designs, and guidance designs. That changed with the deployment of the R-27 and R-73 missiles during the 1980s, as these competed on a equal footing, or outperformed their Western equivalents. In kinematic terms, the WVR R-73 series, and the BVR R-27 and R-77 are highly competitive against their Western equivalents, and the long burn variants of the R-27 outperform all Western solid propellant competitors.

The next evolutionary step for Vympel is the production of the air breathing ramjet RVV-AE-PD design, displayed since the 1990s at numerous trade shows. This missile spurred the development of the Meteor for the Eurofighter Typhoon. The attraction of ramjet BVR AAMs lies in their ability to sustain thrust and thus turning performance in the endgame phase of an engagement, where conventional soild rocket missiles are flying on inertia alone and rapidly lose speed when turning. It is worth noting that the high lethality of late generation WVR missiles like the Python 4/5 is in a large part due to the missile's ability to sustain ~100G class load factors during the endgame manoeuvre, precisely the regime in which most BVR missiles fail to kill their targets.

Range extension options for the baseline R-77 include booster packs, discussed in Russian literature, or larger diameter rocket motors containing a larger propellant load, the latter proposed some years ago for R-77-ZRK surface to air derivative of this missile.

In terms of kinematic performance, a key factor which is almost universally ignored by Western planners other than the F-22 and F-111 communities, is the impact of the launch aircraft's kinematics at the point of missile launch. A supersonic Su-35 sitting at Mach 1.5 and 45,000 ft will add of the order of 30 percent more range to an R-27 or R-77 missile. Low performance fighters like the F/A-18E/F and F-35 JSF simply do not have this option in the real world, and the reach of their missiles is wholly determined by the parameters of the propellant load inside the missile casing, and the ability of the midcourse guidance algorithms to extract every bit of range from that stored energy. The result of this is that an AIM-120C/D which might look better on paper compared to an equivalent R-77 subtype will be outranged decisively in actual combat.

Russian seeker technology has advanced in strides since the early 1990s, largely as a result of the commodification of Gallium Arsenide monolithic chips and digital signal processing chips in the globalised world market. Agat, which manufactures the 9B-1101K semi-active radar seeker for the R-27EP/P, the 9B-1103K active seeker for the R-27EA/A, and the 9B-1348E seeker family for the R-77 missile family, publicly disclosed some years ago the use of the Texas Instruments TMS-320 series digital signal processing chip in a late model 'digital' variant of the 9B-1103K seeker. This chip is a mainstay of Western military radar design.

The move away from analogue and hardwired digital seekers to software programmable digital seekers is an important milestone for the Russian industry, since it opens up many choices in signal processing and counter-countermeasures techniques hitherto only used by US, EU and Israeli manufacturers. In practical terms a later model digital variant of the 9B-1103K or 9B-1348E will be no less difficult to defeat by jamming than Western equivalent active seekers

The monopulse slotted planar array antenna technology used in the 9B-1103K and 9B-1348E seekers compares closely to the antenna technology seen since the AIM-120A was deployed, and due to its dual plane monopulse design provides good resistance to a range of legacy jamming techniques.

Russian concern about Western countermeasures is reflected in a propensity since the 1980s to use dual plane monopulse seeker designs, and even the baseline Agat 9B-1101K semi-active homing seeker in the R-27R/ER variants is a classical monopulse design, built for high jam resistance The infrared homing seeker technology used in Russian BVR missiles has also evolved considerably since the Cold War. Early R-27 Alamo variants used the legacy Geofizika 36T seeker. There are claims that more recent variants use the far more agile Arsenal Central Design Bureau Mayak/MK-80M seeker series, developed for the R-73M Adder WVR missile, and since then announced by Vympel as the seeker for the initial heatseeking variants of the R-77 Adder. The R-73 series WVR missiles have evolved, to the extent that the 'digital' K-74E variant is a highly competitive scanning two colour design, inherently resistant to many flares and with the counter-countermeasures flexibility inherent in software programmable guidance systems. Given the established pattern of migrating extant WVR missile seekers into BVR missiles, it is a safe prediction that late build heatseeking R-27ET/Ts and early build heatseeking R-77Ts are likely to use late build derivatives of the Arsenal MK-80M series, such as the MM2000 subtype.It is well known that Russian industry is working on a Focal Plane Array (FPA) seeker for their future WVR missiles, to compete against the ASRAAM, AIM-9X, Iris-T and Python 5 seekers, adding further infrared counter-countermeasures capabilities. The open question is whether the future Russian FPA seeker will match the midwave Indium Antimonide detector array technology in the Raytheon 256x256 device in the ASRAAM/AIM-9X, or whether the Russians will leapfrog a generation and opt for much more capable QWIP (Quantum Well Imaging Photodetector) technology pioneered by Germany's industry during the late 1990s.

There is considerable Russian scientific literature available on QWIPs, which allow a single chip to concurrently image targets in two infrared colour bands, and permit tailored infrared colour sensitivity absent in bandgap detector technology such as the legacy InSb designs used in ASRAAM and AIM-9X seekers. With the exception of the now retired F-117A, and the remaining B-2A, infrared emissions are a major signature issue for low observable fighters. While the low observable technology used is generally good against the upper radar bands, it is less so against high performance lower band infrared sensors. A QWIP based missile seeker operating in the LWIR bands (8-12 micron and 15 micron) has the potential to be quite effective, if the midcourse guidance scheme can get the BVR missile close enough to acquire the target.

Details of the Avtomatika 9B-1032 passive X-band RF anti-radiation seeker remain classified at this time, and even the antenna configuration has not been disclosed to date. This remains a unique capability in the R-27EP/P Alamo and R-77P Adder. What is clear is that the drive to digitise all Russian AAM seekers will be reflected also in anti-radiation seekers. It is known that the PLA has funded Russian development of new passive seeker technology for this application.

Fusing technology in use includes radio-frequency proximity fuses and in more recent designs, active laser proximity fuses.

From a Western strategic planning perspective the key development in Russian BVR missile seeker technology over the last decade has been the move away from legacy analogue techniques to digital software programmable techniques. This permits Russian designers enormous flexibility in embedding counter-countermeasures modes into these seekers, as well as enormous opportunities in smart signal processing to maximise detection range performance. Digital autopilot technology has been pivotal to optimising the kinematic capabilities of Western missiles and this technology is now available to Russian designers.

[GGTharos]

You should really attribute your sources ... and while I imagine the actual statistical graphs are correct, Copp is not exactly a very realiable source, so please don't spam this forum with copy and paste of his stuff? ... a link will suffice ;)

[kulbit]

 

 

And now the obvious question of how the Sukhois stack up against the "old F/A 18 , the recently proposed interim fighters such as the F/A 18E and the upcaming JSF aka F35? Against all three types the Su-30 derivatives, especially with later engine subtypes, will always have a significant kinematic advantage - there is no substitute for thrust in the kinematic performance game. There is another factor to consider here, which is the superlative 10 tonnes of internal drag free fuel the Sukhoi carries. When not operating at extended combat radii, the Sukhoi driver has more fuel to convert into energy, and that energy can nearly always be used to an advantage.

With mutually competitive WVR missiles and Helmet mounted sight for close-in combat, all three types will live or die in a close in engagement with an advanced Su-30MK variant by pilot ability and good or bad luck. The Sukhoi combines high alpha manoeuvre capabilities with excellent thrust/weight performance, and is apt to have an energy advantage entering and prosecuting a close in fight. A JSF driver opting to engage a thrust vectoring late model Su-30MK in a knife fight may not survive to speak of the experience, unless the Sukhoi driver is unable to exploit his advantage properly.

In close in air combat terms the JSF qualifies as 'double inferior' against the later model Sukhois, since the Sukhois have an advantage in both thrust/weight ratio and in wing loading (interested visitors refer R.L. Shaw's Fighter Combat), and with its canard and thrust vectoring capability will generally be able to gain a firing solution quicker. Because the JSF is designed within the kinematic performance class of the F/A-18 and F-16, it is right in the middle of the performance envelope of aircraft the Sukhoi was designed to kill.

In Beyond Visual Range (BVR) combat, the Sukhoi will again have a kinematic advantage, which may be exploitable at the bounds of engagement radii, as the Sukhoi can gain separation in and out of the missile envelope of the F/A-18's and JSF faster - it has the extra thrust and combat fuel to play kinematic games both smaller fighters cannot.

The BVR game is however dominated by sensor capabilities, both onboard and offboard the fighters, and long range missile capabilities. The F/A-18A HUG is wholly outclassed by an Su-30MK with an N011M phased array and R-77M ramjet missile. A late model F/A-18E with minimal external stores and the APG-79 AESA fares much better due to its radar signature reduction measures and better radar power-aperture performance, but with external stores its margin of survivability is eroded and it is likely to fall well within the engagement envelope of the Sukhoi and also come to grief (refer radar/missile plot). A post 2010 AESA equipped Sukhoi could almost certainly take on the F/A-18E with confidence as it will have much better power-aperture capability in the radar, enough to offset the radar signature reduction measures in the F/A-18E/F, with an advanced IRST to supplement radar data.

What happens when the existing OLS-27/30/31 series IRST is replaced with a newer longwave Focal Plane Array device - such as a single chip QWIP device? The result will be a capability to engage opposing aircraft under clear sky conditions regardless of RCS reduction measures. While the supercruising F/A-22A can defeat such techniques by kinematics alone, fighters in the teen series performance envelope will have to contend with BVR shots using the R-27ET, R-77, R-77T and R-77M cued by the thermal imaging search and track set. Similar issues arise with the deployment of modern ESM receivers on the Su-30MK, analogous to a number of existing Western systems. The Su-30MK series can then launch long range BVR missiles such as the R-27ET, R-77T with infrared seekers, or the R-27EP and R-77P with passive radio-frequency anti-radiation seekers. If cued by such sensors or offboard sources, these weapons will permit the Su-30MK to engage the JSF or the F22 despite theyr good good forward sector radar and stealth performance.

At the end the Russian and Chinese defence industries have absorbed most of the advanced technology in the globalised market. The most recent generation of radars, Surface to Air Missiles and Sukhoi SU 27/30 family fighter aircrafts they have developed can produce air defence systems which are completely impenetrable to all United States combat aircraft other than the F-22A Raptor and B-2A Spirit. The new stealthy Sukhoi PAK-FA directly challenges the F-22A Raptor. The result of this is that the United States will lose access to many theatres of operation on the global stage, as these new weapons proliferate,

 

 

Sorry for the long but i hope interesting post!!

 

(All the informations and articles above came from the Technical report APA-TR-2007-10101 of the Australia's indipendent defence agency AUSAIRPOWERfor full reproduction credits )

[kulbit]

You should really attribute your sources ... and while I imagine the actual statistical graphs are correct, Copp is not exactly a very realiable source, so please don't spam this forum with copy and paste of his stuff? ... a link will suffice ;)

 

No intention to to spam only to give a tech ideas of what we're talking about....

But if you do not approve no problem to delete all!

[Aliboy]

Hi I used to fly Su-27 in FC1 and now do the same in FC2...I'm not very good at tactics but I fly everyday and probably have had at least 25+ FC2 Aim 120s come at me without a single hit maybe be because I have F-15 phobia and I'm always expecting that TWS shot from a high bandit and getting ready to turn away quickly when the warning bells start ringing or even before that so I can make him waste missiles on me.Also when I turn back Its not totally defensive I wait for others and then turn back into the F-15 fire I keep lock,don't fly straight at him and be ready to turn away with chaff. I duuno so far it has worked for me and I have got kills on high flying F-15's with ER missiles.But I have to agree with the others who say that Teamwork is the most important thing that's why I always join Teamspeak and fly and ofcourse I do like the FC2 Su-27 because its more realistic and don't want R-77's :thumbup:

[borchi_2b]

not only the su27 needs corrections. the r27er needs some too.

 

there was a state from GGtharos that the ballistics of the weapons have not bean touched.

 

LOL, very very big LOL.

 

sorry, but now further down the testing phase, i really get the impression that Ed wants to make a foul of us costumers. you guys might ban me for that, but for me it gets more and more obvious that all was done in favour for the eagle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

it was stated that the ballistics of the russian missiles were not touched right!

 

why for gods sake was the flgithtime andthe speed of the r27er touched then?

 

to match the aim120c-5 ?

and beeing able to maybe be smart and fire at greater ranges then even the aim120c-5?

 

is that the f.... uped reason.

 

sorry for the next, but i am really pissed off.

 

just some smart advise for ED.

 

get a complete new testerteam, cause these guys probably know nothing then complaining and messing up a game, or a semi sim.

 

if you really want to make it serious, you might want to get a hold on people who have the knowledge and the smart brains of modern warfare and a2a warfare.

i could tell you some names of real guys who know what they talk about, cause theare in the bussiness of this sim, way more deep then any other guy in this forum i know!!!

 

sorry, but ED do you really think to make a fool of us?

 

ranges of the r27er are the same and the missile was tweaked to be that way! in fc1.12 i had even longer legs, do to the fact that my missile fley 2min 3 sec to reach the same speed it reaches now in about 1min 10sec.

 

then there is the r27et, no tweak there besides, itdoes not even see anything on 10km when it is even launched head on and aimed right. sorry, but there needs to be a patch fc2.1, thats for sure.

 

the russian guys never complained about anything in specific, only the eagle guys did all the time, like wohaha, my missiles are to weak, bla bla bla.

 

the missile do even track targets like before, same unrealistic way, even when there is no datalink radar causethe guy was blown to peaces. these f.... up missile come down like an eagle and although they are ballistic without guidence, they track me 15km ahead, 5000m belowthem, which summs up to an angle , damn greater then 25° of azimuth, which would be the most an aim120 can do, do to the fact, that the radar cannot scan further in azimuth, limited by tech.

 

it is so hilerious to see what was done and what was not done.

 

to be honest. now i will teach my dog to push buttons on command. i stear the plane, move the coursor, but then the next 4 steps will do my dog. and giess what. the way this semi sim is presented, my dog will even make kills with the new f15c aim120c-5 combination. nothing to it.

 

you do not need to be a good pilot at all to make kills with such an disadvantage on the red side.

 

guys, please wake up. there is more you guys have to do on that fc2.0.

 

any words to that?

 

if you guys want, i can post everything here in a seperate threat. all the outcome from the tests and also the testresults from fc1.12. so everybody can compare what happend to us who are bored of the whining f15c community in the lomac world!!!

 

my mind is set up the way. every burning f15 is a good one, although i need at least 2 missile hits, untill itis not able to fight anymore.

 

one of the most powerfull missiles, with continuous rod is not able to kill a plane with one hit, lol, but aim120c with normal fragmentation are :-), sorry, guys, but this is some bullshit, lol, i have never ever heard of such stupied stuff.

 

fool others or fix this, but do something!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

otherwise i see for the future, les russian planes flying around then there are allready. nearly all guys fly f15 out there. did you notice that?

 

why didn´´t you call the fc2.0 F15C ? there is the F in the beginning and the C in the end!

 

arrrgggg, i am really upset, for what i see there in the bare numbers of the tests.

 

cheers

[borchi_2b]

ps. do not ban me for saying the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

[GGTharos]

there was a state from GGtharos that the ballistics of the weapons have not bean touched.

 

Where?

[Wags]

Forum Rules:

 

"1.10. - Product feedback and constructive criticism is encouraged when provided in a mature and courteous manner. However, feedback that is abusive, insulting or condescending is not welcome. Additionally, to bring up a particular issue repeatedly after it has already been acknowledged will be considered "trolling" - in such cases a warning will be issued to the author and the post will be removed."

[Evil Koala]

Lets see.. F-15's that have the exact same radar model as every other aircraft in the game, that launch Aim-120s that require guidance all the way to pitbull because inertial guidance isnt modeled vs SU-27s with a datalink, IRST, an SPO that tells you EXACTLY when to jink, and the same exact radar as the F-15, launching R-27ER's that are faster but need to be guided for an extra 10 seconds or less.

 

So whats not fair? Both aircraft are fairly gimped by modern standards. Both are still fun to fly, just different.

[GGTharos]

not only the su27 needs corrections. the r27er needs some too.

 

And it got them. It is FAR less sensitive to chaff than it used to be. It also sports a longer fuze range, set to the distance specified by data obtained thanks to access to certain material used by people who use these missiles.

 

sorry, but now further down the testing phase, i really get the impression that Ed wants to make a foul of us costumers. you guys might ban me for that, but for me it gets more and more obvious that all was done in favour for the eagle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

The eagle got exactly one improvement that was for the eagle only: The IFF HUD cue.

Everything else - engine tuning, performance tuning and other things were applied to most or all flyables.

 

it was stated that the ballistics of the russian missiles were not touched right!

 

why for gods sake was the flgithtime andthe speed of the r27er touched then?

 

It wasn't. It has the same parameters it had in FC1.

 

to match the aim120c-5 ?

and beeing able to maybe be smart and fire at greater ranges then even the aim120c-5?

 

The C5 was adjusted relative to the B, in fact, not relative to Russian missiles. It was adjusted to fit data available to ED.

 

is that the f.... uped reason.

 

sorry for the next, but i am really pissed off.

 

just some smart advise for ED.

 

Some smart advice for you: When pissed off, sit on your hands and don't post.

 

get a complete new testerteam, cause these guys probably know nothing then complaining and messing up a game, or a semi sim.

 

The test team is multi-national, and everyone has their favorite aircraft. Some like ground-pounders, some particular fighters. Some like western hardware, some eastern ... and a lot of them have far more education, knowledge and credentials than you know.

 

if you really want to make it serious, you might want to get a hold on people who have the knowledge and the smart brains of modern warfare and a2a warfare.

i could tell you some names of real guys who know what they talk about, cause theare in the bussiness of this sim, way more deep then any other guy in this forum i know!!!

 

ED has access to real life pilots, including ACM instructors. ED also listens to them.

 

sorry, but ED do you really think to make a fool of us?

 

ED don't think about you. They think about the best way of simulating aerial warfare, and they do it well.

 

ranges of the r27er are the same and the missile was tweaked to be that way! in fc1.12 i had even longer legs, do to the fact that my missile fley 2min 3 sec to reach the same speed it reaches now in about 1min 10sec.

 

Have you considered that what has changed is well under the hood, and not actual missile data? There were problems with certain aspects of the atmospheric simulation that were fixed ... those affect all flying vehicles, AFAIK ...

 

then there is the r27et, no tweak there besides, itdoes not even see anything on 10km when it is even launched head on and aimed right. sorry, but there needs to be a patch fc2.1, thats for sure.

 

Flanker users seem to have ways of using them successfuly ...

 

the russian guys never complained about anything in specific, only the eagle guys did all the time, like wohaha, my missiles are to weak, bla bla bla.

 

That's because you only read half the forums and talk to less than half the people ;)

 

the missile do even track targets like before, same unrealistic way, even when there is no datalink radar causethe guy was blown to peaces. these f.... up missile come down like an eagle and although they are ballistic without guidence, they track me 15km ahead, 5000m belowthem, which summs up to an angle , damn greater then 25° of azimuth, which would be the most an aim120 can do, do to the fact, that the radar cannot scan further in azimuth, limited by tech.

 

Source. Go ahead, find an open, reliable source for this statement and ED will make it so. Go on. Get it in before the patch.

 

it is so hilerious to see what was done and what was not done.

 

Right now I'm not finding this very hilarious. I am finding it a huge waste of time, but such FUD needs response.

 

to be honest. now i will teach my dog to push buttons on command. i stear the plane, move the coursor, but then the next 4 steps will do my dog. and giess what. the way this semi sim is presented, my dog will even make kills with the new f15c aim120c-5 combination. nothing to it.

 

you do not need to be a good pilot at all to make kills with such an disadvantage on the red side.

 

This is the advantage of new technology over old technology. Perhaps you thought a system that is by comparison out-dated really would have an easy time against the newer one?

Do you whine when new model CPUs come out about how unfair it is that they now have 4 cores instead of one?

 

guys, please wake up. there is more you guys have to do on that fc2.0.

 

any words to that?

 

As you may have noticed, the exaggerated performance of the F-15 at slow speed is being addressed.

 

if you guys want, i can post everything here in a seperate threat. all the outcome from the tests and also the testresults from fc1.12. so everybody can compare what happend to us who are bored of the whining f15c community in the lomac world!!!

 

Frankly I believe what you are doing now is whining.

 

my mind is set up the way. every burning f15 is a good one, although i need at least 2 missile hits, untill itis not able to fight anymore.

 

one of the most powerfull missiles, with continuous rod is not able to kill a plane with one hit, lol, but aim120c with normal fragmentation are :-), sorry, guys, but this is some bullshit, lol, i have never ever heard of such stupied stuff.

 

I've seen 120's do very little damage, depending on the target's actions - to the point where they would fight on.

 

fool others or fix this, but do something!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

otherwise i see for the future, les russian planes flying around then there are allready. nearly all guys fly f15 out there. did you notice that?

 

Have you read this thread at all?

Funny enough, when I hit an MP server every now and then, there's plenty of flanker and mig drivers. Every now and then there's more of one bird than another. What did you do, go to MP once, hit one of those times and decided to tell everyone that this is how it is every day?

 

why didn´´t you call the fc2.0 F15C ? there is the F in the beginning and the C in the end!

 

Because frankly, the F-15 didn't receive any more attention than other aircraft.

 

arrrgggg, i am really upset, for what i see there in the bare numbers of the tests.

 

cheers

 

Sit on your hands.

[borchi_2b]

lets see, it should be somewhere in the postings about fc2.0, i hope i will find it, after so many posts. but i remember that i have read something like that.

 

but if they have been touched, why not the r27et?

the legs are still way to short. shorter then the weapon cpu tells me.

 

why?

 

when i look at the weapon cpu from the su27 and look at the range of the r27er, which has been tweaked in range and ballistic time = ballistic range, then the range shown is correct, but not when i look at the r27et!!!!, just my 2cent that there is something going the wrong direction.

 

if this is going to happen to the DCS modules, well then ok, no more ED for me. sorry, but only because the is nothing out there equal in grafics, it does not mean ED can do what ever they want to do!

 

i am no sure what policy it is right now, but it is notthe policy they said they are aming for when we talk about DCS for example.

 

does Ed really think people are stupied and will not realise that all was done in favour for a whining f15c community, who think they have the best plane in the world, fly high fire far and think that this is BVR combat, like in real life. sorry, but the guys who whined about the eagle are quiet now, causethey gotwhat they wanted too. but whats about them?

these guys, i just had such discussion in our virtual squad, they allways thought that the eagle was to weak when we talked about the weapons. lol, i flew the eagle myself in lomac, andf sorry, it never was a weak plane at all, but now, with this capability of the f.... up aim120c-5, what is it, unbeatable?

my 2 cent say yes, thats the way it is.

but when they get new missiles, where are the new missiles for the mig29s, the r77m?

or R27EP for the su27 ?

 

do not say, ohh they are not existing at that point of time. lol

 

the aim120c-5 has antered service in 2000. after the kosovo conflict. so what was there on the russian side 10 years ago. ahh, i got it, stone, which are supposed to be thrown into the jetintakes of nato planes, doneby some super ninja kung fu cobras, to evade maybe some radardetection and some active laserbeams from starwars, so maybe you get a kill.

 

gg said in the conversation that people should get used to he russian tactics when fc2.0 is out. lol, how should we be able too?

 

how?

 

just tell me how should we be able to use russian tactics, when the weapons do not match real tactics at all?

 

there is somesuper cool russian tactic, but it could not be flown in fc1.12 do to the problem, that the chaffs were way to strong on sarh. no it cannotbe flown either, cause the r27er is cut in range, or at least in travletime which equals range.

 

LOL, this is so hilarious

 

i nearly need to throw up, cause i have to laugh to much.

 

and then, in the end, after9 month, the baby is done, but nothing, really nothing is there in advantage to the russia side anymore. all was taken away. the r27et, that it is weaker, ok, i can bare with, i prefer r27er killsstill way more, cause r27et kill were cheap in the end and boring, so we pushed the limits further and further out, till we reached ranges up to 53km head on and made kills.

but now, the r27er, which wealways wanted to be tracking better and maybe even score a hit with that missile, beein tweaked down, to the same range the active aim120c has, lol, there is no way to explain it, but i am really frustrated by ED, cause there is really nothing, nothing at all to the russian side in advantage they could use, compared to the f15 club.

aim120c range = r27er range, this is one of the biggest jokes i have every heared in the last few month since 01.01.2010 began!!!!!!

 

i really would like to know the sources from ED, the real sources, where they get thier infos from!

[borchi_2b]

Lets see.. F-15's that have the exact same radar model as every other aircraft in the game, that launch Aim-120s that require guidance all the way to pitbull because inertial guidance isnt modeled vs SU-27s with a datalink, IRST, an SPO that tells you EXACTLY when to jink, and the same exact radar as the F-15, launching R-27ER's that are faster but need to be guided for an extra 10 seconds or less.

 

So whats not fair? Both aircraft are fairly gimped by modern standards. Both are still fun to fly, just different.

 

no datalink there!!!!!!, otherwise the missile would behaveway diffrent and i could switch targets easily, which i cannot at all.

[borchi_2b]

Quote:

it was stated that the ballistics of the russian missiles were not touched right!

 

why for gods sake was the flgithtime andthe speed of the r27er touched then?

It wasn't. It has the same parameters it had in FC1.

 

 

not ture, sorry, i will prove it to you!!!!!

[GGTharos]

You should really take my advice.

[borchi_2b]

i will

 

but there is some bad feeling behind it, cause we see what we see, and facts are facts

[borchi_2b]

This thread should be closed, hashing and re hashing makes my brain go wacko, lol. No but truthfully it should be closed, how many times this crap has to be discussed? Live with it or don’t play it IMO...THERE IS NO R77 on the SU27, final... NOT on this version simulated. Get on with it, enjoy it or quit it...

 

 

Point finale. ;)

 

i do not want r77 on the flanker-c cause there are not such missles carried by this version.

 

and the su35 will not make it into this sim, cause ED will not get the data from the russians, plus i am not even sure if the game engine would be able to calculate phase array radars

 

so it is sure that there will be no r77 on su27, thats true, but some stuff is still hanging in the air here

 

one question though to the f15c in lomac.

is there a datalink between f15c and aim120?

at least it seems to be that way

[Nerdwing]

I dont think it is hanging in the air at all. There isnt any way for players to understand the EXACT changes made ingame. I still see Su27's as a gigantic airborne threat when I'm in an Eagle, so I dont think too much was changed (if anything really...)

 

And just fyi, the quote in your sig with the red text is an urban legend :P

[Evil Koala]

i do not want r77 on the flanker-c cause there are not such missles carried by this version.

 

and the su35 will not make it into this sim, cause ED will not get the data from the russians, plus i am not even sure if the game engine would be able to calculate phase array radars

 

so it is sure that there will be no r77 on su27, thats true, but some stuff is still hanging in the air here

 

one question though to the f15c in lomac.

is there a datalink between f15c and aim120?

at least it seems to be that way

 

The aim-120 is semi-active the same way the aim-7 is until it goes pitbull except that it can be done in TWS with a softlock. No intertial guidance with datalink updates.

[ScEBlack1]

"facts are fact"

 

You have yet to show any what so ever, as a matter of "fact" no one here complaining has for the year and model the Su is for this game.

 

Eventually this thread will be closed since it is pointless, plenty of others killing in the Su, check your skills.

Edited April 9, 2010 by =ScE=Black1