Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About zare

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  1. A respectable member of key.ltd and acig forums passed on that information. You can also grab a couple of details here : http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/5354-su-30mki-jf-17-air-fight-16.html Note the guy that says he posted an report 4 years ago, so dig if you want :D
  2. Airframe wise, very similar. Su-35 is dead, yet the Su-35 lives on ;) Heh...the T-10M project dating from 1986 is officially closed, with 12 aircraft being delivered to VVS, five being passed on to the display team, two were fitted with advanced avionics and transformed into something known as Su-37, some lost and some left as LL's (flying labs). Nowadays, T-10BM (Su-35BM) project is actual. Static display was shown on MAKS 2007, this is probably the last iteration of the Flanker. Some of it's systems are even more capable than F-22's. The aircraft will undergo state trials in a next mo
  3. Yes, ordinary Su-27S/P, circa 1990, the long burn version. But it can only engage in LOBL mode, just like you use X-25MP. Su-27SM and Su-34 can exploit the full kynethic range of the missile, because the system can send out MCCU to the missile, via L-150 and L-175M, respectively.
  4. Ok, noted. However, every time i discussed MRAAM's, it was "for granted" that mentioned G-limits were target ones. However, when discussing SRAAM's, mentioned G-limits refer to airframe itself. Habbits, habbits... ;)
  5. It's reliable information from an reliable non-www source. Thus, i cannot "prove" it. So it's up to you to accept it or not ;) Because if you mount an 1103 onto the R-27ER, you'll get R-27EA. They are targeting R-27 users for potential upgrades. It doesn't make much sense now that RVV-AE is doing good on the export market together with new Flankers and Fulcrums, but latest ROE issue has R-33E listed also...that's an downgraded variant of the first Amos variant, and that first Amos variant isn't in active service anymore. So you should really question Russian export tactics. The
  6. Guys, this is getting boring. 1. Su-27S/P can exploit R-27AE. The active Alamo has only different seekerhead, the equipment inside the missile remained same throughout all early pre-production units. Thus, the FCS doesn't recognize the difference, it lists the missile as R-27ER. 2. Launching operation is same as in ER scenario, lock, and launch. When terminal stage gets going, the 9B-1103M will activate and go "pitbull". At this time the Su-27 can disengage the lock and do what ever he wants to do. So, the sole difference is between illuminating for the 9B-1101K and disengaging once the
  7. Is it possible to rearrange the instrument positions in LOMAC's pit? I would really like my Flanker TWS somewhere up, and closer to HUD, like it's in Su-25. Anyone did this kind of tweaking?
  8. I wouldn't play Raptor simulations with this. After each mission, you would have to call your wife, to get you outta of it with a chainsaw ;)
  9. I got my hands on this excellent joystick, it's an old gameport version, but it's same as newer USBs. I have no throttle module ATM. So i was wondering, what you guys think of this piece of tech? It's ergonomics are great, after all it was designed for USAF. Materials are top-of-the line too, and overall construction, but $100-$150 tends to be a little expensive, considering that you dont get HOTAS for that money, and it has no force feedback. And, what kind of mapping do you use with it in LOMAC? I use a modified version of mapping i use on my standard stick, Genius F-23 (i know, :megal
  10. I am not missing anything, unless public internet sources lie. R-77 entered small scale service in eighties third quarter, but global conditions in USSR and Russia delayed the full scale production, witch started in 1993, and R-77 entered service in 1994. I'm sorry for my error, 120C didn't enter service in '94, but in '96. And in LOMAC encyclopedia, it states AIM-120C. So it's a C version stated, but, seeing it's ingame characteristics, it's a B version. And B version entered in 1994, so we have an same type of missile, medium ranged autohomed, from the same year on both sides. As
  11. Correct me if i'm wrong...but i see somekind of misconception between fighter versions in LOMAC. Eagle was born mid-seventies, and Flanker was born mid-eighties. In the beginnings, both of these aircraft carried SARHs, right? AIM-7, and R-27R/ER. But, AMRAAM was in service somewhere around 1991, and Adder was in limited service before the Union collapsed, and it entered full scale service the same year as it's main competitor, the AIM-120C. The LOMAC's Eagle carries AIM-120C, yet, the LOMAC's Su-27 cannot carry Adder, altrough there were Su-27 variants in active service that carried Adders, wi
  12. Well... Regarding that IR launch, radar was off. How could it be on, when only IRST or RADAR mode can be active under BVR HUD mode at the same time? But, let's sat that i used EOS for scanning and launching, and radar was on. I mean, his TWS could have detected my scanning beams, but there was no track beam, so why would it alert launch?
  13. Yes, i'm flying LOMAC 1.02. I placed an battletank somewhere 100km away from my initial point, route to it, and attack waypoint on it. Targeting for that attack waypoint was on "object", "primary", "missile", and clicked on the tank. Now, the target shown "building", but had same coodrs as the tank. And there are no buildings nearby, that tank was in middle of Crimea. Got up, and no LA again, tried override, no effect. Then, i hopped to options screen, input, there is no entry of "override LA" or something alike. Alt-W, you say? Hmm...well then i created a mission, placed a Flanker 10
  14. Sukhoi P701 / PAK-FA 5th generation fighter schematics : :pilotfly:
  15. I heard stories of US Army using massive electromagnetic fields to cloak an battletank in late '50s. Bullshit story, of course. To get back on-topic, i still believe that active-stealth technology is the way to go. Maybe not with plasma, with radiation of different kind...who knows. In theory, uniform electromagnetic field around, for the sake of example, a fighter, could completely absorb radar emmited energy. However, that's still in the "theory domain", the magnitude of the field would be huge, and the field would have to be so precise, in other case, somebody would invent home-on-em
  • Create New...