rlogue Posted February 8, 2006 Author Posted February 8, 2006 Maybe in some specific tasks, but the general idea was to do it all BVR. Most pilots were never even trained for close combat. Serbian pilots did train for it, a lot, becouse they knew that nato knew they would rely on GCI - no AWACS here, offcorse. I knew where one GCI was, and my father knew, so did my grandmother, and I bett nato knew, but it never got one shot on it... hoped to jam/intercept it. The idea was to sneak up from low level, pop up and do what you can... But, as I sayed before, nothing much you can do if u'r weapon systems don't work... damn hard to fire R-73 on "сетка". sry 4 spelling... no sleep long time ;) Interesting ..
GGTharos Posted February 8, 2006 Posted February 8, 2006 Right, and I'll say again, that according to SERB PILOT testimony, he had a fully functional MiG-29 with working RWR and weapons, and he even got a missile off right before an AMRAAM turned his plane into scrap metal. We're talking 20-30 years old fighter versus a moden F-15C. /No/ contest. Also the getting into WVR range comes -straight- from a Russian pilot. [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 8, 2006 Posted February 8, 2006 We're talking 20-30 years old fighter versus a moden F-15C. /No/ contest. So a normal Su-27, as modelled in LOMAC, shouldn't really be a contest either then? There really is no difference between it and the MiG-29A, after all, except that it can carry extended range versions of the Alamo.
GGTharos Posted February 8, 2006 Posted February 8, 2006 Not really true ... the 120 supposedly has 1.5x to 2x the range of the old R-27. The Radar of the MiG-29 has pretty poor processing capability, where, if you go by the manuals, the Su-27 has demonstrably better radar qualities in almost all respects (processing power counts, remember? :D ) Also the R-27ER carries better electronics than the old R-27 if we were to believe in a continuous improvement programme, much like the Sparrow. So, I think the 15 should have an advantage, but not like with the MiG. Remember, even in E-E the MiGs again got owned ... but by flankers. [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
3Sqn_Fudd Posted February 8, 2006 Posted February 8, 2006 Hi again guys... Rlogue do you recall what online server this happened on? I would try to recreate this situation again. Pick a GMT thats good for you and I'll help if I can. Other than that gents remember to record and save your tracks! http://3sqn.com/forum/ Here's to 1.13 -- > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0488djMDBU
rlogue Posted February 8, 2006 Author Posted February 8, 2006 Not sure ... I will experiment around some more with it for sure. Tell you what ... didn't mean for this to turn into the rant that it did. As strongly as people feel about it though, It looks like it was a good subject to bring up. If it gets the ED team talking to each other about it, then it'll all be good in the end.
nscode Posted February 8, 2006 Posted February 8, 2006 Right, and I'll say again, that according to SERB PILOT testimony, he had >>>>a<<<< fully functional MiG-29 with working RWR and weapons, and he even got a missile off right before an AMRAAM turned his plane into scrap metal. We're talking 20-30 years old fighter versus a moden F-15C. /No/ contest. Also the getting into WVR range comes -straight- from >>>a<<<< Russian pilot. As in >>>one<<< One plane against how many? And he was trained to work in pairs.. after loosing his wingmen he was to head home. His personal decision to go on is equal in my mind to actions of another pilot who crashed his Orao plane into a cruise missile instead of ejecting after damaged by AAA trying to down the same tomahawk. But yes, any of those earliest production MiG's had little chance in usual ways of combat. That is why R-73 was successfully used from the ground, which just shows you how vercitile it is. As for the wvr/bvr as I sayed, maybe, in some specially tasked groupes. The planes them selves have also been built with the idea of a long range interceptor.. the nice acro stuff is just a bi-product. OT: Btw, it's official now.. 5 of our remaining 29's are going out for upgrades in a few months :) Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.
GGTharos Posted February 8, 2006 Posted February 8, 2006 ED has already heard all these arguments before rlogue, that's why there's a WAFM and WASM planned for the (not really near) future. [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
GGTharos Posted February 8, 2006 Posted February 8, 2006 It was a 2 on 2 engagement, and the way it happened, it may as well have been 1 v2 (1 F-15). As for the R-73 becoming a SAM, what exactly was it successful at? Test firings? While the flanker AND eagle are both long-ranged interceptors, they're both also built to turn and burn. MiG-29's on the other hand, are short-ranged point-defense fighters. [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
nscode Posted February 8, 2006 Posted February 8, 2006 The only pair I know of lasting for reasonably long is the one that ended up in Bosnia.. are you talking about that? As for the R-73 becoming a SAM, what exactly was it successful at? Test firings? Nope.. no time for tests, just for shooting down UAV's. To turn - yes, to turn in order to shoot down another interceptor - no. Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.
GGTharos Posted February 8, 2006 Posted February 8, 2006 To turn - yes, to turn in order to shoot down another interceptor - no. Not sure what you mean by that ... if you're implying that the eagle or flanker can't turn well you're flat-out wrong :) [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
nscode Posted February 8, 2006 Posted February 8, 2006 Noooo... just that SU-27 and MiG-29 were'nt built with an idea of dog fighing.. sharp turning is nice to politely let by the incoming thingy and short range is there to finish off the main target after you're (hoapfully) done with the escort. Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.
GGTharos Posted February 8, 2006 Posted February 8, 2006 Okay ... well, given their performances at close range combat, I think I disagree. While the Su-27 was built as an interceptor, it was also most -definitely- built as an aircraft that would be doing dogfighting. The maneuverability and R-73s with HMS are a testament to that. IMHO 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
nscode Posted February 8, 2006 Posted February 8, 2006 That's what I thought also for a long time, but have been reading otherwise lately. Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.
rlogue Posted February 9, 2006 Author Posted February 9, 2006 Okay ... well, given their performances at close range combat, I think I disagree. On what basis ?
Pilotasso Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 That's what I thought also for a long time, but have been reading otherwise lately. Could you elaborate on that? What sources are changing your mind? 1 .
rlogue Posted February 9, 2006 Author Posted February 9, 2006 ED has already heard all these arguments before rlogue, that's why there's a WAFM and WASM planned for the (not really near) future. So, youre telling me that 100 posts of people telling me I'm full of crap and bad tactics, and I was on to something all along ? and they have plans to fix it ??? wow .. that was painful !
D-Scythe Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 So, youre telling me that 100 posts of people telling me I'm full of crap and bad tactics, and I was on to something all along ? and they have plans to fix it ??? wow .. that was painful ! Come on, we didn't say it that bluntly :p
rlogue Posted February 9, 2006 Author Posted February 9, 2006 Come on, we didn't say it that bluntly :p I know, lol that was my big "I told you so" ! sorry
GGTharos Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 Okay ... well, given their performances at close range combat, I think I disagree. On what basis ? That does contain the basis ... ? [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
GGTharos Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 I know, lol that was my big "I told you so" ! sorry Except you didn't tell us anything. What you withnessed may still be the same at the end when you factor everything that makes a missile a missile (not that everything will be factored in 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
rlogue Posted February 9, 2006 Author Posted February 9, 2006 I will have the last post in this thread ....
GGTharos Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 Race ya! [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
S77th-GOYA 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?
Recommended Posts