Rhen

The KC-135 can send fuel to the A-10 at a rate of 2400 pph with 2 pumps operating. The KC-10 can send at a rate of 3000 pph. All "fighter" types receive fuel from tankers using a max of two pumps. The KC-10 has 6 total pumps and the -135 has 4. Both aircraft deliver fuel at a rate of 50 +/-5 psi. When pressure limits are exceeded, the receiver aircraft is disconnected from the tanker - called a "pressure disconnect." The pph rate is a function of the receiver aircraft's internal plumbing. In some aircraft like the F-16 and F-22, the rate of fuel delivery can cause a pressure disconnect. When this happens, the tanker pilot performing the fuel transfer is supposed to decrease the number of pumps transferring fuel from 2 to 1 when the receiver gets back on the boom. These are, of course, Real Life numbers. :)

Well, not quite zero hours, as one of my first additional duties was as an ASLAR instructor for the squadron.

Uh, your statement assumes you possess a level of knowledge of military aircraft operations just because you own and fly the virtual hog or frogfoot. :megalol: Just because a buddy of mine owns a V10 Dodge Viper, doesn't mean he can drive better than I in my Ford Mustang. :smilewink: Pilot training in the military is based on a good foundation of initial knowledge. This is obtained through successful accomplishment of the undergraduate pilot training syllabus, then basic fighter fundamentals after obtaining your wings, and then the basic course for the MWS you've been selected to fly. Each milestone ENSURES the graduate indeed possesses the level of knowledge required to start the next phase of training. Perhaps none of the fundamentals of flight mentioned by Blue are necessarily learned in a training aircraft, but their use in the virtual world shows the ability of the trainee to switch gears and think on different levels of the airmanship scale. Of course, airmanship can't be learned in only a trainer or a front line fighter. It can only be learned through repeated exposure to flight and situations that require you to put those learned fundamentals to test.

Law of Primacy Chris, Your effort in devising ACTS is very commendable. One of the many irritations of those who frequent these forums and consider themselves “hard core” are noobs that have no clue how to do things that show up on servers and wreak havoc on the plans and tactics of others. Training those who wish to learn more about flying in a combat environment will better integrate more people into servers and, arguably more importantly, give virtual squadrons (VSqns) a pool of pilots who are trained at a standardized level, making them more valuable and ready to learn more advanced concepts from VSqn instructor pilots (IPs). Training pilots at a level where they know normal and emergency procedures, basic pattern operations in VFR and IFR conditions, navigation with respect to visual references and instruments, aerobatics, and basic formation would be welcome. However, more advanced training, such as basic BFM (offensive/defensive), basic ground attack (strafing/bombing), and element support (how to be a good wingman), would be problematic from individuals who have very little real experience in these subjects. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not putting you down nor am I making a negative judgement about your experience as a virtual combat pilot. No doubt what you’d teach your students will come in quite handy in a virtual environment and allow your students to operate reasonably well in a basic or intermediate combat scenario. However, as a real-life ™ F-15 IP, who’s last assignment was as a Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training T-38 IP, I would say that some of what you teach would be counterproductive due to the innate lack of real understanding of what you’re teaching. As others have said, there’s no substitute for an IP in the back seat or in the other aircraft off your wing critiquing your performance, identifying mistakes in technique, procedure, or understanding of the maneuvers or tactical outcomes you must meet to really master the fundamentals of air combat. In the instructor world, there’s something called the “Laws of Learning”. These laws are quite important for both the student and the instructor. Any deficiency in any of these 5 laws could retard the learning process at best or completely discourage your student from grasping what you’re trying to teach and possibly giving up on the whole formal training idea. Bear with me, this has a point…. :hmm: The Law of Effect is basically how your student perceives the learning process with you. If he/she has a good feeling from you, is pleased with your instruction style, and is satisfied by your instruction, then what your student will learn and retain is enhanced by the learning process. If the experience of instruction you provide is frustrating, the process makes him/her angry, or the process feels futile or confusing, then this unpleasant experience will retard learning. Even when the student is doing poorly, give him something to grasp that will encourage him to correct mistakes. The Law of Exercise says that repeating skills will be best learned. Every sortie includes a takeoff, climbout, level off, fence checks, clearing turns, g-awareness, etc. These things will become second nature and the student will be able to fly the aircraft while employing more cranium processing units for other tasks like area planning or tactical decision-making. Practice and drilling, or doing the boring things has a real point. More importantly, when practicing, it’s a good idea to have an IP initially be there to immediately – either during the maneuver, or in the debrief – correct errors so the student isn’t practicing maneuvers incorrectly and learning the incorrect way during these exercises. The Law of Intensity shows us that the more vivid and exciting the instruction or scenario at hand, the more the learning objectives will be burned into his/her head. For example, you allow your student to press an untenable tactical situation to better illustrate the learning objective of understanding Factor Bandit Range. The Law of Readiness says that your student will learn best if she shows up prepared, ready to learn, and excited about the prospect. Then what you teach her will be more readily internalized and understood. If she shows up unprepared, unable to grasp the basic fundamentals required to understand the learning objectives of the instructional sortie or lecture, tired, drunk (LOL), then learning ain’t gonna happen! The Law of Primacy says that the first concepts taught about a subject are the ones that stick with a student. So if you’re wrong the first time you teach a student how to fly an overhead pattern, then the student will probably do it wrong even after he’s taught the right way later, when under stress. A student will have a difficult time unlearning the wrong thing, and the instructor will have a difficult time “unteaching” the incorrect instruction of another IP. It’s better if students are taught correctly the first time. My point is within the last Law of Learning. I would prefer not to have to make a student unlearn the wrong way and reteach them something right after that. It’s painful for both the student and the instructor. The process hinders the student because it decreases their readiness to learn and the Law of Effect tells us that the student will have a hard time learning because they might be discouraged or angry that they weren’t taught correctly the first time. In military aviation, the continuum of training is very important. The skills learned in SUPT are the building blocks of Introduction to Fighter Fundamentals (IFF), which then build upon the basic course for the weapon system you’re trying to master (for example the F-15 B-Course trains you to be a “First Pilot” (FP) in the F-15, not a “Mission Pilot” capable of performing the squadron/wing’s mission). This in-turn provides the fundamentals for you to become a mission ready pilot capable of utilizing your aircraft effectively and efficiently in a combat environment. If things are screwy in SUPT, then the student makes a plethora of mistakes in IFF, which, if not corrected there, turn into major debilitating mistakes during the B-course, or mission ready training later. In the Real Life ™ USAF, we wash these students out before they can propagate mistakes throughout their career. In the VSqns, we can’t do that. We’ve got to “unteach” the wrong things and reteach them the right way to do things. In any formal course of training, a syllabus is very helpful. For example, the syllabus of any flight training course shows the number of times a maneuver should be demonstrated, the learning objectives, the maneuver item file (MIF) (the MIF is a list of items that must be graded and the grade required to advance to the next block of training), and the desired mastery for a maneuver (for example holding altitude within 100 ft of assigned altitude, or able to hold the fighting wing cone within appropriate parameters). That way, there’s no confusion in the student or IPs mind as to what would be passing parameters. This would also make instruction and checkrides standardized and allow all students to fly in a similar fashion (which is the goal of any military flying force), and instills fairness in grading criterion. Another thing that would be very helpful are videos or tracks showing appropriate maneuvers demonstrated by those IPs who are proficient at each maneuver. These videos should show the appropriate maneuver, the steps used to achieve entry and exit parameters, as well as common mistakes and how to prevent them. You must have a cadre of well-trained IPs who teach in a standardized manner. In the USAF, we have a Pilot Instructor Training course that produces SUPT IPs who are standardized in their training. Standardized instruction provided by these IPs produce students who perform the maneuver appropriately no matter who/which IP is providing the training. This allows students to learn the appropriate way to do a maneuver and all IPs teach the maneuver as procedure, grading on the procedure. IPs then provide multiple techniques to accomplish the maneuver in the appropriate manner, remembering to grade procedure and outcome and not technique. If you have very few IPs or IPs who train in the “well, this is how I do it” method, regardless of how it’s appropriately done, then students and instructors will become severely overworked by the number of students and frustrated. Students will likewise become frustrated when they are taught to a different standard and outcome by each IP that they train with, regardless of the “right way” to perform a maneuver. Finally, there should be an evaluation method used within any formal course of training whereby each student is evaluated before continuing on to the next block of training. This way mistakes can be identified and proper corrective training provided to allow the student to be successful in the current and future blocks of training. Before you get ACTS off the ground, perhaps you should start a PIT program enlisting volunteers to become your initial cadre of highly trained and skilled IPs. These IPs will then train other pilots to their standard in a SUPT environment. The IPs will then train to teach IFF, while some select few SUPT graduates are asked to become SUPT IPs that train the next classes of SUPT, and so forth. This will ensure an ever-expanding group of standardized and highly trained instructors who are capable of training future students. But perhaps, this isn’t your goal, to provide an educational environment similar to military aviation training. I know it can be a rigorous process, but in my experience in a VSqn, it can be a welcome process, regardless of the structure. The structure provides the student with a great sense of accomplishment when that syllabus of training is completed to a rigorous standard that the student can meet. It also provides the IP with a great sense of accomplishment to see his students go on to future training endeavors and succeed because of the fundamentals the IP taught. Perhaps a more structured, but still casual learning atmosphere is what you’re looking to develop. That’s fine too, but please utilize any resources you can find so that the Law of Primacy isn’t violated, and you teach the right thing the first time.

"Oh, good. I'm SOF." Yeah, I love doing that too... :lol: I didn't hear: "Great! My next assignment is Reapers!" :megalol:

I always thought the cockpit of a Tornado smelt like a French "hoor" house, myself... :D

You've gone and made fun of ... a viper pilot... vs. an Eagle pilot! I don't see the problem here.... :megalol:

Yeah, when writing discrepancies in 781s I've encountered a few chiefs that have selective reading… :book: I think I said that Mudhens and hogs aren't FOB'd. Just like a crew chief! Pilot tells you something and it goes in one ear and out the other! :doh: When harriers were FOB'd to An Numinayah in Iraq, and FOB Dwyer in Afghanistan, they provided the reduced response times required by the infantry they supported. It wasn't the Mudhen. Harrier pukes train with their infantry brethren. Hell, they even sleep in the same tents on the same base. They spend much more time doing CAS, period. Likewise hog pilots train for their attack role. They don't cloud things up by trying to perform air superiority, intercepts, or deep interdiction - especially at 500 knots. Those forward operated harriers spent 65% of their sortie duration over the target. Contrast that with CAS assets out of Kandahar, which spent 55% of their sortie duration over targets. Mudhen? Less than that unless there's a dedicated tanker. You might say, "BIG DEAL! 10% doesn't make up for anything!" But I say that with their basing so close to their supported troops, they were able to refuel and REARM faster and get back on station rapidly to further support the infantry. Yes, it makes a BIG difference and is one of the many reasons why ground pounders like slow aircraft, forward based, that specialize in the attack role, not an aircraft that flies fast and CAS is more an afterthought than a primary role. The GIB may have his cranium buried in the pit, but 558 Lbs moving at terminal velocity will still leave a pretty swimming pool hole when dropped for close CAS, and that's not even mentioning the high-explosive.... :music_whistling: For example, the gun on the Mudhen is set for air-to-air. It's not depressed (in more ways than one, LOL!), like the gun on the harrier and hog. Most bad guys, flying their MiGs hate getting shot at and receiving their jump wings while engaging in BFM, so they pull on the stick and G up to keep the death dot off their noggin. On an aircraft dedicated to air-to-air the "gun" is canted above the longitudinal axis a few degrees. So while the bad guy is pulling G's to confound my BFM, I don't have to pull as much lead. The bad part is if I ever have to strafe anything, my dive angle would dangerous. Hell, I could even fly into my ricochets if I'm going FAST & don't pull hard G to angle away from the strafing axis. I'll have less than one second to fire, maneuver, and recover before overdosing on dirt. Believe me, I know, as a few of us got in trouble strafing targets in our "not a pound for air-to-ground" models. The harrier and hog, don't have these problems. The depressed GAU-12 & -8 allow attack pukes to come in on a shallow trajectory. They have more time, and their guns fire at a lower rate. These things make their guns more accurate with a smaller "mil" error. Mudhens need not apply - at least not with guns. Do you really think a paveway or JDAM is suited for close CAS? Now, ferreting taliban out of caves, or dug in beneath a building, while maintaing stand-off distance? That's another story. As for the usefulness of the A-10, if it's not on station, I agree with you. That's why in these low-intensity conflicts, the apache, spectre, UAVs and some form of low, slow, cheap, fixed wing aircraft might be developed to forward deploy and provide close CAS. I am serious… And don't call me Shirley. :noexpression: Chief, you probably don't get out much, meanwhile us pilots get to mingle with other services quite frequently. We get to see & hear marines talk about what they'd like and what they don't. I'm not talking about other pilots, although they seem brain damaged enough to like the harrier. I'm talking about grunts. They seem to have no problems with either the harrier or hog. I've heard nothing but how freakin' happy they are to hear the fans on a hog, or their brethren flying in their harriers. Oh, read the above again about forward basing harriers for a better understanding of the utility of a harrier on a 4,000ft runway, and it's ability to support close CAS missions. Yes, because of the lack of stealth! Look, going up against a Gargoyle equipped foe is not a job for Mudhens when there's Raptors and Lightnings, despite the presence of compass call, growlers, etc. the losses… Well, let's just say that Mudhens would be better served as second line AFTER the Raptors have done the heavy lifting and Lightning II follows up. Once the Gargoyles are out of commission, then you can go in with your Mudhens. Do you really think we have 30 years before the next conflict with some other nation? You need to read the Early Bird, or at least read pay attention to the news, or at least the current events we're involved in right now. Talking about why we should've ordered more Raptors, less Lightning II's and the associated budgetary constraints, the decision-making, or lack thereof, with respect to future threats is not the topic of this thread. I'd have thought you could discern that... :smilewink:

You missed my point... but perhaps that's my fault, and is not important to the topic of this thread. The number of Lightnings ordered will hardly make up for the lack of all aspect stealth that the Raptor would bring to a conflict with an enemy possessing newer SAM systems. We would have lowered the per-aircraft cost of Raptors with an increase in numbers ordered. The savings would come out of the budget for the Lightning II. The other point is that if we fail to attain air superiority in the first few days of the conflict, as we are now used to, we make it a protracted and costly affair losing much higher numbers of aircraft, men and material. The amount of money lost here would be more costly than if we'd have bought more Raptors and less Lightning IIs. Anyway, this is off-topic and if you'd like to discuss this portion of things, we could move it to the military/aviation forum.

***Where's my soap box... Ah! There it is! :smartass: In our current "modern theaters of war" Afghanistan and Iraq, actually something much slower and forward based is what ground troops desire for CAS, like the currently proposed AT-6B: They want something that can get lower and slower and mix it up with the ground troops. Personally, that holds ZERO appeal to me, as survivability is directly proportional to speed and the number of engines attached to my aircraft... and inversely proportional to the number of crew members :megalol: But then again... I'm an air superiority guy... :smile wink: The hawg is still the preferred CAS platform in our "current" AOR until then. It would be even more preferred if it was forward based to decrease reaction times... but that's not how the USAF rolls. :music_whistling: The marines, OTOH.... Which could explain why the harrier is the next, best CAS platform requested by those who play with rifles and carry their socks into combat (God bless them!). The Mudhen also has its limitations when it comes to real, high-intensity conflict, with a mature IADS. I would kick someone's ass for not buying 4x as many Raptors, and half as many lightnings as planned. Any conflict requiring air superiority will be sorely pressed to plan with C & E model Eagles, with a smattering of Raptors and Lightnings for back-up. We enjoy the fruits of our labor when it comes to air superiority. That is, we enjoy it, our enemies don't. It allows A-10s, AT-6s, and ground forces to operate unmolested in current battlefields. With future conflicts protected with newer generation IADS, that's no longer guaranteed. Our combat losses will increase with concomitant lengthening of conflicts. I really don't think many people understand that, especially those who make decisions, and I might add, many who believe they're military aviation experts.

I'm sorry, but my mind doesn't operate that slowly....:megalol::smartass:

Yes! I've been playing a surgeon using Operation since I was 4, so I think I know how to repair a chiari malformation in the brain....:huh: High explosive landscapers (air-mud pukes) have had computer resources that display the route of flight using satellite imagery and the known/suspected positions of SAM sites, enemy emplacements, suspected areas of operation, etc. since the late '80s. They can visualize the terrain at the altitudes they're ingressing, and egressing, so they can formulate proper tactics. Yes, dynamic campaigns are the be-all and end-all for all military operations... :no expression: That's why when we do a RED FLAG, we use hand-crafted (LOL!) scenarios. These scenarios have definite learning objectives and require proper tactical execution, both of which have been learned in academics prior to the flight phase of the exercise. After each days battle, the results are tallied and the ATOs are generated for the next day. Each step of the process is optimized so the pilots can learn and practice their tactics, the flight leads can exercise leadership, prioritization, and decision making on the fly, and planners can deal with a realistic battlefield simulation. Yeah, lots of learning goes on, but despite the fluid environment, specific learning objectives are involved - all of which are designed to increase the survivability of pilots in the battlefield. The planners are allowed to learn flexibility in their planning, and the consequences of mistakes without losing personnel and equipment. Command and control learns how to deal with the fog of war and see how their plans fare in the forge of the battlefield. Despite all this, it's really fun for us and ramps up the difficulty level over the course of the simulated war. Flying a human-crafted campaign would accomplish this much more effectively than a dynamic campaign. However, I can see that not everyone has friends, flys with a squadron, neither possessing the ability or heart of a fighter pilot, yet want to be a part of this type of process. Thus you are in need of a way to experience this without all the human interaction that would make this a more organic and living process. Then you need a DC to play the bad guy, take account of your abilities, whether you've accomplished your mission objectives, and spit out another mission for you. You do realize that the success or failure of ONE pilot in the entire war effort usually, unless the circumstances are extraordinary, are negligible on the general tactical or overall strategic outcome of the war, right? DCs seem to make one single pilot the linchpin of the entire effort. Now THAT'S realistic, right? Usually the AI must cheat in some way to allow it to have a fighting chance against its human opponent. They regenerate pilots and materiel more rapidly, have "all-seeing" sensors, can dodge SAMs or AIMs with near impunity, ground forces are AI vs AI. Now THAT'S realistic too, right? Having a DC dictate your missions, plan them out, etc. is kind of like... no, it's EXACTLY like going 1v1 against an AI pilot. It's a good initial learning experience, but no substitute for fighting against another human. We've, as of yet, in this community, seen a real RED FLAG, the way it was meant to be used - to help junior pilots understand what it's like to use the tactics and flying abilities they've learned in a near-real combat environment to help them survive when a "real" war breaks out. To help flight leads become better leaders, to help planners understand how to deal with fluid situations, commanders to deal with making decisions with the information they have and optimizing mission accomplishment in the shortest amount of time with a minimum of loss. This is the real test of your "hard core" skills.

Sorry for the late reaction to your post, but I rarely visit here much anymore... :noexpression: At any rate, your retort that in DCS it takes all your concentration to do some task, which shows its "hard-core"ness is still rather short-sighted. I agree 100% that it takes -you- 100% effort to perform some task while trying to fly the jet, etc. However, you fail to realize that REAL pilots don't usually get task saturated by doing things that they've trained for and practiced many times, so as to build those habit patterns and thusly are able to actually fly, chew gum, lock a target, continue visual lookout, and talk on the radio, all without appearing to have a helmet fire going on at the same time. You should also agree, that it takes the generic, well-trained, real life combat pilot, a lot less than 100% effort to perform tasks that take the average simmer to the end of his wits. Granted, it takes 100% effort for any real pilot to do certain tasks AND maintain SA AND wrangle his/her wingmen AND avoid surface-to-air threats AND coordinate on two different radios at the same time. We all get maxed out from time-to-time. However, with proper training, habit patterns, threat study, brevity, experience, etc. that task saturation point becomes something experienced with less frequency for a real pilot than your standard sim pilot. I had SUPT, IFF, F-15 B-course, Continuation training, a couple of Cope Thunders, a few Red Flags, and FWS. My level of task saturation is probably modeled well by a FC2 aircraft and all its simplicity. If you didn't have to flick all those pretty switches and worry about doing all your procedures correctly in your hog, then you'd probably have the same level of task saturation that an experienced hog pilot would have. Hard core is how you fly and fight, and train. It's possible to do hard core even in a simple sim such as FC2. It's made harder by inaccuracies inherent in the design, but it's still possible to approximate MODERN AIR COMBAT, despite these inaccuracies and balanced game play paradigms built into the program.

Quite right, along with EtherealN. People have no clue what hardcore is. It has nothing to do with the presence of buttons and switches that do "stuff" in the cockpit. It has MORE to do with how the virtual pilot(s) conduct their flight. Gentlemen, the name of the "game" is Air Combat. Anything that furthers the goal of simulating Air Combat - within the sim, and how we fly and fight with our simulated aircraft, with our simulated wingmen, determines whether the goal of simulating a fighter pilot's day is realized. I already have pushed enough buttons and flicked enough switches IRL. What I want to do is get in the jet, and get in the air with my flight and use Real World tactics to accomplish the mission. I don't have to start the engines in a realistic manner while worrying about no/false/hung/hot starts, check my flight controls with the crew chief, taxi by the IFF testing gear, go to the arm/dearm pit, have my pins removed, and then takeoff, point my radar elsewhere while worrying about interfering with my wingmen's radar checks.... What I'd like is a nice simulation of MODERN AIR COMBAT PERIOD. I don't care about ON, NORMAL, NORMAL, good blinker, because I'm not wearing a helmet (unlike some of you guys :megalol:) with your O2 masks on tight....:doh: Some of you guys want all of the above... well, that's nice... but it gets real old real quick. (oh, not for me! I love all the minutae, some might say. Well good on you.) FC3 interacting with the DCS world can be as real as it gets, so long as improvements are made that help FC2 model Real World capabilities and limitations of weapons, radars, ECM, ECCM (if able), and tactics. It's up to the mission designers, squadrons, etc. to come up with realistic scenarios that model what so-called "Hardcore" simmers want out of a MODERN AIR COMBAT simulation.

As an F-15 pilot... (LOL!) I would want to come at you from high altitude as a 2-ship, minimum. Air combat is a team sport, after all. We would perform a basic pincer with altitude separation, push it up to the mach, and fire (this will add speed to my Slammer [AIM-120] in the next iteration, but not in LOFC2, but it's a good tactic to keep performing). This would be accomplished just inside RMAX, and in TWS so you don't get a lock warning. Depending upon who you decide to prosecute, you might get hit by the incoming slammer of the other aircraft, depending upon aspect, and your reaction. At this point the Eagle who's targeted by you will initiate an F-pole maneuver (a maneuver to decrease closure and aspect while remaining tied [radar's still tied to your aircraft], called F-pole because it maximizes the distance between us when the missile hits you), while the other Eagle closes with you to an optimum distance for a second slammer shot, medium aspect, and coming from high altitude down on you. Fox3 (another Slammer shot) and F-pole. Meanwhile you're probably picking up the missile warning and possibly turning into this Eagle. The Eagle you first targeted then turns hot (points his nose at you) and fires if not defensive. This sets up a grinder from two separate directions. Very hard to counter, especially single ship. If talking 1v1, I would still come at you high and fast, preferably off axis - not directly at you. I'd fire just inside RMAX and continue hot. Depending upon your altitude, and our closure, I'd begin an F-pole maneuver (descending turn while keeping you on my radar), while slowing my closure, and attempting to flank or turn to beam. If you fire, I can make the decision to continue with my F-pole maneuver or notch, or bugout. Otherwise I'd continue and fire a second shot keeping you defensive until the merge. If you get a shot off at me, my concern is you R-77. Your best bet is to stay low, use terrain masking and EOS to come in outside the Eagle's radar gimbal limits. Cali gives good advice, use your small size and EOS and helmet mounted sight - those are your strengths. If the Eagle Driver is smart he/she won't just scan at a set altitude but move the scan elevation around to ensure someone like you doesn't sneak under or behind to knife him/her in the back. Once you're under the Eagle's radar coverage, fire in EOS. If you get to the merge, you have the advantage in size since you're smaller and harder to see. You need to make a quick kill using angles. Schlem (use your R-73 and helmet sight) to make your kill or close to the Eagle's rear quarter and make the guns kill. Make it quick, though, because you have little fuel to remain anchored. Always assume the guy you're fighting has a wingman somewhere you don't see. Really, your best bet is to find someone who challenges you to fly with. Practice with each other until you get good, then take it to the servers. That way you have a built in wingman online.