Jump to content

1.11 Patch - BVR Improvments


Recommended Posts

Taiwan's being invaded? ... news to me ...

 

Not currently. But Taiwan President plans to declare indepedance 2008 when he comes up for re-election.

 

China will go to war with Taiwan if they do, they have always stated that.

 

China will go to war with US if we continue to arm them during such a conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 204
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Im Back !!! and as always i c this thread beeing hijacked very soon

 

Nice to c you guys again

 

:cool:

 

Not currently. But Taiwan President plans to declare indepedance 2008 when he comes up for re-election.

 

China will go to war with Taiwan if they do, they have always stated that.

 

China will go to war with US if we continue to arm them during such a conflict.

Rodrigo Monteiro

LOCKON 1.12

AMD 3.8 X2 64 2G DDR ATI X1800XT 512

SAITEK X-36

AND VERY SOON TRACKIR-4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

since everyone is posting quite strange speculating OT here, i might aswell...

 

THERE IS NO PROOF, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE.

 

All that ED can do is to get as many sources as possible. Starting from way out, i would say its impossible as a human to be objective and unbiased. We are all in favour of our own toy planes.

 

Of course there is science and math, it tells us for example that russian planes aerodynamics are advanced, but even if Nato found this, it wouldn't admitt it and no one in the western world would know about it until someone would try to make another series of tests, which again was only possible after the fall of the wall 1989.

 

If the russians would have told us before, it would have been stated but not officially proofed, thus NOT empirical...

 

When Gallileo stated the world was a ball and not a plane because he saw the curvature with his telescope on arriving ships 10-15 km away on the horizon no one believed him until someone else actually sailed around the the ball...

That's how stubborn empirical science is and no one has learned ever since.

 

Of course there is common sense, it tells us for example that the Flanker, our Flanker at least, does NOT carry ARH missiles. Which means the F15 might have some advanteges in BVR.

 

And there is stupid patriotic discussions in which we can state our own unimportant speculations about the superiority of one of the sides.

 

Personally I'm a fan of the russians.

 

:) :) :)

 

BECAUSE

 

:) :) :)

 

They always had the greater scientists. Better planes, better weapons, and we are ALL (even most russians) victims of western propaganda.

 

The R77 is advanded to the Aim120 in weight and design and maneuverability and Sukhoi always made the best flight models in the world, which are until now a mystery for science.

 

but who cares.

 

greetings & stop hijacking this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. Well, they may have the greater scientists, but they still needed actual western technology to ... catch up to western technology. You're off your rocker here ;)

 

As for the R77, no one really knows what it can do, and that it's heavier doesn't really matter (actually the US WANTED a lighter missile) ... and as far as its vaunted maneuverability goes, apparently it comes at the cost of increased drag, which, if the 'mathematics' and 'science' are to be believed, actually causes it to underperform for range against the 120. ;)

 

I'm not sure what other 'advanced' design you're referring to, I doubt it's electronics are doing anything but still playing catch-up to what's deployed on the 120's.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was it this thread I saw someone suggesting ED model the temperamentalness of F15 engines ???

It is interesting the different approaches the 2 sides took, & their strengths & weaknesses.

R77 vs 120. As GGTharos says the 77's more manouverable, but pays for it in with higher drag.

Which do you do as a designer - go for a missile that will turn hard in the first 2/3 of its envelope, but might run out of steam in the last, or something that is less likely to get everything in the main part of its range, but is more likely to catch something at a range where the more manouverable missile is heading for the ground?

The Russians seem to have decided that a bit more manouverability is better than a bit more range - the R33 turns considerably harder than Western missiles, which even with more conventional control surfaces than the 77 it still has to pay for with speed & range (even if only compared to itself - if it didn't turn as fast, it could have smaller control surfaces & go further).

Given the choice which would you take - A slightly smaller "no escape zone" with a higher PK inside that & diminished performance outside of it, or a slightly larger "no escape zone" with a lower PK inside it & better performance outside of it?

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually the 33 doesn't perform so well against fighters last I heard (but there exist upgraded versions)

 

Anyway, what you do with a missile depends on what you want to use it for - the whole point here is however that the 120 will be able to threaten the enemy aircraft better from longer ranges, giving the 15 an A-Pole advantage.

 

In general however, according to someone's info, the NEZ doesn't really extend muhch past 7-8nm for either missile, ie. if you shoot from 13nm and both aircraft turn away, both escape without much fuss (remind you of LOMAC?).

 

It's fair to consider them both 'equal' in other words, though some differences may exist - this 'equalness' in the other hand is not ok when comparing other well known missiles which we know much more about, like the 7 and 27 families, for example, and the 9vs. the 73.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, just because the AIM-120 has planar fins doesn't mean it's "hard to turn." That notion is ridiculous - all A/A missiles except the R-77 uses planar fins. Current missiles like the AIM-120 or even the AIM-7 Sparrow are more than agile enough to intercept the most nimble of planes, provided that they are launched in proper firing conditions.

 

As for the AIM-120 vs. R-77 debate, it basically boils down to this - I will only state the obvious. The R-77 is more advanced aerodynamically, being of more modern design - even the higher drag created by its grid fins are largely negated by its bigger rocket motor in comparison to other contemporary active radar missiles of its class. The AIM-120, however, obviously has the benefit of funding and continual software development, and it's airframe is more than sufficient in hunting down the current and next generation of fighters. So in terms of computers and overall "smarts," I'd give the edge to the AIM-120.

 

But since I don't work for Vympel or Raytheon, I view my above statement as simply an opinion. So lower the spears ;)

 

IMO, a more pressing issue in LOMAC is the overmodelling of AIM-7 and R-27 missiles in LOMAC. They seem to possess just as much "smarts" as the AIM-120 and the R-77, even though the later missiles benefits A LOT from computational advances during their conception. IMO, the 120/77 missiles should be much, much more resilient to chaff, evasion and jamming than their SARH counterparts.

sigzk5.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Spears - it's 03:00 in the morning here - just keeping awake. I didn't say that the 120 was "hard to turn" (In game it's caught up with me before) just that some of the 77's manouverability is attributed to the form of its rear control surfaces, as is some of its extra drag.

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I think the 77s gridded fin were an experiment. The entire missile has a lifting body and lift-strakes, and in general more surface (=more drag) but the gridded fins turn it much better than the conventional surfaces - at issue is violent, high-AoA turns, basically - those the 77 will do better. The catch is, when it does those, it will probably be doing them at the -very- end, and it will be limited from doing them before reaching the target (this is pretty common in guidance logic nowadays I hear) so the waste of speed from maneuvers is minimal and enloy employed in the final stages of terminal homing.

 

The problem there becomes the seeker, which may introduce other issues.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. Well, they may have the greater scientists, but they still needed actual western technology to ... catch up to western technology. You're off your rocker here ;)

 

As for the R77, no one really knows what it can do, and that it's heavier doesn't really matter (actually the US WANTED a lighter missile) ... and as far as its vaunted maneuverability goes, apparently it comes at the cost of increased drag, which, if the 'mathematics' and 'science' are to be believed, actually causes it to underperform for range against the 120. ;)

 

I'm not sure what other 'advanced' design you're referring to, I doubt it's electronics are doing anything but still playing catch-up to what's deployed on the 120's.

 

I think russian have western technology, they cooperate with Italian partners, and the true is that US buy and want to create new rescue seat with russian (K-36DM is for US a little miracle :) ) and also they buy documents about JAK-144 engine (it saved time to develop new engines for JSF). I dont know about R-77 nothing i newer saw this missile in action, but i know that it is not fake. :)

Also i hope everyone knows that US have Su-27. If dont .....

Refers: book The best of the best. original name: Nejlepsi z nejlepsich.

Author: Jiri R. Moravec (Mig pilot and famous pilot).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan Crenshaw was also a beta tester for LOMAC.

Dusty Rhodes

 

Play HARD, Play FAIR, Play TO WIN

 

Win 7 Professional 64 Bit / Intel i7 4790 Devils Canyon, 4.0 GIG /ASUS Maximus VII Formula Motherboard/ ASUS GTX 1080 8 GB/ 32 Gigs of RAM / Thrustmaster HOTAS Warthog / TrackIR 5 / 2 Cougar MFD's / Saitek Combat Pedals/ DSD Button Box FLT-1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, you're asking a question by quoting the answer to the question ... the RuAF never used the EA because it was built by Ukraine and was a competitor to national industry, particularely to the R-77 development.

 

AFAIK even Ukraine doesn't use it since they cannot justify the cost for themselves.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.11 requires you to maintain the datalink on long-shots if you want the thing to hit.

 

THat'll cut down on long-range spammage in most cases.

 

Spammage in the NEZ, well ... why are you in the 120's NEZ anyway? ;)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...