RIP Flanker.. all hail the new king.

[PE_Tigar]

As for the Flanker vs. teen series vs. Raptor talk... I suggest listening to this guy: http://vayu-sena.indianmilitaryhistory.org/exercise-red-flag-su-30mki-comparison-fornof.shtml

[Cali]

Don't make me laugh... the US has always s*** their pants when Russians are mentioned... US goes into wars that they think they can win... actually few times they got it wrong... I don't want to go into politics now but Russia in war is a real Bear and the US will never want to fight it and they all know damn well why :book:

 

Not gonna even comment on this, but it pissed me off.

[UVAF Bond]

US/British/French submarines have been sailing around USSR and Chinese coasts undetected for decades. So what? This is nothing short of just being a part of cold war.

 

Perhaps the way you SHOULD say it is 'wow, they managed to get a sub out there finally' ;)

 

I am very realistic!

I just answer to fellow, who post the link to WIKI, and who believe that the reality follow the WIKI instructions.

Of course, F-15 is a very good fighter, and against SU27 with semi active missiles 1vs1 he will not be afraid, but I am sure also, that 1vs 1 nobody win, because, AIM120 will not reach the target.

Even in Yugoslavia, where F15 was fired AIM 120 from 10-15 km against Mig29 w/o normally working Beryoza, they have missed a lot of them.

Thats mean that in reality AIM120 are not so ubermissile, like in LO, only this.

[lunaticfringe]

I have to laugh as you focus on one bad timeline in Russian history (the fall of CCCP and Varshow pact)

 

One bad part of Russian history that has extended into the modern day. What point is there for the post-Soviet Air Forces to invest in wunderweapons when they fail to provide their pilots the necessary tools and training to employ them?

 

but you are greatly ignorant and fail to understand how Russian fight and what they have done in past in war time...

 

Oh, I know all about how the Russian fights in wartime. They like reminding themselves of that, too; entire treatises in their professional journals about how the patriotic men of Red Air stood up against the mighty German war machine. And they go into excruciating detail about how they had issues with centralized command and control operations, which is something you might find funny, because they *never* fixed that problem.

 

The Soviet/Russian operates in war under the premise it is a meat-grinder; quantity supplanting quality. But what happens when the rate of exchange (due to the opponent's capability) overcomes your exchange rate?

 

THAT is the war NATO was prepared to fight- one in which the rate of exchange for the Soviets would have been tantamount to suicide. And given the nature of the tactics they were prepared to apply in relation to their technological inferiority, and the training granted to employ them, Blue Air was going to have a field day over the FEBA.

 

We have a saying over here in the West, generally used as an investment disclaimer, but it is positioned for any discussion of conflict- unarmed, or otherwise:

 

"Past performance is not indicative of future success."

 

I will stop laughing when I live the day when the US can rise up to the Russian bear the way you think they have already done.

 

It already did- perhaps you've heard of it: it was called the Cold War.

 

Were the Soviets so confident in the ability of their mediocre quality/expansive quantity matchup to overcome the performance of NATO, they'd have never struggled to develop 4th generation fighters.

 

But you knew that. :lol:

 

You think your way, I will think my way

 

Therein lies the problem- you're not thinking; at least not objectively.

 

See, you accuse me of merely being pro-US at the ideological level, when I can back up every point I've made with definitive factual points... points made by the Russians themselves.

 

These facts show a defiency in the Soviet and post-Soviet understanding and instructing the fundamentals of ACM, detection, and tactics which have been borne out over the last just-shy of one hundred years of aerial warfare as the foundations of success in that arena. Instead of being able to factually refute these arguments, you're here spouting off generalized propaganda about the strength of the Bear. Which in and of itself is really funny, because THAT was a massive part of the limited Soviet and post-Soviet era training regime. Which is all really very useful when the Capitalist dog is standing in front of their polling place, but amounts to nothing when you're being *SHOT AT*.

 

The fact of the matter is that modern air warfare has nothing to do with pride in one's nation (for which there is no difference between "the Man" of either nation), and everything to do with experience and quality. Quality of the tools, and quality of the training the individual asked to use those tools receives. One cannot develop skills that translate to employment of a fighter by doing mathematical equations, drawing lines on nomographs, and walking around the flight line in formation- all of which were techniques applied by the PVO and VVS to try to instill necessary learning. No- a pilot must strap his jet on, maneuver the inputs, use the systems, and function as though his life was on the line, and do this with constant repetition to maintain his edge.

 

Anyway, I do not intend to mock the US or their powerful armed forced (which we all know they are) but it is very foolish to diss the Russians ;)

 

You insult the Russian Air Forces by your lack of understanding of their position in the Cold War. It takes a brave man to strap on a jet with little training and throw himself against an exponentially more capable opponent.

 

But all the bravery in the world amounts to nothing when you're detected first, shot at first, and lack the understanding needed to employ your weapon effectively without support.

[USAFMTL]

Here we go again. "MEESTER BEEG PANT AEROPLANE KNOWLDGE DUDES. WE ALL Zzz KNOWN MEESTRR PETE MEETCH FLY UBER SEX PLANE F-14 TOMCST. YU ALL LOSARS TO GRWAT LATVIAN MAFIA AEROFORCE!!!!"

 

Serioisly though this arguement is old. Lets get back to simming.

[159th_Viper]

Lets get back to simming.

 

Wise Words!

 

We have somehow completely lost the original spirit and intent of this thread. I'll close it here before it degenerates any further.

 

Back to Bug-Hunting Gentlemen, please.

[GGTharos]

The missile simulated in LO is worse than the one used against those MiGs in RL; it is no ubermissile. You don't see me complaining about 120's missing in game, but that is because I don't complain. The hit ratio in game is about 30% from collected statistics ... so as you can see, not only it is not an ubermissile, it isn't even as good as a 120B in RL.

 

For the most part, all misses were attributed to launches in poor parameters (ie. target almost at the notch, etc). In other cases multiple missiles were launched but they can only count one hit even if many missiles may have hit the target. It is hard to tell exactly what happened from the statistics, except to say that AIM-120 has generally 60% chance to hit, which is twice that of older missiles.

 

Even in Yugoslavia, where F15 was fired AIM 120 from 10-15 km against Mig29 w/o normally working Beryoza, they have missed a lot of them.

Thats mean that in reality AIM120 are not so ubermissile, like in LO, only this.