Poll - Active radar missiles for Su-27

[One]

to GGTharos

 

About misbalance:

I have also seen people flying SU 27/33 online (…and I fly it myself from time to time), but haven’t you ever asked yourself why do so many people use Mig 29C (instead of SU 27/33)? - A light fighter which is inferior in number of missiles and amount of fool to SU 27 and F15. Do you think are they all keens of Mig, or are they all flying it just because it has active missiles?

I agree that R27ET is a very serious weapon and I like it very much but there are only two R27ET on SU27/33 when all other middle range missiles are passive.

You say that Russian missiles have range advantage but do you really think that such missile being got off from the maximum range will strike the aim. Especially when this aim makes antimissile maneuvers – there is no chance! More over, when you shoot Russian passive missile and you have to lock the enemy till the moment of hit you not only cant make active maneuvers but you even cant be sure that you created some stable danger for your enemy by this shot because if he hits you or if you just loose him your missile wont find the aim. And shooting active missile you can be sure that your missile will continue the hunting even if you crash in next two seconds.

Why do you think the active R77 was invented and adopted if there is no misbalance between F15 with AIM 120C and SU 27 with R27 (according to your words) ?

 

About modernization:

I know that to make such modernization of SU 27 in real life you are only need to change two or three electronic blokes in the radar. I don’t know whether our Air Forces thought about such modernization or are they going to pay for much more sophisticated variants of modernization including more improvements (I even don’t speak about buying new planes as SU 35 and SU 37) but technically there is no any problem for such modernization at all (especially in the game).

 

PS. I cant promise that I will continue this interesting discussion because I am rather busy now and expressing my ideas on English takes me more time than on Russian :)

[D-Scythe]

Balance and misbalance are for games - Realism is for sims. If the Su-27 modelled in Lock On cannot support the R-77, leave it that way. So what if some people who don't know how to use the Su-27 effectively choose instead to fly the MiG-29S?

 

As for the F-15C, there are so many things that could still use refinement that leaves it especially vulnerable to its Russian counterparts already, like TWS. And the AIM-120 isn't some super-weapon. It's all about tactics and strategy.

[GGTharos]

Actually lately I've seen more Sues in teh air than MiGs. Virtual air, anyway.

 

You are of course, correct about why the RVV-AE was built - but given tis specific simulation, if you are to get RVV-AE, us Eagle drivers should be getting Link-16 and the other nifty features, so this 'imbalance' would continue anyway and then you'd be asking for Su-35 ;)

 

As I said, in the game there's not much of an imbalance. While shooting a missile at max range isn't a terribly good idea, the fact remains that you can shoot your R-27ER from 50% farther than the AMRAAM would be shot from, and still hit unless that aircraft turns around and runs. If you are careful you can maintain this range and with some rocking of the aircraft - up and down - and maintaining lock through his notching, you can deny him a victory while trashing the shorter-ranged AMRAAM.

 

The SARH missiles in this game are -extremely- accurate. The reason for development of AIM-120 and RVV-AE is -not- only the launch-and-leave ability, which I suspect is actually less so in real life than it is in this fame; but also for incredibly increased accuracy.

 

AIM-7 has only 30% hit probability and that's for the modern version - the R-27 family is unlikely to be doing much better, which is why you need active missiles. However, in -this- game, accuracy is not an issue, only the 'launch and leave' part, and given radar modelling in this game (Chizh, or Valery, could you confirm or deny this?) it may actually be difficult for an Active missile to lock onto yoru aircraft depending on how you fly - ie. if you present minimum RCS combined with counter measures.

 

If the fights comes down to 10nm, you launch your ET, follwoed immidiately by an ER, and turn around and run - he'll likely maneuver a little, then see your lock break and assume he's trashed your shot - he'll pursue you and get destroyed.

 

Besides, simulation -is- about realism in some part, and less about balance in other parts. Regardless, I see people 'flying low and looking up for dots in the sky' all the time which doesn't at all seem to be realistic insofar as actual fighter combat goes; the SARH missiles are too accurate, and the Russians have a datalink they shouldn't have - so I really don't think there's a serious imbalance at a/ll/ expecially given that there are people who have gotten the right tactics down and can tango with an F-15 without trouble.

 

Just ask Megile. We had a 5 minute BVR fight in which we fired /all/ our BVR missiles at each other, and each and every missile missed. We started at very high altitude and long range (around 60km) right to where we had perfect BVR shots at 15km. They /all/ missed. Each and every one of them. ARH, SARH, heat seeking. So the imbalance is simply /not/ this bad. You just need to learn to use that Sue right.

[Skywall23]

Hmm....what about the manoubrability (please guys tell me how do i spell this word :? ) of the Su-27?

 

Shouldnt it be more manoubrable? I know ,I know that the fuel on 100% makes it spin, stall, etc , but dont you thinkit shouldnt be like this? I mean the Su-27 loses speed very fast. The best angles of attack i can get are between 350 Km/h and 500 Km/h but the plane cant hold very well that way. It will quickly lose speed, and i will get to stall.

 

Zzzzspace said that 60% of fuel should make the Flanker a good dogfighter. But i think that value it too low. To avoid spins one of the features your plane must have is aceleration. The more powerfull the engine the more time the plane will hold on (of course it also depends on aerodynamics etc). One of the things that I liked to see on the list of 1.1 was that the Su-27/33 can now roll faster, but in Flanker 2.0 when you pass the first toturial, the instructor tells you that the Flanker beat several speed records established by the F-15. Is this true? If yes, how can the engines of the Flanker be so low when it comes to the acelearation? Or are we only talking about top speed? I doubt that, since i believe those records must be done by distance:

 

[This example is no real data]

 

Su-27 hits 500 Km/h in 300m

 

Su-27 hits 1000Km/h in 3 Km.

 

I think the records are made this way. Maybe not by distance but by time.

 

You may also see that the Su-27 model design is more pro-manoubrable. Unlike the F-15 it hasnt the air absorving mouths on then side of the cockpit.

 

I still remember when I went to hyperlobby and saw some people claiming that the F-15 was a very good dogfighter in this game. Should it be like it is? :shock:

 

I could bet my arse that the F-15 theory is destroy at long/medium range, but since im no expert on aircraft, I will leave this matter for the professionals.

 

So shall the angles of attack of the Crane be higher...or not?

[GGTharos]

Skywall, the Su-27 does not use external fuel tanks because it has /enormous/ internal fuel tanks.

 

100% fuel on a flanker is the same as an F-15 with 100% fuel + three external fuel tanks! THAT MUCH fuel! When using the F-15, I always drop the tanks when going into close combat, otherwise the F-15 behaves exactly like the flanker with 100% fuel. Also don't forget that the Su-27, fully loaded, is carrying a couple metric tons of weapons.

 

ANd yes, the Flanker beat several records established by the F-15, but the F-15 got upgraded engines and took some of those back.

 

As for maneuverability, I heard from a crew chief that he's seen F-15's hang in turns with F-16's at Red Flag.

 

For your turns, used 600 or 700km/h, not slower. 500kmh is too slow because you will lose speed quickly; your corner speed in a flanker is pretty high anyway, around 650-700km'h last I checked.

[Guest DeathAngelBR]

100% fuel on a flanker is the same as an F-15 with 100% fuel + three external fuel tanks! THAT MUCH fuel! When using the F-15, I always drop the tanks when going into close combat, otherwise the F-15 behaves exactly like the flanker with 100% fuel. Also don't forget that the Su-27, fully loaded, is carrying a couple metric tons of weapons

 

Correction: Su-27 on 100% fuel = F-15C on 100% internal fuel + 2 fuel tanks.

[Alfa]

Hi all,

 

Skywall wrote:

Is this the modified Su-27? Yeah, and for it looks like if we wanted ED to model the SM version, ED would have to model air-to-ground modes on the Su-27

 

Yes thats correct Skywall :) .

 

Some Russian radar info:

 

"One" is right that only a minor modification to the N001 radar would be required (along the lines of the N019M of the MiG-29S) in order to make the Su-27 capable of deploying the R-77. However, such an upgrade has not been made to the N001 radar of any existing Su-27 versions.

 

The N001 radar which did recieve an upgrade making it capable of deploying the R-77 missile is, as earlier mentioned, the "N001VE" radar, which was installed in the following upgraded Su-27 versions:

 

- Su-27SM (one prototype exists) - a multirole upgrade to Russian Su-27S single seater.

 

- Su-27UBM (one prototype exists) - a multirole upgrade to Russian Su-27UB two-seat combat trainer.

 

- Su-30KN (one prototype exists) - a multirole upgrade to Russian Su-30(Su-27PU) two-seat interceptor(very similar to Su-27UBM).

 

......as well as in the Chinese Su-30MKK two-seat multirole fighter(very simlar to Su-30KN).

 

The "N001VE" is NIIP´s analogue to NIIR´s "N019MP" radar, which was installed in the:

 

- MiG-29SM (9-13SM) - an earlier multirole upgraded MiG-29S(9-13/9-13S)

 

- MiG-29SMT (9-17) - multirole upgrade for MiG-29(9-12) and MiG-29S(9-13/9-13S)

 

Both the NIIP-N001VE and NIIR-N019MP incorporates air-to-ground mapping modes and are, in addition to the R-77, capable of supporting the Kh-31A antiship missile.

 

The whole idea behind these radars is the ability to upgrade a regular Su-27 or MiG-29 into an actual multirole fighter by upgrading the existing radar - retaining as many components of these as possible.

 

It is a cost-effective alternative to replacing the existing radar entirely with new and more advanced actual multimode radar such as the NIIR-N010M "Zhuk-M"(for the MiG-29) , NIIR-N010M "Zhuk-MS" and NIIP-N011M "Bars"(for the Su-27).....or building brand new actual multirole variants such as the Su-35(with N011M "bars") and MiG-29M(with N010M Zhuk-M).

 

In addition to the ground mapping modes of the N001VE radar, modelling the Su-27SM, Su-27UBM or Su-30KN would also require the entire cockpit environment to be re-designed - these upgraded Flanker variants have cockpit instrumentation similar to that of the MiG-29SMT - i.e. including several large LCDs with radically different multi coloured display symbology for which I suspect obtaining proper documentation will be very difficult indeed.

 

Bottom line is, as mentioned earlier, that modelling an R-77 capable Su-27 realistically cannot be done simply by putting R-77s on the existing Lock-on Su-27 version. It would be a case introducing an entirely new Su-27 variant (Su-27SM) to the sim....and one just as difficult to obtain documentation on and involve similar complexity as for the MiG-29SMT.

 

Assigning R-77s to the Su-27 in Lock-on is the most simple mod you can do - so IMHO people who feel this omission of realism is justifiable should make this mod themselves and set up servers for which this is allowed.

 

.... and stop asking Eagle Dynamics to ruin the sim for people who takes the word "simulation" seriously ;)

 

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Alfa]

One wrote:

Why do you think the active R77 was invented and adopted if there is no misbalance between F15 with AIM 120C and SU 27 with R27 (according to your words) ?

 

There can be no question that the R-77 provides an increased capability/versatility over the R-27R and even -RE, nor that an Su-27 variant capable of deploying it would be a better match for the F-15C.

 

The problem is that you intend to put the missile on an aircraft that doesnt support it......that defeats the whole point of simulation.

 

Since this is a mod you can do(very easily) yourself , the sole purpose of your request must be to get Eagle Dynamics to "bless" this omission of realism....something you cannot expect any serious developer of combat flight simulations to do.

[One]

to GGTharos and may be the others

 

I am not very good virtual pilot, but I am not very bad one – I think, I am right in the middle of the scale. Usually the number of planes I hit is very close to the number of planes I loose :) …I don’t have a lot time for training).

I know different tactics but the more tactics I discover the more I think that there is no one universal tactic that will provide you an absolute superiority, so you should chose the right one depending on the situation.

Speaking about tactic is not quite correct because it is all about the level of pilots. But if one pilot is so good that he can hit another by the gun – will it mean that the gun is the best weapon in the game? And what about the pilots with equal level of airmanship: Who of them will have a priority in fight - The one who has active missiles or the other who doesn’t?

After all I, think that «Lock on» is just a game but not something that can teach you to fly real jets. And as a game it should be balanced somehow (especially its online part)

As I have already said it’s too long dispute and when I created that poll I wanted to find out what others think about this problem but it doesn’t mean that I want to argue with everyone who doesn’t support my point of view. I respect any reasoned position and take in mind that I can be wrong myself.

 

to Alfa

Do you really think that an upgrade of the SU 27`s radar to enable this plane use R 77 in the game is a cheat and something impossible in real life?

 

PS. If anybody want to find me online, I fly as «Refeer[RUS]» on HyperLobby :)

[Alfa]

to Alfa

Do you really think that an upgrade of the SU 27`s radar to enable this plane use R 77 in the game is a cheat and something impossible in real life?

 

It is not a question of what I think :lol: - I know that it is an omission of realism because the real aircraft doesnt support the missile.....thats a fact.

 

Whether it can be considered a "cheat" depends on whether people playing online agree on accepting such an omission of realism or not :)

 

It is impossible to get an Su-27 with the "baseline" N001 radar to fire the R-77.....thats a fact. The N001 quite simply doesnt know what an R-77 is or how to compute a firing solution for it unless it has been modified to support it.

 

If you read my post above, you will see that I said such a modification would be rather simple to make - a similar thing to what was done with the N019M of the MiG-29S.

 

The difference is that it was done for the MiG-29S...but not for any Su-27 versions currently in service with the VVS. It is not a question of whether it can be done in real life.....but whether it actually was ;) .

 

The answer to that question is that it wasnt, and therefore it shouldnt be modelled that way by ED. :) . If you think Lock-on is "just a game" then make the mod yourself, join up with people who feel the same way and set up a server where Su-27s with R-77s are allowed.

 

Problem solved :)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Skywall23]

Skywall, the Su-27 does not use external fuel tanks because it has /enormous/ internal fuel tanks.

 

100% fuel on a flanker is the same as an F-15 with 100% fuel + three external fuel tanks! THAT MUCH fuel! When using the F-15, I always drop the tanks when going into close combat, otherwise the F-15 behaves exactly like the flanker with 100% fuel. Also don't forget that the Su-27, fully loaded, is carrying a couple metric tons of weapons.

 

ANd yes, the Flanker beat several records established by the F-15, but the F-15 got upgraded engines and took some of those back.

 

As for maneuverability, I heard from a crew chief that he's seen F-15's hang in turns with F-16's at Red Flag.

 

For your turns, used 600 or 700km/h, not slower. 500kmh is too slow because you will lose speed quickly; your corner speed in a flanker is pretty high anyway, around 650-700km'h last I checked.

 

Ok I will test those speeds you gave me.

 

About the F-15 hanging in turns to the F-16 i have my doubts. The F-15 aerodynamics are clearly for speed porpuses not maneuverability. The F-15 are a clear example. Unlike the F-16 or Su-27, the F-15 wings are short so it cuts less the wind/air making it faster.

 

Thats a problem that the Eurofighter Typhoon creators are facing, because the Typhoon wings are in Delta they tend to make the plane be more faster, and since the Typhon is a multi role fighter it attacks gound targets...and when that happens the Typhoon wins too much speed so it isnt able strafe/bomb the target for many time.

 

The F-16 and Su-27 wings have a good lenght. That's why it doesnt acelarate so fast, unlike the Eagle. The Su-27 should have a higher angle of attack I think. It should be more manoubrable when having no missiles in the wings and 70% (not 60% like we see).

 

By the way, what is the weight of an F-15C empty and an Su-27 with only 60% fuel? Who of them has less weight?

 

I dont have LOMAC installed so if anyone could post some screens or at least check that out i would apreciate.

[Skywall23]

But let us remember Flanker pilots

 

The Su-27 we pilot in LOMAC was build to counter the F-15A not the F-15C.

[GGTharos]

The F-15 is lighter than the Su-27 but they are close in terms of TWR.

 

And no, you're wrong; the F-15 -does- turn well. Aerodynamics are more complex than just looking at the shape of the wings; while the F-15's wings may be 'short' it still has significant wing area, /and/ a lifting body.

[Skywall23]

Ok then, looks like the F-15 is dogfighter after all. :arrow:

 

Looks like Uncle Sam should be proud of McDonnel Douglas.

[D-Scythe]

About the F-15 hanging in turns to the F-16 i have my doubts. The F-15 aerodynamics are clearly for speed porpuses not maneuverability. The F-15 are a clear example. Unlike the F-16 or Su-27, the F-15 wings are short so it cuts less the wind/air making it faster.

 

The F-15's wings are small? It has the largest wing area of any fighter besides the F/A-22 and the Su-27.

 

Having been out-turned and burned in Vietnam, agility was certainly an issue with the USAF at the time of the F-X's (the project that gave birth to the Eagle) conception. And F-15's can hang with F-16s and MiG-29s in turns, and this only depends on who is max-performing their jet and who isn't. For example, an F-15 pilot would try to get a Viper in a slower speed dogfight where the performance of the F-15, with its twin tails, is better, but keep speed up for the MIG-29 Fulcrum.

 

In terms of AoA, at 30 degrees, the F-15 is better than the F-16 and equal to the MIG-29 (which can exceed 30 AoA, provided that no roll commands are given). In terms of instantaneous turn rates, though, the MiG-29, F-16 and the F-15 are all rated around 25 dps. Sustained turn rates, the F-15 is over 20, and we already know how fast the Eagle is :)

 

 

As you can see, the Su-27 already performs *much* better than the F-15 in the some areas of the flight envelope in Lock On. Just don't try to turn and burn with one at 700 kmph or greater.

[Skywall23]

Roger Sycthe, its good to see that the Flanker can still have an advantage towards the Eagle.

 

Never thought that Eagle could catch the Fulcrum in turn rates and AoA! :shock:

 

Oh well, looks like I need to do some research to get myself updated. :roll:

[D-Scythe]

Never thought that Eagle could catch the Fulcrum in turn rates and AoA! :shock:

 

Actually, pilots being equal, an F-15 cannot match the MiG-29 in turn rates. It all depends on who's max performing their jets. Not that the F-15 is so far behind in turn rate that the MiG would immediately gain an advantage, but a good Eagle pilot would choose to beat the Fulcrum in the vertical/oblique rather than the horizontal plane in a dogfight.

 

Some jets, like the F-15 and F-14, are among the best dogfighters in the world not because of the aircraft, but because of the pilot. A good example would be that in the Vietnam war, Navy F-4s that were previously killing only one MiG for every Phantom lost had a kill ratio of 13 : 1 after Top Gun. Air Force fighters, who didn't take the hint, continued to suffer 1 : 1 kill ratios until the end of the war.

[Han]

2 One:

Да ты прям агит-кампанию развел :)

Я тебе вот чего скажу:

Пока в ЛО моделируется Су-27С (П) он будет нести тот боекомплект, который должен нести Су-27С в жизни (насколько мы это можем реализовать).

Когда в ЛО из серии Су-27 появится что-то менее дремучее, чем Су-27С (П), тогда на нем ОБЯЗАТЕЛЬНО будет более современное, чем не менее дремучие Р-27Р (которые, кстати, в ЛО еще ого-го :) ).

 

Ну или если весь коммьюнити (и западный (как основной потребитель) и российский (как близкие нам соотечественники)) попросит нас ввести Р-27АЭ, пообещав покупать только легальные копии :)

 

2 Western guys:

Please - translate someone this post please, I've too less of time.

[GGTharos]

Translation from the Fish:

 

2 one:

Yes you is straight agit- campaign it divorced icon_.smile.gif

4 to you here what I will say:

Thus far in LO is simulated Su-27S (P) it will bear that fire unit, which must bear Su-27S in the life (how we this can realize).

When in LO of the series Su-27 it appears something less denser than Su-27S (P), then on it there will compulsorily be more contemporary than not less dense R -27R (which, by the way, in LO still oho- GO icon_.smile.gif ).

 

Well or if we entire komm'yuniti (and western (as basic user) and Russian (as close to us compatriots)) it will ask us to introduce R -27a3, after promising to buy only legal copies icon_.smile.gif

[Skywall23]

Thats babelfish, i cant understand nothing that is there. :?

[Han]

I'll try myself (my English is not too good, sorry):

 

I've said to One, that:

While in LO is modelling Su-27S (P) it will carry payload like as real Su-27S (P).

When (if) in LO will be modelled more modern versions of Su-27 with more modern avionics than it will carry more modern weapons :)

[GGTharos]

Your english worked better than babelfish :)

[ECV 56 Gorrion]

Im vote YES for load R77 in the Su27/33 series

[Guest ruggbutt]

No, it's unrealistic.

[Avimimus]

Well we are all talking about missiles, I have a question.

 

Does the radio link to the R-33 allow recapture of the missile if it has lost its target? Sources seem confused about it.

 

Also does anyone know anything about the planned successor to the R-73?

 

Thanks