GGTharos Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 Nah, no point GOYA. [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
rlogue Posted February 9, 2006 Author Posted February 9, 2006 I think it's well worth reading ... some parts more than others ... lot's of people had lot's of info. There was quite a few intellegent posts buried in there by some sharp people ... and there was some trash talk. I don't think we ever came to a conclusion but we all got it off our chests.
D-Scythe Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 Hi fellas. Is this thread nice? Should I go back and read it all or is it full of the usual crap? Nope. You can chip in your two cents though, and we can start the whole thing anew ;)
S77th-GOYA Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 Let's see if I can summarize it without the benefit of reading it from the beginning. These missles suck! No, you suck! I do not! GG: there are many difficulties involved in a missle hitting its target and I know all of them What are the ways missle developers overcome these difficulties, GG? GG: It's secret. Oh. Pilotasso: I am NOT obsessed with the (504) stats! There are servers filled with jet fighters all flying below 1000 feet! No, you suck! GO STEELERS! It doesn't matter, it's all going to change with AWM in 2009. OK then I am happy No, you suck! D-Scythe: you must launch from lower altitude than your target But he's at 50 feet! D-Scythe: Then fly at 10 feet just like in real life So, how did I do? My apologies for any caricatures that might be percieved as malicious. It is not my intent. :) 2
GGTharos Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 You should do LOMAC standup GOYA! :D [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
AJ.eightFive Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 Lmao, nice one. Perhaps you could some up a few of the other 10+ page threads for us.
S77th-GOYA Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 I hear the pay sucks. And if anybody feels the urge to post "No, you suck!", too late. Because, YOU suck! HAHAHAHA! 2
rlogue Posted February 9, 2006 Author Posted February 9, 2006 So what yer sayin ... is this isn't the first thread like this ??? lol
nscode Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 Could you elaborate on that? What sources are changing your mind? Some stuff about ex- East German units (a F-16 pilot going to train with 'em after doing Bosnia no-fly) and about the history of Su-27.. do u'r own google-ing.. got to study for an exam.. ;) Do you think that if I suck enough amraams will go away from me? :D Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.
Weta43 Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 No They're like a dog, they smell fear. That's why D-Scythe can fly with impunity. Cheers.
Pilotasso Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 Let's see if I can summarize it without the benefit of reading it from the beginning. These missles suck! No, you suck! I do not! GG: there are many difficulties involved in a missle hitting its target and I know all of them What are the ways missle developers overcome these difficulties, GG? GG: It's secret. Oh. Pilotasso: I am NOT obsessed with the (504) stats! There are servers filled with jet fighters all flying below 1000 feet! No, you suck! GO STEELERS! It doesn't matter, it's all going to change with AWM in 2009. OK then I am happy No, you suck! D-Scythe: you must launch from lower altitude than your target But he's at 50 feet! D-Scythe: Then fly at 10 feet just like in real life So, how did I do? My apologies for any caricatures that might be percieved as malicious. It is not my intent. :) Hoho haha it is to laugh!!! No realy...I laughed the most in the one particular line. ;) (maybe because you feel under pressure? ;) ) P.S. "obsessed" is spelled obcessed. :p .
Skywall23 Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 Lol GOYA I liked that summary. About the Su-27, nscode as soon as you have studied for the exam tell us about that thing of the Su-27 being a BVR exclusive aircraft. If that is really true... then I think the Flanker is crap. Man, without ARH missiles it stands no chance against aircraft carrying ARH missiles. This of course, without employing tactics. In fact what I like the most in the Su-27 is really the WVR performance and the R-73. Bah, bring me my dear F-16C! Until then im a Ka-50 pilot!:p
nscode Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 You should still like it for that, as it can do that job as well... very well :) it just wasn't a main strategy ;) Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.
GGTharos Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 I think in this case the philosophy of the deisgners departed form the philosophy of the strategists then, because you certainly -can- sacrifice dogfighting ability for speed and range (MiG-25 for example). Likewise, you design in dogfighting ability, too. [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
D-Scythe Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 You should still like it for that, as it can do that job as well... very well :) it just wasn't a main strategy ;) Until you show some proof, I find it hard to believe a word you say. The Su-27 and MiG-29 were obviously fighters designed from the outset to be highly maneuverable and agile. If the Su-27 and MiG-29 were really designed primarily for BVR, what's the point of developing the MiG-31?
nscode Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 I think in this case the philosophy of the deisgners departed form the philosophy of the strategists then, because you certainly -can- sacrifice dogfighting ability for speed and range (MiG-25 for example). Likewise, you design in dogfighting ability, too. Yes, that could be the case. But keep in mind that both aircraft were also designed for ground support roles. Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.
Force_Feedback Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 If the Su-27 and MiG-29 were really designed primarily for BVR, what's the point of developing the MiG-31? To create an effective defensive border patrol aircraft, and they did. Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy:
D-Scythe Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 To create an effective defensive border patrol aircraft, and they did. Um, the Su-30 could've easily filled this role, and at much less cost. So you're telling me that the Su-27 and MiG-29 were not designed to turn? Right. Even the F-15 was designed to be agile from the outset - this was a major design requirement - and it relies more on BVR than either Russian fighter. I don't think MiG and Sukhoi "accidentally" made the MiG-29 and Su-27 into pretty good turning fighters.
Force_Feedback Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 Um, the Su-30 could've easily filled this role, and at much less cost. So you're telling me that the Su-27 and MiG-29 were not designed to turn? Right. Even the F-15 was designed to be agile from the outset - this was a major design requirement - and it relies more on BVR than either Russian fighter. I don't think MiG and Sukhoi "accidentally" made the MiG-29 and Su-27 into pretty good turning fighters. I wasn't "telling you" anything besides that the Mig-31 wasn't designed as an interceptor, more like an AWACS with teeth. The Su-30 lacked a good radar back then, but yes, if certain events in 1991 didn't happen, it would have been a better choice. ;) Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy:
nscode Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 So you're telling me that the Su-27 and MiG-29 were not designed to turn? No.. never sayed that.. even specificly sayed I didn't say that :D Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.
rlogue Posted February 10, 2006 Author Posted February 10, 2006 nscode, be careful what you post ... you have to have solid proof if the form of a 20 or 30 second video or else !
Recommended Posts