PDA

View Full Version : IL2 pilots with Lockon/Flaming-Cliff



TheGozr
09-06-2006, 12:12 AM
http://www.gozr.net/iocl/index.php?c=6

http://www.gozr.net/iocl/images/screen/lockon_039.jpg
Lets get on for a spin.. We have a good advantage compare to the regular Lockon Pilots...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif we know how to dogfight. Join us !

DuxCorvan
09-06-2006, 12:20 AM
In modern warfare, if you get to dogfight is because something has gone wrong. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

TheGozr
09-06-2006, 01:09 AM
My dear DuxCorman yes maybe the guys went into montains and do some great pursuits.. In Warfare many things goes wrong.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

LEBillfish
09-06-2006, 01:12 AM
Pffft..........Jets........Prop planes.......Balloons and Blunderbusses how real nations settle things. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

TheGozr
09-06-2006, 01:32 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif mmmmmmm!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

jasonbirder
09-06-2006, 01:34 AM
In modern warfare, if you get to dogfight is because something has gone wrong

Not just in modern warfare! Even in World War 2 most kills were aerial muggings where the victim never even knew he was under attack!

BiscuitKnight
09-06-2006, 01:57 AM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
In modern warfare, if you get to dogfight is because something has gone wrong. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Actually, in modern warfare, you only get a missile hit if something's gone wrong for the other guy: a few fairly simple steps usually neutralise missiles.

TheGozr
09-06-2006, 04:11 AM
http://www.gozr.net/iocl/images/screen/lockon/lockon_040.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

MEGILE
09-06-2006, 04:25 AM
I haven't flown in months.. if I see you on HL i will join you

Capt.LoneRanger
09-06-2006, 04:41 AM
Balloons and Blunderbusses

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Yeah, I just watched the movie again.


Dogfighting and Jets. If you think these 2 things are not related, you missed something, seriously.

On the other hand, there are many people with this opinion playing LOMAC. IMHO those people should be forced to learn on a prop-plane and then be allowed to fly jets - just like in real life.

I shot down 7 planes with my F15s Gatling, who didn't consider what a plane with deactivated radar and good navigation can do to a RailDriver-Squad with BVR-Skills.

leitmotiv
09-06-2006, 05:50 AM
Out of curiosity, how many Syrian MiGs were brought down by IAF Eagles' cannon over the Bekaa Valley 1982? And, how many Iraqi aircraft were brought down by USAF and Saudi Eagles' cannon in 1991?

Blottogg
09-06-2006, 06:42 AM
I don't think the IAF F-15's got any gun kills (they were targetted against the high fast flyers... tougher to gun), but their Vipers got at least two in the '82 war. One was a MiG-21, the other a helicopter (more of a strafing run, actually.) You can see this footage from time to time on one of the geek channels (History, Discovery, TLC, The Military Channel, etc.)

leitmotiv
09-06-2006, 06:52 AM
Precisely---as I understand, no F-15 has ever destroyed another aircraft with its gun.

DuxCorvan
09-06-2006, 07:09 AM
I wonder why they bother making Hawkeyes and arming F-14s with that huge radar and six long-range superexpensive Phoenix missiles, when it's much easier allowing enemy planes with Exocets getting near the fleet and dogfight them in a Pitts Special with a Tommy gun.

Come on, they spend a lot of money in radar and missile technology. If you don't kick the foes beyond visual range, they'll do to you. If a dogfight happens, you both have failed, and then it is better to be in a cheap BaE Hawk than in a F-15, believe me.

CyberWings
09-06-2006, 07:31 AM
I´ve been playing a little more with lock on lately and although my heart still belong to prop planes (IL2/FB/AEP/PF) I found modern warfare very interesting.
Nevertheless I think modern combat is more similar to a fight between two modern submarines (were the most important thing is witch one discover, lock and shoot to the other one first) than a fight against two WWII planes. The fact that you are fighting against an enemy 50 km away, unable to see him is a big difference. The most important thing in lock on is to know the correct use of the radar and your wingmans.
Another thing, a skilled WWII pilot can shoot down three or more enemy aircraft alone. Today even the best F-15 pilot would run away against 3 migs armed with missiles because he knows than a combat in those conditions would be suicide.
But I think that without missiles (Guns only) people that usually play IL2/FB/AEP/PF had a very good chance of victory against people that only play lock on.

MEGILE
09-06-2006, 07:31 AM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
and then it is better to be in a cheap BaE Hawk than in a F-15, believe me.

Nope.

Ask any USAF F-15C driver... they will go toe to toe with anyone in mock dogfights. They are trained to use that huge T/W ratio they have.

TAW_Oilburner
09-06-2006, 08:46 AM
Me and my squaddies regularly do guns only radar off lock on sessions..it's quite fun (especially in the A10 if you sucker somebody in close).

leitmotiv
09-06-2006, 11:14 AM
Have any of you been following the reports in some of the defense newsletters about Indian pilots regularly beating USAF F-15 pilots in close action training? There has been some speculation the USAF has been slipping into a pre-Vietnam missile complacency and not keeping up on training for maneuver fights.

Divine-Wind
09-06-2006, 11:26 AM
Nowadays it seems like being a fighter pilot would be boring. No up-close, in your face action (which, undoubtedly, would scare the **** out of a new recruit), instead it's pop a missile and watch your radar screen. Very exciting.
Heck, I bet in 20-30 years, drones will be able to do that stuff.

berg417448
09-06-2006, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Have any of you been following the reports in some of the defense newsletters about Indian pilots regularly beating USAF F-15 pilots in close action training? There has been some speculation the USAF has been slipping into a pre-Vietnam missile complacency and not keeping up on training for maneuver fights.

I'm suspicious that those events might have been a bit rigged in order to pressure the US congress to fund more F-22 fighters.

As an example, in 2004, at India's request, the U.S. forces agreed to mock combats at 3-to-1 odds and without using the full range of capabilities of simulated AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles. U.S. fighters could not use the active on-board radar capability of the AMRAAM, and the missile was limited to around 32 kilometers range and required the use of the F-15C's onboard radar to target Indian aircraft. In standard use, AMRAAM has a range of over 100 kilometers and is a fire-and-forget missile that doesn't require additional guidance from the F-15.

The Indians also had a simulated AWACS platform and the use of simulated active radar missiles such as the AA-12 and the French Mica, unlike the F-15Cs. This gave the Indian Air Force a fire-and-forget air-to-air missile capability that the U.S. fighters didn't have in this event.

I'm also sure that they probably underestimated the capability of the Indian Air force.


On the other hand, there probably is a lot of benefit to losing in these events. People tend to learn far more from our mistakes than from our wins so I can see that there might be a lot to be gained from setting up the mock combat so that all of the latest equipment is not used. It forces the pilots to adapt, to make mistakes, and learn from those mistakes.

Haigotron
09-06-2006, 02:08 PM
Out of curiosity, how many Syrian MiGs were brought down by IAF Eagles' cannon over the Bekaa Valley 1982? And, how many Iraqi aircraft were brought down by USAF and Saudi Eagles' cannon in 1991?

And how many canadian soldiers were brought down by strafing eagles on august 4 2006?

I havent installed FC, is it worth it...let me reprhase that...do i need it to play on HL?

anarchy52
09-06-2006, 02:37 PM
On that Indian affair.
F-15 is in signifficant disadvantage if fighting vs Su-30MKI in visual range. Su-30 superior manuverability and R-73 with it's off boresight capabilities and HMS gives the Sukhoi the definite edge.

BVR it's beyond anyone's guess. "On paper" Su-30 could use R-77s range advantage over AMRAAM. In reality it would probably come down to who's ECM gets defeated first.

DuxCorvan
09-06-2006, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by Divine-Wind:
...instead it's pop a missile and watch your radar screen. Very exciting.

Well, it's too exciting when you are the green tilting dot in someone else's radar screen... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

berg417448
09-06-2006, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
On that Indian affair.
F-15 is in signifficant disadvantage if fighting vs Su-30MKI in visual range. Su-30 superior manuverability and R-73 with it's off boresight capabilities and HMS gives the Sukhoi the definite edge.




That was certainly an issue in the 2004 event. Only six of the F-15C aircraft in the exercise were equipped with the AIM-9X off boresight missile and helment mounted sight. From what I've read...aircraft equipped in that manner very often end up "killing" each other in such close range mock combats.

Jester_159th
09-06-2006, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by berg417448:
.....In standard use, AMRAAM has a range of over 100 kilometers and is a fire-and-forget missile that doesn't require additional guidance from the F-15.



You might want to double check your facts regarding the capabilities of the AMRAAM and the need for guidance from the launch platform.

As to the details of the Indian exercise, I can't argue there. The engagement criteria certainly weren't optimal for an F-15. There was also an exercise with a MiG-29 equiped squadron of the Luftwaffe (729 IIRC:- Now re-equiped with Typhoons) that had a similar result. I've never found any details about it though (as to engagement rules etc).

Black Sheep
09-06-2006, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by Haigotron:
And how many canadian soldiers were brought down by strafing eagles on august 4 2006?

For what it's worth, they were Thunderbolts, not F15's.


Originally posted by Jester_159th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
.....In standard use, AMRAAM has a range of over 100 kilometers and is a fire-and-forget missile that doesn't require additional guidance from the F-15.


You might want to double check your facts regarding the capabilities of the AMRAAM and the need for guidance from the launch platform.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

AIM120's require guidance from the launch platform until their onboard radar becomes active.

If for whatever reason the launch platform cannot provide guidance (firing of a second missile whilst first is non active, radar off etc) the missile guides itself to the target's last known position until the onboard radar switches on for terminal guidance.

Haigotron
09-06-2006, 03:39 PM
Thunderbolts, not F15's

true

Capt.LoneRanger
09-06-2006, 03:48 PM
Well, of course not many F15 got kills with their guns recently. But that is not because it is useless, but because every plane that they had a "chance" to fight was by far inferior in their BVR- and Jamming-Capabilities.

Comparing that to the East-vs-West conflict in LOMAC this is a completely other thing.

anarchy52
09-06-2006, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
Well, of course not many F15 got kills with their guns recently. But that is not because it is useless, but because every plane that they had a "chance" to fight was by far inferior in their BVR- and Jamming-Capabilities.

Comparing that to the East-vs-West conflict in LOMAC this is a completely other thing.

Correct, F-15s never had a chance to prove themselves vs aircraft of similar BVR capabilities. MiG-21 practically does not have a radar (excluding 21-93 prototype), MiG-23 is likewise no match for F-15. MiG-29 is more of a counterpart to F-16/F-18 rather then the Eagle.

Su-27/Su-30/Eurofighter/Tornado fighter version would be a closer match.

Jaws2002
09-06-2006, 05:05 PM
I like LOMAC. The game looks superb. You have to give it that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

(56K go home)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/<FA>Jaws/ScreenShot_003.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/<FA>Jaws/ScreenShot_011.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/<FA>Jaws/ScreenShot_016.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/<FA>Jaws/ScreenShot_028.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2006, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by berg417448:
In standard use, AMRAAM has a range of over 100 kilometers and is a fire-and-forget missile that doesn't require additional guidance from the F-15.


Dude, where do you get your facts? Every website I visited states that the slammer only has about 20 miles range. What is this "standard use" you speak of? I mean, 100km would be the range of the Phoenix, not the AMRAAM.

Missile range isnt determined by the plane that is carrying the missile, but rather the motor burn time and the altitude it is launched at.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/aim-120.htm

TheGozr
09-06-2006, 05:29 PM
http://www.gozr.net/iocl/images/screen/lockon/lockon_053.jpg

The head of the pilots fallow the move of the track IR, You can refuel, re-arm, and get your plane fixed on the parking way.

berg417448
09-06-2006, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by Skunk241981:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
In standard use, AMRAAM has a range of over 100 kilometers and is a fire-and-forget missile that doesn't require additional guidance from the F-15.


Dude, where do you get your facts? Every website I visited states that the slammer only has about 20 miles range. What is this "standard use" you speak of? I mean, 100km would be the range of the Phoenix, not the AMRAAM.

Missile range isnt determined by the plane that is carrying the missile, but rather the motor burn time and the altitude it is launched at.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/aim-120.htm </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


thats the range for the AIM-120A.
check the range AIM-120C5 and AIM-120C-7.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-120.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM


And since everyone here always quotes the maximum range of weapons I only quoted the same thing in order to keep comparing apples with apples.


And the max range of the AIM-54 Phoenix was much more than 100km.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/aim-54.htm


The term "standard use" refers to the fact that th eF-15's in that exercise were not permitted to use the active radar capability of the AMRAAM but were limited to semi-active radar. They don't usually operate that way.

Jester_159th
09-06-2006, 07:17 PM
Those figures in the sources you posted are totally different from anything I've ever seen before, and so I remain sceptical to say the least.

For a start, AFAIK, the B variant actually has a LONGER range than the C (up to C4), but the C4 is faster (therefore gets to it's target faster. Also, last I heard, accurate stars (especially for the later C variants but certainly the D variant) were still classified and any public figures were usually described as "best guess."

I could be wrong, but I'd suggest you ask on an F4 forum for alternative sources. Those guys seem to know everything there is to know about the Viper and it's available weapons systems (including the AMRAAM).

Oh, and don't trust Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. It's very handy but not always the most accurate.

GR142-Pipper
09-07-2006, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
In modern warfare, if you get to dogfight is because something has gone wrong. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Not necessarily. There is usually the requirement for a VID. Once that policy is established the liklihood of entering a dogfight increases dramatically.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
09-07-2006, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by Jester_159th:
Oh, and don't trust Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. It's very handy but not always the most accurate. Very true. It's often a place for opinion. A third or fourth rate source to be sure.

GR142-Pipper

TheGozr
09-07-2006, 02:13 AM
Pipper it's missing you flying http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Waiting..

karost
09-07-2006, 02:25 AM
Lockon
- FM....yes FM is good
- out side view the visibility is good event 30,000 ft
- landing on crrier is my favor. ( manual very very hard but most challenging)

but I'm not good for use missile.a weapon technology advanage is a big gab for me

when I shoot apponent down with advantage missile that not make me feel challenging.

soon I have stop play Lockon ,coz the time for playing and fun are limit so I have to select
my best favor game ... yes it is FB http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

if I want a big challenging I'll take a bomber and ask help at TS in WC Server. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



S!

GR142-Pipper
09-07-2006, 05:32 AM
Originally posted by TheGozr:
Pipper it's missing you flying http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Waiting.. I know, I know...a very good EASTERN Front server server and I'm not using it. Bummer. I'll make a point of getting there soon. Thanks Gozr.

GR142-Pipper

TheGozr
09-07-2006, 09:15 AM
No On Lockon.. Join me for some good training on Lockon-Flaming Cliff http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I really think that you WILL like it... a Looot!

Normandie-Niemen server will shot down for now.

http://www.gozr.net/iocl/images/screen/lockon/lock3.jpg