Reality Vs Playability and the effect in Multiplay

[Cali]

I killed a noob today with a 70km ER shot, yes I was in a 27. The Russian jets aren't bad, yes it sucks not to have actives in the 27 and 33. Although you do have ET's and EOS which is excellent.

 

We should downgrade or upgrade a jet to balance the game war isn't balanced and these jets aren't so why would we want that?

[combatace]

Let Flanker be bad but there is nothing comparable to its SPO displaying the reasonably appropriate distances. ET and OLS can't be talked about they are unique. And more important you have got better aerodynamics and trust/weight ratio under your _ _ _, so this asks for only one thing dodge those AIM-120s, but conditions apply*.

 

* Only if you can.

Edited December 5, 2010 by combatace

[SgtPappy]

It'd be interesting to think: what if this game had its aircraft modeled completely under Cold War standards? The AIM-120 entered service late in 1991, and apparently wasn't fired until '92.

 

I wonder what the fights would be like if F-15C's could only then carry AIM-7's...

[GGTharos]

Let Flanker be bad but there is nothing comparable to its SPO displaying the reasonably appropriate distances.

 

An oversight, but we do have to live with it.

 

And more important you have got better aerodynamics and trust/weight ratio under your _ _ _.

 

You actually have neither, but that really does come down to knowing what you're talking about.

[Grimes]

It'd be interesting to think: what if this game had its aircraft modeled completely under Cold War standards? The AIM-120 entered service late in 1991, and apparently wasn't fired until '92.

 

I wonder what the fights would be like if F-15C's could only then carry AIM-7's...

 

We've had "80s Missions" in the past. The big difference in online play is that more often than not a fight will make it to the merge or at least heater range. I'd have to differ to Case and his stats for a detailed analysis player or aircraft kill/death ratios between 80s and stock and how it might have effected mission outcome. I'd assume aircraft stats wouldn't be drastically different, but short range IR and guns kills probably have a much higher percentage.

[SgtPappy]

Sounds almost like Vietnam. I personally would love to try that out. Just got my copy but I'm in need of an upgrade before I play. I'll look up some of those stats perhaps in threads, as I'm rather curious as to aircraft K/D ratios in such a scenario.

[FLANKERATOR]

Let Flanker be bad but there is nothing comparable to its SPO displaying the reasonably appropriate distances. ET and OLS can't be talked about they are unique. And more important you have got better aerodynamics and trust/weight ratio under your _ _ _, so this asks for only one thing dodge those AIM-120s, but conditions apply*.

 

* Only if you can.

 

Western RWR can also be used effectively to monitor threat distance by observing how close the symbol is to the center of the circle, ...SPO is easier to interpret but TEWS is better positioned in the cockpit as SPO is too low imo...but EOS is definitely a big advantage migs n shukois have over western fighters.

Re dodging the amraam, altough its tracking in fc2 seems better now, it still not working properly on the terminal active homing stage. proximity fuzing also fails and missile warhead does not detonate when it should do so.

Edited December 7, 2010 by FLANKERATOR

[Case]

I'd have to differ to Case and his stats for a detailed analysis player or aircraft kill/death ratios between 80s and stock and how it might have effected mission outcome.

 

It took me a bit of tinkering, but check the miscellaneous page where I have added a table with stats grouped by aircraft: http://www.51st.org/stats/misc.php.

 

I've added two special periods, one for the 80's week we had from November 21st to 28th, and one prior to the 80's week, running from November 1st to 21st. During both periods we ran the same missions, with the only change being the weapon restrictions during the 80's week.

 

If you compare the A2A kill-to-death (K/D) ratio's (see definition below) of the two periods you see some differences. During normal missions the F-15C A2A K/D averages out to just over unity, where the high K/D of the good pilots offsets the low K/D of the noobs that crash upon take off. Assuming that this affects all aircraft equal, you can say that the F-15C is more lethal than the Su-27, which has a K/D of 0.63 and the Su-33 at 0.56.

 

Now during the 80's week this has surprisingly turned around, with the F-15C at 0.66, and the Su-27 at 1.01 and the Su-33 at 0.82.

 

It is interesting to think about why this is, and I think it has to do with the fact that for Su-27 pilots not much changes with the weapon restrictions, it is only that their weapons have less range but are operated in the same way. For F-15C pilots normally taking AIM-120's this is not true, and they will have to use different tactics to score kills. The fact that they are less successful might indicate that on average an F-15C pilot is less skilled than for example a Su-27 pilot. Especially since AIM-7's still outrange R-27R's and the F-15C has more power to outrun a Flanker, and that their higher K/D without weapon restrictions is due to their usage of the AIM-120.

 

The A2A kill-to-death (K/D) ratio is defined as (A2A kills - A2A teamkills)/(A2A losses+crashes). The A2G K/D is (A2G kills - A2G teamkills)/(A2A losses+crashes).

[Cali]

I think another factor in that Case is that most F-15 pilots don't know how to use AIM-7's. Also another thing is that 27 and 33 pilots know they have to keep lock and they are use to doing it, whereas F-15 pilots aren't. I wonder how the F-15 pilots that only use 120's fared in the 80's mission. Granted there are some 15 pilots that know and do use AIM-7's very well, but I see most take 6x120's and 2 AIM-9's. After the 120's are gone...RTB for more....repeat, repeat and repeat. The AIM-7 is a good missile, if used correctly.

 

Like I said, most will break lock once you fire on them, they are scared.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Although you do have ET's and EOS which is excellent.

Russians based their doctrine on defense, thus EOS and GCI. But we don't see much of GCI in on line mission design.

[Cali]

Russians based their doctrine on defense, thus EOS and GCI. But we don't see much of GCI in on line mission design.

 

And NATO uses AWACS and we don't see that online either. One reason being the AWACS is screwed up and has always been. GCI/EWR/AWACS for the Russian birds have always been 10x better then that of the F-15. It would be nice if they were in missions, next question?

[Case]

I think another factor in that Case is that most F-15 pilots don't know how to use AIM-7's.

This is what I was alluding to but didn't want to say. Glad that you've said it :D

[GGTharos]

Russians based their doctrine on defense, thus the lack of emphasis on 'bringing all equipment on the plane' with them.

 

GCI is something everyone uses in one form or another (or AWACS) and the EOS is a backup for a poor radar that couldn't cope so well with ECM. In this case, the GCI really helps as well.

 

Russians based their doctrine on defense, thus EOS and GCI. But we don't see much of GCI in on line mission design.

[Bimbac]

Russians based their doctrine on defense, thus the lack of emphasis on 'bringing all equipment on the plane' with them.

 

GCI is something everyone uses in one form or another (or AWACS) and the EOS is a backup for a poor radar that couldn't cope so well with ECM. In this case, the GCI really helps as well.

 

This is true, but not completely. Russians have always emphasized a very tight ground control. The pilot in their view was just a component to fly the plane and execute orders from command center, not the decision maker. All the responsibility lied on shoulders of the GCI. That's why VVS and PVOS interceptor regiments always used sophisticated data-links and autopilots to guide the airplane to the best point of intercept and all the pilot was supposed to do by himself was to pull the trigger.

 

On the other hand, NATO fighter pilots have been trained in much more free environment. They had to plan everything themselves, including flight profiles, weapons use and tactics. All that central command had strict control of was the Rules of Engagement.

 

Russians today are adopting similar approach for training their pilots in the same manner, because time has proven this to be more flexible and effective, but also much more demanding on pilots' individual skills.

 

EOS on Russian aircraft is not just a backup for a poor radar, but complements the radar in situations, where optical detection and tracking is more efficient or tactically advantageous. For example. when I questioned some our older pilots of MiG-23ML and MiG-29 fighters, they have told me that even a semi-active missile was a deadly weapon in their hands, because EOS system could track the airborne target while it was notching the radar, but the system could still track a "virtual radar lock" since the fire control system knew the angular position of the target and could keep the antenna focused to that point, even if the radar could not track the target itself. In short, it was similar to FLOOD mode in the F-15, only usable at longer range. As you know, missile just tracks the radar reflection, it does not need the radar to actually keep the target locked.

 

More info on demand.

 

Best regards!

[Cali]

This is what I was alluding to but didn't want to say. Glad that you've said it :D

 

Oh, you should of just said it, sometimes the truth hurts.

[GGTharos]

If they're in the notch, and the missile can actually track the radar reflection while the target is in the notch, then that missile isn't very likely to hit anything. I'm sure you can think of a couple of reasons.

 

EOS on Russian aircraft is not just a backup for a poor radar, but complements the radar in situations, where optical detection and tracking is more efficient or tactically advantageous. For example. when I questioned some our older pilots of MiG-23ML and MiG-29 fighters, they have told me that even a semi-active missile was a deadly weapon in their hands, because EOS system could track the airborne target while it was notching the radar, but the system could still track a "virtual radar lock" since the fire control system knew the angular position of the target and could keep the antenna focused to that point, even if the radar could not track the target itself. In short, it was similar to FLOOD mode in the F-15, only usable at longer range. As you know, missile just tracks the radar reflection, it does not need the radar to actually keep the target locked.

 

More info on demand.

 

Best regards!

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

GCI is something everyone uses in one form or another (or AWACS) and the EOS is a backup for a poor radar that couldn't cope so well with ECM.

Yes, poor opponent's radar that can not lock at distance due to dedicated jamming air and ground units. Then the opponent just turns back and run or fells victim to EOS and ET, R-73 combo.

 

Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP!

[RIPTIDE]

If they're in the notch, and the missile can actually track the radar reflection while the target is in the notch, then that missile isn't very likely to hit anything. I'm sure you can think of a couple of reasons.

CGI is great though. You can hold the perfect notch until merge with a bit of lead on the CGI updates.

[Bimbac]

If they're in the notch, and the missile can actually track the radar reflection while the target is in the notch, then that missile isn't very likely to hit anything. I'm sure you can think of a couple of reasons.

 

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. The target wasn't locked by radar, but EOS, therefore EOS just slaved the radar to the target. Pilots have told me this was tested during live fire exercises in Astrakhan, and they were engaging targets in different altitudes and vectors in heavy ECM environment, with more than 90% success rate. For your information one of these pilots now teaches at the military school. I don't think he lied to me.

[Pilotasso]

Personally I dont like GCI or AWACS in missions, even when flying Russian planes. I like when people keep guessing what to do instead of running around as easy as with labels on.

[GGTharos]

See how well that worked in real life, now?

 

Incidentally, the F-15C's internal jammer is quite enough to mess up the radar on the MiG-29A and Su-27S.

 

Yes, poor opponent's radar that can not lock at distance due to dedicated jamming air and ground units. Then the opponent just turns back and run or fells victim to EOS and ET, R-73 combo.

 

Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP!

[GGTharos]

Naturally ;) As implemented in LO/FC it is pretty much a godsend under the right conditions.

 

CGI is great though. You can hold the perfect notch until merge with a bit of lead on the CGI updates.

[GGTharos]

Alright, I will make myself clearer then ...

 

The sensor onboard this missile also needs to distinguish between chaff and target, or ground and target. This implies that the missile sensor itself uses doppler filtering. Assuming you are not turning this off (can you even turn it off?), then you are relying on your target not notching the missile itself, which may or may not be a reasonable assumption.

 

And if you're referring to whom I think you're referring, I've also spoken to him, and I'll leave things at that.

 

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. The target wasn't locked by radar, but EOS, therefore EOS just slaved the radar to the target. Pilots have told me this was tested during live fire exercises in Astrakhan, and they were engaging targets in different altitudes and vectors in heavy ECM environment, with more than 90% success rate. For your information one of these pilots now teaches at the military school. I don't think he lied to me.

Edited December 7, 2010 by GGTharos

[RIPTIDE]

Alright, I will make myself clearer then ...

 

The sensor onboard this missile also needs to distinguish between chaff and target, or ground and target. This implies that the missile sensor itself uses doppler filtering. Assuming you are not turning this off (can you even turn it off?), then you are relying on your target not notching the missile itself, which may or may not be a reasonable assumption.

 

And if you're referring to whom I think you're referring, I've also spoken to him, and I'll leave things at that.

But since the target is beaming, the missile won't have the same geometry as the notched launcher. It'll be in lead pursuit. Since its a radar beam, there will be no ground clutter reflections coming back at the missile = no notch. BTW if this is true, this is a game changer for FC2.0 SARH missiles.

[SgtPappy]

 

Now during the 80's week this has surprisingly turned around, with the F-15C at 0.66, and the Su-27 at 1.01 and the Su-33 at 0.82.

 

 

Actually this surprises me. Since the Su-27's maneuverability and HMS gives a small extra advantage in WVR fights, I estimated the F-15's K/D ratio would be under 0.6 (without crashes) and clearly it's above 0.6 even with crashes factored in. Thanks for the post, this is quite interesting to see. Perhaps I will train with AIM-7s instead of AIM-120s when I get the chance.