Announcing Lock On: Flaming Cliffs 3

[Milene]

Get ready eaglepilots cause this is all you will see hanging under your chutes

 

[xjiks]

Feature or cheat : will FC3 allow to have 2xR27 + 4xR77 in the payload at the same time ?

[Kenan]

^^If I'm not mistaken, MiG-29S was capable of having such a payload, at least in FC2 (and presumably IRL as well).

[Essah]

^^If I'm not mistaken, MiG-29S was capable of having such a payload, at least in FC2 (and presumably IRL as well).

 

Looks like it. on the first picture the inner pylon has R-27ER so I don't know if that means also R-77 but the 2nd inner pylon has, and on the 2nd picture the 2 outer pylons have R-77

 

 

 

Question for ED:

Is there going to be a bundle /package offer with the release of FC3 that gives you Lock On / Flaming Cliffs cheaper than buying it separably in case you don't have it already.

[Frostie]

Looks like it. on the first picture the inner pylon has R-27ER so I don't know if that means also R-77 but the 2nd inner pylon has, and on the 2nd picture the 2 outer pylons have R-77

 

 

 

Question for ED:

Is there going to be a bundle /package offer with the release of FC3 that gives you Lock On / Flaming Cliffs cheaper than buying it separably in case you don't have it already.

I don't think either of those are 29S.

I'd hazard a guess that the first picture is a MiG-29A and the second is a MiG-29M.

[Exorcet]

They may not be MiG-29S, but those pictures make me want to fly the FC3 MiG.

[xjiks]

^^If I'm not mistaken, MiG-29S was capable of having such a payload, at least in FC2 (and presumably IRL as well).

 

 

From what I remember, and maybe I'm wrong, the Mig29s from FC2 could only carry 2 R-77's, but there was a mod to change the payload and you could have 4's in addition to the R-27ET/ER

 

As long as ED does FC3 according to what is technically possible to do for real, then i'm ok with that.

[Exorcet]

In FC2, you can carry 6 R-77.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Unfortunately, this is not going to happen in FC 3, or any time soon from ED. ED is talking about the first advanced, 4th generation fighter/multirole will be of a western origin. So, MiG lovers, including myself, will have to wait and hope that somebody will someday, within a next decade or so, develop a Russian advanced fighter.

 

Get ready eaglepilots cause this is all you will see hanging under your chutes

 

[Alfa]

Looks like it. on the first picture the inner pylon has R-27ER so I don't know if that means also R-77 but the 2nd inner pylon has, and on the 2nd picture the 2 outer pylons have R-77

 

 

Those are R-27Rs(not R-27ER) - i.e. its a normal loadout for the standard MiG-29.

 

On the MiG-29 and MiG-29S the R-27 missiles can only be carried on the two most inner wing pylons(as in the picture). Only the MiG-29S can carry the larger R-27ER variant(and R-77).

 

 

 

 

The aircraft in the picture is a MiG-29M(note the extra wing pylons - 8 total). The MiG-29M(and MiG-29K) can carry R-27 missiles(and heavy ASMs as in the picture) on the four inner pylons.

 

Technically the MiG-29S can carry R-77 missiles on all six pylons and the MiG-29M on all eight, but AFAIK wouldn't do so operationally - the R-77(RVV-AE) only comes with an ejector rack(AKU-170) - i.e. no rail launcher available, so that may have something to do with it.

[Tailgate]

Minor thing but will differential braking be implemented in FC3?

[Dudikoff]

Technically the MiG-29S can carry R-77 missiles on all six pylons and the MiG-29M on all eight, but AFAIK wouldn't do so operationally - the R-77(RVV-AE) only comes with an ejector rack(AKU-170) - i.e. no rail launcher available, so that may have something to do with it.

 

Don't see what problem would be caused by carrying these missiles on the inner pylons.. I think that the AKU-170 would need those attachment adapters usually seen with the APU-470 added and then it could be physically mounted there.

 

Did they carry these missiles operationally, anyway? I thought all the stocks were sold to India, etc.

[Pilotasso]

it is pointless to use supposition with Alfa regarding Russian planes :D

[USAFMTL]

Get ready eaglepilots cause this is all you will see hanging under your chutes

 

 

Bring it....Comrade Slammer Fodder.... :D

[Alfa]

Don't see what problem would be caused by carrying these missiles on the inner pylons..

 

No of course they can be carried on the inner pylons. What I meant by R-77s on all pylons probably not being a realistic loadout was in regards to the most outer pylons :) - using an ejector launcher on those could be restrictive in terms of the level of manouvering you can do while firing the missile.

 

I think that the AKU-170 would need those attachment adapters usually seen with the APU-470 added and then it could be physically mounted there.

 

Possibly, but I think the adapters used with the APU-470 have more to do with those large fins of the R-27 missile - check out the R-27 missile on the MiG-35 in the photo above :)

 

 

Did they carry these missiles operationally, anyway?

 

No I don't think so.

Edited September 11, 2012 by Alfa

[Cali]

Whats the aim, what are they shooting for.....realistic or game balance? If they choose realistic, then some people are going to cry about the F-15. If they choose game balance, they so be it, the 27, 29 and 33 drivers will be happy. Another thing is we don't know what time frame these jets are from. If the 27 can and have fired R-77's irl, then add it to the game, instead of a person making a mod to "balance" the game. It's not a good idea to fly as a singleton anyway.

[Kuky]

Well the developers don't go by what the aircraft CAN do but what they do carry in field/in service.

 

The Su-27 COULD carry R-77 but since the one they say is modeled in sim does not field R-77's IRL they do not add it.

[172gb]

I'm curious about differential braking too. Hope its included.

[blackbelter]

Whats the aim, what are they shooting for.....realistic or game balance? If they choose realistic, then some people are going to cry about the F-15. If they choose game balance, they so be it, the 27, 29 and 33 drivers will be happy. Another thing is we don't know what time frame these jets are from. If the 27 can and have fired R-77's irl, then add it to the game, instead of a person making a mod to "balance" the game. It's not a good idea to fly as a singleton anyway.

 

Why do we have to separate realism and balance? Balance in the sense that they are as close to their real world counter parts as possible is what ED products should aim... If F15 is superior in BVR, so be it. If Su27 is superior in close range combat, so be it. There is no need to surpress one or the other purposely for the sake of achieving absolute balance. After all, realism is DCS's thing.

[wilky510]

Well the developers don't go by what the aircraft CAN do but what they do carry in field/in service.

 

The Su-27 COULD carry R-77 but since the one they say is modeled in sim does not field R-77's IRL they do not add it.

I wish this were true. We might actually be able to see AIM-120C-5 and up which are in active service with the USAF (I think they are anyways).

 

I think the C-5 or up will never see lights in FC series simply because it would make AMRAAM's (too much spam as of late with the AIM-120!) even more annoying for the USSR fighters.

[Dudikoff]

No of course they can be carried on the inner pylons. What I meant by R-77s on all pylons probably not being a realistic loadout was in regards to the most outer pylons :) - using an ejector launcher on those could be restrictive in terms of the level of manouvering you can do while firing the missile.

 

Hmm, but the newer MiG-29 versions are carrying the AKUs there, as well, as there's no APUs for the R-77 (probably because of those tail surfaces) and they are even farther out from the center (larger wings, if I'm not mistaken) so I don't think it's that big of a problem (there are probably some roll angle restrictions).

 

Possibly, but I think the adapters used with the APU-470 have more to do with those large fins of the R-27 missile - check out the R-27 missile on the MiG-35 in the photo above :)

 

Yeah, but since the R-77 has those large surfaces too, I think it's up to the attachment points - e.g. the innermost position attachment points are spread apart more than the outer ones - hence why the adapters for the AKU pylon for the outer two positions are different (single-part and less long) than if it was attached to the innermost position (two adapters as used for the APU-470).

[Dudikoff]

The Su-27 COULD carry R-77 but since the one they say is modeled in sim does not field R-77's IRL they do not add it.

 

Where did you get that information from? I would expect that the radar would need some modifications for that as well as the weapon control systems (e.g. the system needs to support the weapon plus you need to install the possibility to send mid-course target position updates till the missile goes active).

[Kuky]

Where did you get that information from? I would expect that the radar would need some modifications for that as well as the weapon control systems (e.g. the system needs to support the weapon plus you need to install the possibility to send mid-course target position updates till the missile goes active).

 

The R-77 and Su-27 are exported so the Su-27 has been upgraded to carry this missile, just that Russians never got to upgrade their fleet. That's what I meant by they COULD carry the R-77. It's the same airframe, just needs weapons systems upgrade. Hect the Russians even offered the old MIG-21 airframe to carry the R-77, so it's obvisouly no problems in can they do it (and would they do it if situations requires ie if war breaks out) it's just will they want to do it (I guess money wise) and so far they haven't done it.

Edited September 11, 2012 by Kuky

[EtherealN]

That's potentially a pretty big project, though.

 

F-15C could carry PAC-3's, just need a weapon system upgrade... :P

(Okey, not fair, since PAC-3 Eagles isn't operational _anywhere_ and never was, but you get my point.)

[Cali]

Why do we have to separate realism and balance? Balance in the sense that they are as close to their real world counter parts as possible is what ED products should aim... If F15 is superior in BVR, so be it. If Su27 is superior in close range combat, so be it. There is no need to surpress one or the other purposely for the sake of achieving absolute balance. After all, realism is DCS's thing.

 

We shouldn't have to and I agree with you, but that's how it seems to be.