How come Mig29G can employ 27T's and russian 29A can't?

This is how it works in Lomac world, so I was just wondering what's the deal here?

Could be that it was done in the update, but of what use would it be to them if they didn't have any missiles originally?

I think that Alfa is all knowing about the MiG-29 (especially the 29K) ;) :D Perhaps he could confirm that the MiG-29A modelled in 1.1 can or cannot carry the R-27T.

I remember seeing them carry it before the 1.12 patch, so it is either a mistake that it was removed or they know something we don't know.

Same sort of question. Why A-10 can carry mavs on inner pylons?

It can't ... it's just that the meinit hasn't been cleaned up.

As for the MiG-29A vs. G thing ... the A's manual says no T's. The G has T's in its inventory however, so it may have received a wiring upgrade for a heat-seeker hook-up on the inner pylons.

That's strange. If Germany inherited MiG-29As from East Germany, I don't see a reason for this upgrade *unless* East Germany had some R-27Ts left in its inventory from the Soviet MiG-29S units stationed in East Germany. I don't see Germany buying these missiles from Soviets after the reunification.

Also, I don't think it's just the wiring upgrade. I think the launcher should also be of a different type since it should contain a gas coolant tank.

IMHO Lomac-scene is "a bit" too strict on the loadout realism issue. For instance in AF it is nice to have many variants of missiles to choose from, including those that haven't been fielded yet, but will be fielded in 10 years (or, something similar will be fielded instead) But because in LO weapons have to be in active use IRL, we don't have RVV-AEs for Su-33s, or some model of a plane cannot carry certain weapons, but will be able to do that after a MLU.

Of course, there are some issues in AF too.. for example, you can't load maverics with TERs, because one of them could burn the jet, and IRL that kind of risks would be taken only in very grave situations.. but isn't it such a situation when red tanks roll next to the tarmac of the last free airbase :P

Uh ... The Su-33 can't and never will carry the RVV-AE. Why would you want it to have an unrealistic payload? May as well start slinging AIM-54C's from F-15's.

And while you're right about 'grave situations', players just load up whatever they can regardless of the situation. Now if those things were modelled to cause damage, maybe it would be different. Then again, you could probably get to base and repair in 5 mins :P

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/su27/

See this....

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/su27/

 

See this....

They seem to me fumbling variants all over the place in that article . . . .

I guess you were referring to the "with avionics upgrades, the Su27SK will be able to . . . . "

True, with avionics upgrades it would be able to. The Su33 had a nice big brochure of what Sukhoi COULD do to it, but they never got the funding so it never happened.

The Su27SK is the export version of the Su27S we have in Lomac. For export customers, Sukhoi offers you the base model and a long list of options . . . . . . if you go through and tick all the boxes you end up with a much more capable aeroplane than the Su27S basic spec.

You'll note that that's more or less what happened with the Su30MKI - the Indians got enthusiastic and ticked just about every box they could find on the optional extras sheet :P

The Su27SK is the export version of the Su27S we have in Lomac. For export customers, Sukhoi offers you the base model and a long list of options . . . . . . if you go through and tick all the boxes you end up with a much more capable aeroplane than the Su27S basic spec.

 

You'll note that that's more or less what happened with the Su30MKI - the Indians got enthusiastic and ticked just about every box they could find on the optional extras sheet :P

The Indian Su-30MKIs even have a crapper inside the ejection seats, I've read somewhere. They have chosen for almost the top-notch K-36 variant, it only lacks the lateral thrusters for active roll correction. The thing has about 150 modes, each designed for specific situations, and a dual thrust rocket engine.

So when ejecting at high altitudes and slow speeds, the G-forces are lower. Also, when the occupant is of light weight, the rocket output is adapted acordingly.

And when ejecting inverted at slow speeds the rocket doesn't engage at all.

But when, for example, someone ejects in level flight at like 8000 feet, with 700 kts on the counter, the ejection seat waits 2.5 seconds for a smooth decelleration, but when ejecting at 300ft and descending, with 700kts on the speedometer, the seat deploys the chute almost instantly.

Uh ... The Su-33 can't and never will carry the RVV-AE.

But it could if it was upgraded, which it is not simply 'couse there's no need/$$$.

Still... each would get how many missiles (in terms of available number of them)? 1? 2? Kind of reminds me of that scene in Call of Duty when you and your comrads each get a rifle and 5-6 bullets :D

The Indian Su-30MKIs even have a crapper inside the ejection seats, I've read somewhere. They have chosen for almost the top-notch K-36 variant, it only lacks the lateral thrusters for active roll correction. The thing has about 150 modes, each designed for specific situations, and a dual thrust rocket engine.

So when ejecting at high altitudes and slow speeds, the G-forces are lower. Also, when the occupant is of light weight, the rocket output is adapted acordingly.

And when ejecting inverted at slow speeds the rocket doesn't engage at all.

 

But when, for example, someone ejects in level flight at like 8000 feet, with 700 kts on the counter, the ejection seat waits 2.5 seconds for a smooth decelleration, but when ejecting at 300ft and descending, with 700kts on the speedometer, the seat deploys the chute almost instantly.

. . . . . Trust force for the lowdown on the ejection seats!

Do you have a Zvezda catalogue on your coffee table, by any chance? :P

Tell you what - if you can lay your hands on one of those uber-lightweight ones they installed in the Su26, I'll be impressed. For my weight, will probably be able to install one in a glider . . . .

Try e-bay? :D

Those little bangseats are costly, but only a fraction of the cost of a "real" seat (100/150k US$), and then there is the maintenance advantage. I believe those little ones are being sold for 30000 euros a piece.

But after that you may eject at zero altitude with a minimum speed of 60/80 km/h! Seen a fraction of the ejection test at zero altitude, well, they're not that impressive, as you barely have ground clearance when landing, BUT, your forward speed would be near zero, so you won't be scraping your butt.

Oh, I also don't know how well your glider's canopy will shatter, you could have a slight headache after using it (not only due to losing an expensive glider, and an even more expensive ejection seat :p )

Those little bangseats are costly, but only a fraction of the cost of a "real" seat (100/150k US$), and then there is the maintenance advantage. I believe those little ones are being sold for 30000 euros a piece.

But after that you may eject at zero altitude with a minimum speed of 60/80 km/h! Seen a fraction of the ejection test at zero altitude, well, they're not that impressive, as you barely have ground clearance when landing, BUT, your forward speed would be near zero, so you won't be scraping your butt.

Oh, I also don't know how well your glider's canopy will shatter, you could have a slight headache after using it (not only due to losing an expensive glider, and an even more expensive ejection seat :p )

The canopies shatter very easily - I know a guy who put his head through a glider canopy while running over bumpy ground on landing.

Means my beloved Discus now has a clear canopy instead of the ubercool tinted blue one . . . . . :(

With any luck, though, the other K23 will now be bought back by the club and that one still has the cool canopy . . . . . :D

The thing's hardly been flown since it was sold, it's a waste of a good glider.

Anyway, I digress - rather have a sore head and an aching bank account than be dead . . . . .

One of the glider manufacturers justifies some of their extras on those grounds - say some customers wince about 5000 Euros for a tougher cockpit and an egress system, but when all's said and done it's 5000 Euros that could save your life . . . . . . !

What kind of egress system? If that's the case, then Zvezda, or at least their sales office, sells overpriced stuff. That's 30000 for fiberglass, a 4m telscopic pole with explosives, a parachute, and some more plastic and a rocket in the form of a headrest.

And it all weighs 17kg. Is it worth it's weight in solid gold? perhaps :lol:

But it could if it was upgraded, which it is not simply 'couse there's no need/$$$.

Thats what I meant. I could be done, in at least during the next 10 years.

There is no Nato/Russia/Ukraine conflict in the foreseeable future, yet the sim models that. So if we are fighting a hypothetical war, we might as well use weapons which exist, but which haven't got the funding to become operational...yet. (but of course, no lasers or anything like that, with the exception of the 747 ABL :P ) Of course realism is huge and important issue, but maybe we shouldn't be so strict on all of the things.

Then again, there are some things which are pretty hard to compare to the real world, and one of those is is the black shark itself :P But, I guess that it *might* be funded and selected for fielding some day...

Yeah, I mean, my F-15 would get the raptor's engines and the AIM-54D, so, it would still smack those 33's around like nothing. :)

<baiting on purpose here, yes>

that scene in Call of Duty when you and your comrads each get a rifle and 5-6 bullets

nscode - I seem to recall it was a rifle OR 5 bullets.... and the player is always just 5 bullets, freaked me out the first time I played it - LOL!

nscode - I seem to recall it was a rifle OR 5 bullets.... and the player is always just 5 bullets, freaked me out the first time I played it - LOL!

Yeah, what the hell would you do with 5 bullets? Find a clamp and a hammer and carry the thing with you:megalol:

Sorry for the OT:music_whistling:

IMHO Lomac-scene is "a bit" too strict on the loadout realism issue. For instance in AF it is nice to have many variants of missiles to choose from, including those that haven't been fielded yet, but will be fielded in 10 years (or, something similar will be fielded instead)

IMHO, this is because AF doesn't have aircraft from different countries for users to fly in multiplayer - i.e. practically no online dogfighting scene that I'm aware of, it's all co-op (read: "chickens" ;) ). If it did, such weapon options would lead to "cheating" complaints out the wazoo.

Use or un-use of 27T on MiG-29A remains a mystery to me, there seem to be reasonable arguments both ways, so I trust in ED's superior Russian sources, to decide what is truth. It should be noted though that some MiG-29Gs are specially equipped to use wing drop tanks, so they aren't necessarily the same aircraft as "normal" MiG-29As.

-SK

Same sort of question. Why A-10 can carry mavs on inner pylons?

Known error. After it was discovered, someone was afraid to fix it, in case there were missions or training files that used A-10 payloads with Mavs on these stations, that would stop working afterwards. Good question though, I hope it will be fixed in Black Shark.

On a related topic, does anyone have photos of cluster bombs carried on TER?

-SK

Yeah, I mean, my F-15 would get the raptor's engines and the AIM-54D, so, it would still smack those 33's around like nothing. :)

 

<baiting on purpose here, yes>

No it wouldnt... russian designers would design a device to do super uber cobra that would slam right begind your 15.. and not only that, it would induce such a shockwave that your puny capitalist fuel would boil and explode inside your aircraft :P :joystick:

:D

As for the MiG-29A vs. G thing ... the A's manual says no T's. The G has T's in its inventory however, so it may have received a wiring upgrade for a heat-seeker hook-up on the inner pylons.

Hmm... now I remebered something... it also says no R-73! At least the one I have. The thing just might be outdated (the manual).