R-27EA in LOFC2?

Finally we all know that the F-15C in FC2 has improved since its first release in FC1...now it can carry the AIM120C5 with improved range, also an advanced Datalink has been implemented as well, while at the same time the Russian fighters have stayed exactly the same...

Changes were made to all aircraft with FC2. The only planes in FC2 that have any sort of datalink is Migs and Flankers. Eagles in FC2 have no datalink, and the AIM120C5 in FC2 is basically a B but with increased range. None of the datalink features in the real C5 are modeled in FC2.

As for RVV-AE, they are not operational AFAIK. You will very often find missiles listed for aircraft where they are not actually available - they are advertised because they can be integrated if someone decides to order them. So far, with the RVV-AE, no-one has put them into operational use (AFAIK).

If there was even one airplane in USSR or Russia with R-27EA capability, we should have it in FC. Because FC does not simulate economical aspect of the military aviation.

So you wouldn't mind if the F-15C was given AIM-54 or PAC-3? :D

So you wouldn't mind if the F-15C was given AIM-54 or PAC-3? :D

I wanted to post the same....tooo late it seems..:thumbup:

Well, I can settle for AIM-9X. :)

AESA + AIM-120D + AIM-9X + MIDS + JHMCS :D

So you wouldn't mind if the F-15C was given AIM-54 or PAC-3? :D

lol...not at all. I'd never fly with them loaded because

1) AIM-54 too easy to dodge.

2) PAC-3 not bad against short-medium range ballistic missiles. Not great against Aircraft though.

You wouldn't have to dodge my AIM-54's, so don't worry about that.

Your tankers and AWACS, though... ... ... :)

lol...not at all. I'd never fly with them loaded because

 

1) AIM-54 too easy to dodge.

2) PAC-3 not bad against short-medium range ballistic missiles. Not great against Aircraft though.

RIP, a MOD ya, single AIM-54C on CL? Like our A2G MOD, ja?

RIP, a MOD ya, single AIM-54C on CL? Like our A2G MOD, ja?

Ya. Lets do it. MiG-29G(hey) 6 AIM-54C + RIM-66 on centreline.

POWA!

Ya. Lets do it. MiG-29G(hey) 6 AIM-54C + RIM-66 on centreline.

 

POWA!

naa, F-15 RIP, better radar with TWS. The wheelchair is not getting airborne with that.

You wouldn't have to dodge my AIM-54's, so don't worry about that.

 

Your tankers and AWACS, though... ... ... :)

Hitting AI tankers gets boring after a bit though. cool story otherwise.

The AWACS is the big one. Since russians get a datalink but americans don't, got to level the playing field. :D

As for boring... A mission is a mission, and Airquake gets even more boring. Flying AWACS escort or, for that matter, a penetration run against enemy AWACS, that's a lot more interesting.

Anybody know military journalist/writer Piotr Butowski?

According to him the R-27EA was abandoned early on (replaced by R-77 interest) but the Artem factory in Kiev made a short, limited production run (ostensibly for service trials) of R-27P in 1991 with seekers supplied by CKBA in Omsk. This wasn't known until more than ten years later but the author investigated an export listing for the missile at Kiev, apparently from what I can gather he followed the breadcrumbs to discover the limited production run and the information was published in Janes 2004.

According to the author whilst Kiev could no longer produce R-27P, at Vympel in Moscow he claims small orders for either R-27P or EP can be filled and he infers having confirmed this with the company.

For whatever that's all worth. Any thoughts?

Anybody know military journalist/writer Piotr Butowski?

According to him the R-27EA was abandoned early on (replaced by R-77 interest) but the Artem factory in Kiev made a short, limited production run (ostensibly for service trials) of R-27P in 1991 with seekers supplied by CKBA in Omsk. This wasn't known until more than ten years later but the author investigated an export listing for the missile at Kiev, apparently from what I can gather he followed the breadcrumbs to discover the limited production run and the information was published in Janes 2004.

According to the author whilst Kiev could no longer produce R-27P, at Vympel in Moscow he claims small orders for either R-27P or EP can be filled and he infers having confirmed this with the company.

 

For whatever that's all worth. Any thoughts?

R-27P/EP still in product list.

http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/503/506/

In product list. Not in inventory. Hint.

... or R-27P.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=72806

Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP!

In product list. Not in inventory. Hint.

Did I say that they have it in the inventory? Read what I quoted, there is a reason for quoting.

?I missed something? You speak from a 3rd party MOD (Yoda's LEAVU) or you think the F-15 has DL as well like a SU-27 with awacs?

Am referring to Yoda's work and I do believe his excellent work should be accepted and integrated on public servers because that's how a real F-15 is.

On the other hand a Su-27S(K) does carry R-77's, that's a public official statement from the manufacturer.There is no difference whatsoever between Su-27B and Su-27S in term of cockpits. As i said, I believe they did some tweaking to the radar software on the S version to fit the R-77, but the radar still pretty much the same capable of tracking multiple targets but engaging only 1 even with the R-77. And please for those who still get confused between R77 and RVV-AE, that's only the name of the program but it's basically the same missile. RVV-AE is the new codename as they started fielding their upgrading program of the vanilla 50km range R-77 Active radar missile which has been widely exported, the same missile simulated in FC2...

IMO, realism in FC2 is to try to simulate current capabilities as long as there are no significant changes in the cockpit or the airframe itself, both conditions are observed regarding the transition from the Su-27B to the Su-27S...that's also true re the F-15's DL (yoda's work).

IMO, realism in FC2 is to try to simulate current capabilities as long as there are no significant changes in the cockpit or the airframe itself, both conditions are observed regarding the transition from the Su-27B to the Su-27S...that's also true re the F-15's DL (yoda's work).

If that was the case, the R-77 would not be on the 29S. :P

FC2 is a survey sim, and it basically tries to walk the fine line of realism vs game balancing. This is complicated by several factors: for example realism is sometimes hindered by developmental constraints - like the fact that F-15 and Fulcrum/Flanker use the same radar. (Just "skinned" differently, and some values tweaked to make the 29 radar appropriately weaker) They use the same flight model (with differing data plugged in).

As for "powerful data link"... LEAVU2 as released by Yoda is less powerful than what the migs and flankers have inside the games, with the added requirement of running server/client and either second screen or second computer. But that's beside the point: that's a mod, and it applies equally to all planes. You can use it to do stuff for russian planes if you like - it just so happened that Yoda was an F-15 pilot so that's what he did with the codebase he developed. Also, since you specifically meant LEAVU: it actually REDUCED the datalink capability with FC2. The FC1 version was more capable than the FC2 version, but the FC2 version was scaled back because some people felt it was horrible that the F-15 should have the same capability the red planes had out of the box... :P

And, again, regarding equipment - where's the F-15's AIM-9X? Where's waypointed AMRAAMs?

The simple fact is that compromises were made for all planes, because it is a survey simulator.

Am referring to Yoda's work and I do believe his excellent work should be accepted and integrated on public servers because that's how a real F-15 is.

LEAVU would be great, but just acceptance of ERI would be adequate.

On the other hand a Su-27S(K) does carry R-77's, that's a public official statement from the manufacturer.There is no difference whatsoever between Su-27B and Su-27S in term of cockpits.

No, in the sense of 'this isn't the Su-27SK you're thinking of' ... there is some upgrade to let it carry them, but just like the Su-27S, it isn't able to without modification. You can find MiG-29A's (Hint: Malaysia) which were modified to carry R-77's for example.

As i said, I believe they did some tweaking to the radar software on the S version to fit the R-77, but the radar still pretty much the same capable of tracking multiple targets but engaging only 1 even with the R-77. And please for those who still get confused between R77 and RVV-AE, that's only the name of the program but it's basically the same missile. RVV-AE is the new codename as they started fielding their upgrading program of the vanilla 50km range R-77 Active radar missile which has been widely exported, the same missile simulated in FC2...

I wouldn't assume it's just software. That might be enough for the WCS to talk to the missile, but I am reasonably (not 100%, but reasonably) that you would need additional wing/pylon wiring.

BTW, the difference between the 'vanilla' and 'internal' versions of the R-77 will probably be in software and especially in ECCM capability ... not rockets or guidance - just educated guess based on some other things I've seen.

IMO, realism in FC2 is to try to simulate current capabilities as long as there are no significant changes in the cockpit or the airframe itself, both conditions are observed regarding the transition from the Su-27B to the Su-27S...that's also true re the F-15's DL (yoda's work).

Well, it would be nice is someone added Russian-centric display to LEAVU and took away the eagle-rwr for example, thus making it a bit more exciting for the red bird pilots as well. You'd want to lock it up so that it doesn't work for say, Su-25's or MiG-29's ... Su-25T's could conceivably get a US-like RWR to simulate the Pastel.

PASTEL.... funny choice of word the by the russians. ;)

in my language it means custard cake,

in slang it means a slow reacting clumsy person. :D

In my language it means a gaudy color. :)

If that was the case, the R-77 would not be on the 29S. :P

 

FC2 is a survey sim, and it basically tries to walk the fine line of realism vs game balancing. This is complicated by several factors: for example realism is sometimes hindered by developmental constraints - like the fact that F-15 and Fulcrum/Flanker use the same radar. (Just "skinned" differently, and some values tweaked to make the 29 radar appropriately weaker) They use the same flight model (with differing data plugged in).

 

As for "powerful data link"... LEAVU2 as released by Yoda is less powerful than what the migs and flankers have inside the games, with the added requirement of running server/client and either second screen or second computer. But that's beside the point: that's a mod, and it applies equally to all planes. You can use it to do stuff for russian planes if you like - it just so happened that Yoda was an F-15 pilot so that's what he did with the codebase he developed. Also, since you specifically meant LEAVU: it actually REDUCED the datalink capability with FC2. The FC1 version was more capable than the FC2 version, but the FC2 version was scaled back because some people felt it was horrible that the F-15 should have the same capability the red planes had out of the box... :P

 

And, again, regarding equipment - where's the F-15's AIM-9X? Where's waypointed AMRAAMs?

 

The simple fact is that compromises were made for all planes, because it is a survey simulator.

Honestly, I don't get it, when we refer to realism, you mention game balancing and vice-versa....Anyways, talking fairly about balancing, F-15C in FC2 got 120C5's, increased ECM burn-trough distance, better BFM capabilities....what Flankers and Mig's got upgraded in FC2 worth mentioning in term of combat effectiveness...??

F-15C in FC2 got 120C5's

No, F-15 got AIM-120B's with extended range. Standard lofted semiactive is NOT what a C5 does. It is way more powerful than that.

increased ECM burn-trough distance

Yeah, it's a big dish. :P

better BFM capabilities....

Matched to REAL performance documentation.

what Flankers and Mig's got upgraded in FC2 worth mentioning in term of combat effectiveness...??

They were also tuned according to real performance documentation. As was the weapons they use. Unfortunately, in some cases the real information ended up saying that even GG had over-estimated the effectiveness of some of the missiles in use on that side. That says something. :D

As for game balancing and realism: well of course it's a mix. It's a survey sim. You make what you can as close to reality as possible (for example: Eagle BFM performance), R-27 warhead, and in some cases you are just not able to make the required changes to make it realistic (R-27ER/ET performance versus maneuvering targets) because it would require WAY too much work, in other cases you just don't have the required information. And in the end, you throw people a bone and strap the R-77 onto the MiG-29S. (Because it honestly would become F15 vs F15 if there were no active missiles on the red side.)

Compare to the fact that the Ka-50 can notch in multiplayer. That should not be possible, at all. Even with wheels on the ground and rotors spinning, that should be a huge beacon on the radar screen of any F-15. But this would make this too difficult in MP for DCS:BS players to get a generally good gameplay experience online, so allowances were made.

I don't see what is controversial here?

To be straight with you, do you think that a Su-27 with 6 R77's, 2 ET's and 2 R73's going 1 on 1 with a F-15 with 8 X15km range advantage 120's is an unbalanced contest??