Jump to content

Rhen

Members
  • Posts

    298
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by Rhen

  1. 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. :)
  2. Well, not quite zero hours, as one of my first additional duties was as an ASLAR instructor for the squadron.
  3. 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.
  4. "Oh, good. I'm SOF." Yeah, I love doing that too... :lol: I didn't hear: "Great! My next assignment is Reapers!" :megalol:
  5. I always thought the cockpit of a Tornado smelt like a French "hoor" house, myself... :D
  6. You've gone and made fun of ... a viper pilot... vs. an Eagle pilot! I don't see the problem here.... :megalol:
  7. 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:
  8. 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.
  9. ***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.
  10. I'm sorry, but my mind doesn't operate that slowly....:megalol::smartass:
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=954589&postcount=13 Most birds you see are of course silhouetted against the sky. The ones you don't are usually silhouetted against the ground or hit you when you're attention is focused on something else other than visual lookout. Fighter pilots keep their eyes moving to try to spot someone trying to encroach on their flight. It's when you're involved in a task that requires more cranium processing unit cycles that your attention gets channelized on the pipper, in the case of the A-10 pilot, or cranium down in the cockpit that you miss the bird, so to speak. This happens when learning new tasks, in a training environment, or any time SA is degraded, and attention gets channelized. An anecdote: A guy in my pilot training class was climbing out after a touch & go (circuit & bump for you Brits :smilewink:) in the Talon, when he hit a 5 lb. sandhill crane. He saw it after his gear and flaps were up and he was at 300 knots. He pulled the stick to the right and attempted to climb. If he hadn't done that, the crane would've hit the center of his canopy, possibly busting it and then he would be covered in shards and pieces of crane possibly losing vision. As it was, it shelled out his #1 engine (Utility hydraulics). He broke out of the closed pattern to enter the straight in pattern, had to alternate extend his gear, and he performed a perfect single-engine straight in. He got an "Atta boy!" from the wing commander for his skill.
  16. "Entity" apparently shares the same level of knowledge as the "so-called" military aviation experts on this board. The F-22 has had the ability to communicate with other aircraft on the battlefield since 2008 during JEFX. This capability has been operational for a while with the Battlefield Airborne Communications Node aircraft, that have been deployed to Afghanistan (as a Global Hawk variant) and more distantly by a modified Bombardier BD-700 Bizjet. Until MADL comes out for the Raptor some time in 2015, barring budget cuts, it will have to rely on BACN to communicate with other platforms and remain stealthy. So all this talk about the Raptor being unable to share info with LINK-16 equipped aircraft is just plain false.
  17. :doh: I applaud your loyalty to FAA Sea Harriers. The GR. Mk3 is a great air to mud aircraft. However, GG is correct. You're understanding of the tactics used are missing the big picture. We fought the Sea Harriers mostly because we were expecting the Yak-36/38 Forger to be a threat, so the Harriers were nice enough to play along. :smilewink: At any rate, for the time frame you're talking about when the Harrier engaged F-15s out of Bitburg at RAF Lakenheath, the Harrier wasn't much of an air-to-air machine. They could only field Limas (AIM-9L) and we had the Sparrow and Lima. Usually we called them morted before the merge BVR. However they had a few tricks that would deny us a Sparrow shot and then we'd get WVR, where, I'm sure your discussion wants to go. The Sea Harrier had no radar at the time and was limited to a fixed reticle for its boresighted Lima. Their advantage was their anhedral wing and placement of their nozzles, which allowed their heat signatures to be hidden by the wing. To deny a lock, all they had to do was point their nozzles a certain number of degrees downward and no Lima lock. That's assuming a high/low (Eagle high, Harrier low) geometry. So, let's set this up. Here I am at 30,000ft in my Eagle, with all the SA in the world as to where you are in your Harrier, somewhere around 10-12,000ft, where the air's thicker for your non-afterburning engine. You perform a maneuver to deny me my first shot with the sparrow and so we get WVR. I optimize my attach geometry to stay out of your Lima WEZ and deny you an idea of where to look for me (we're not stupid! We don't just come at you head on in a nice "you pick the circle" fight. We make sure you minimize your SA while I have SA on you the entire time since I have a radar that can give me that SA). So now we're looking down at you from high-to-low and of course we can't get a Lima off because of your wings (Sidewinder won't lock - the Mike will, though :thumbup:). Now we just do our conversion from high-to-low and come down on you (no Yo-Yo's need be done, thank you very much). You evidently spot us beginning our conversion maneuver and decide to do a nice, well-timed, VIFF (Vectoring In Forward Flight - moving the nozzles downward to decrease forward motion and tighten their turns - GG is right, the nozzles don't actually point anywhere close to full forward, just slightly greater than 90 degrees down IIRC) to force an overshoot. Now let's recall some aerodynamics. What keeps any aircraft (including a harrier) flying? Really? One guess, & it's not thrust vectoring, unless the jet's low weight and below 1000ft MSL. It's air over the wings! Yes, the same lift that keeps the Cessna or Grob in the air. So what do you think happens to the harrier as it begins to stop in the air? Ok, now back to our dogfight scenario: Here's what I see from my jet. I see you begin to initially point the nose upward as I'm coming down on you from high, and watch as your jet suddenly appears to stop in mid-air (actually it's an optical illusiion as you still have a good deal of forward speed, it's just that the overtake has increased dramatically). Another aside: From taking to USMC pilots who were stationed conveniently near my base at Iwakuni NAS, Okinawa, Japan, they said the deceleration is about 1.5-2.5g's, pretty substantial! So I see your jet seemingly stop in mid-air (you don't really think I'm going to try to get directly on your 6 during this do you? :smartass:), GOD! What do I do!!! I'm clueless!! I guess I'll just let myself get shot down by your superior Harrier! :surrender: Then all you have to do is just rotate your nozzles back to zero, put your reticle on the fire coming out of my P220s and say "Fox 2 kill F-15 overshooting the AMAZING Harrier at 9,000ft" before your nose began to drop from lack of airspeed. Aahhh. :noexpression: I don't think so. I'd have to be stupid, or not have done my vault study, or just have my fangs hanging through the floorboard of the cockpit for that to happen.... :megalol: I'll just see the nose rotating (or the sudden stop, but that's usually a late sign) use my greater energy to pull into the vertical and behind the harrier and wait for God's G to take it's effect on an aircraft with little airflow over its wings. I then pirouette, put my nose behind the harrier and can either "Fox 2" or gun you as your nose descended and your nozzles had to be aft to pick up speed after your VIFF, giving me a nice heat source, or a quick guns opportunity before I had to pull up again to prevent from violating TR bubble, overshooting, or busting the bottom of the container. This is a trick we've also used successfully on the F-22 if the meat-stick actuator in that jet was stupid enough to get slow, and have to rely on thrust vectoring to rate the nose. But again, this tends to happen to "noobs" flying the jet, just like harrier kills on Eagles tends to be on baby Eagle drivers. Couple of things: 1) I don't think VIFFing has ever been done during "real" combat, not even during the Falklands. There just wasn't any need as the Argentinians never could maneuver aggressively enough to warrant use of such a tactic with many drawbacks - one of which is being slow and non-maneuverable after its accomplishment. 2) Without airspeed you have no energy or life. I will gun you as long as I don't get stupid or cocky - so to speak... and try to fight the battle on your terms (low and slow). Sure, you can say "E" is life, too, I guess. But for fighter pilots, and not engineers, Speed IS Life! :smartass:
  18. I was stationed at Kadena, so one of the possible scenarios we trained for was OPLAN 5027, or defense of ROK against DPRK hostilities. Several scenarios, you can imagine by just playing Falcon. When you forward deploy to S. Korea to discourage hostile air incidents, you're talking about DCA with most legs of the flight plan in minutes, while remaining within multiple IADS threat envelopes. Regardless, there's tactics that can be employed for those short missions that still fail to work regardless of what improvements (I'm sure for the better, despite never having actually played LOFC2, yet - soon, but not yet :) ) have been made. A short, and (arguably) intentionally vague list using UNCLAS information: Radar lock limits related to main lobe capability to direct weapons at certain distances vs. lock distances, radar channels, interference, Radar ECM/ECCM modeling vs adversary aircraft, especially related to off-axis attack. Radar automation and absence of certain modes which increase ability to track targets which perform poor notches, track formation and data acquisition. Threat protection system performance as related to readily available sources, anecdotal evidence, and ability to deny detection, lock, and weapons employment inside 20NM. IFF capability of aircraft in jamming environment vs datalink Datalink. TEWS automation and integration. Missile performance with respect to launching aircraft speed and altitude vs. the "brick wall" speed coded into LOFC. Missile ECM/ECCM. Slammer use of updates until high PRF and effect on Pk, or mechanics of updates as presented by LOFC don't have the expected effect when supporting missile. SAM radar/ECM/ECCM issues, missile datalink, visual qualities of launch-Day/Night vs. visibility. Ability to see wingmen in cloud in close formation. Afterburner visibility at night vs. distance. There's more, but it's late-here. Again some of the things that would drive realistic tactics can't be in a virtual world without tangible penalties for pressing a tactical situation with low probability of survival i.e. "Who cares! I'll just respawn/eject and jump in to a nice shiny new aircraft and do it again.
  19. Oh, come on now! Just because I'm a pilot, don't treat me like a no-nothing idiot! :smilewink: Jet engine efficiency can be described several ways: Cycle efficiency, which is what you're talking about. Propulsive efficiency, which I'm talking about, is based on how well the thrust of the engine approximates the airspeed of the jet - so a jet flying at M1.3 would have a high propulsive efficient engine if the airspeed of the exhaust equals M1.3 - something a high-bypass turbofan will never ever get to. Energy efficiency, which is the product of Cycle efficiency x Propulsive efficiency. While high-bypass turbofans might have a high cycle efficiency, they can never be propulsive efficient at high speed. Also, an afterburning section is no longer required to sustain mach speeds.
  20. Yeah, because so many mach capable fighters use a high bypass turbofan.... no wait! :smilewink: Care to guess again? :smartass:
  21. This is one of the reasons why the lessons learned from a flawed game will translate to virtual death when a simulation that accurately models air combat arrives. When the "sim" you fly models actual behavior inaccurately, the end product, the tactics used and developed because of the poor modeling of missiles, radars, ECM/ECCM - active and passive, become just as unrealistic. In many ways for both BVR & WVR combat, but especially for BVR combat, this game punishes many realistic tactics and rewards many tactics that would result in poor outcomes IRL. Shame really.:(
  22. FTIT or EGT is a Great!! indicator of thrust. It usually stabilizes out faster than RPM, and has little variation between OAT/conditions in comparison to the same engine installed on another jet. For example, if I'm flying and want to give someone else my approximate thrust setting (actual thrust produced) then giving them the FTIT will give them a better approximation of the same amount of thrust that I'm producing in my jet. This is great to use for exercises where we keep our power set, and the other aircraft must use cutoff to remain in position (no throttle). Also if I'm shooting an approach, I know that if I set an FTIT, I'll keep a certain speed. It's a good control instrument for power. FTIT/EGT probably doesn't mean as much to a maintainer during an engine run, as long as they don't exceed their max values. However, in the air they're a better indicator of thrust, without varying with the condition of the air mass when compared to the same engine installed in another aircraft, and vary less than RPM, or fuel flow for that matter - which varies significantly with the temp and quality of the airmass (humidity, etc.) - coming up initial at Luke vs Tyndall.
  23. On Topic: Flying just isn't just flying around in a sterile simulated world. There's weather phenomena (crosswinds, downdrafts, turbulence, windshear, TSTMS, etc.), there's other aircraft, there's rules of flight that aircraft and air traffic controllers expect you to observe. Then there's the aircraft itself. If it's working the way it was designed, then you have a chance. If you pick the aircraft with a hydraulic, electric, fuel, oxygen, engine, or structural malfunction, you're REALLY in for a treat! :megalol: Finally, you have to deal with yourself: There i was! Adrenaline pumping, taking off the flags and walking around my nice hog, climbing up the ladder, there's even a nice crew chief to help you stow the ladder! Can you still think through all the things you need to do JUST to start the engines and get the avionics up and running, all the time knowing you're about to risk your own life along with the lives of the ground crew helping you "joyride" in a military aircraft, as well as any poor schmuck in your fightpath? You have to deal with all these things to successfully fly any aircraft, let alone a jet powered one. Let's take a simple sortie of just starting the engines, going out to the runway, taking off, going around the pattern, and landing. Using a simulator designed for entertainment purposes may allow you to start the engines (unless you sucked your checklist or piece of equipment into an engine during start, or ended up with a hot, hung, false start, or had an emergency along with your start), and possibly taxi out to the runway (some of you would ground loop the aircraft or tip it on a wing or possibly structurally damage the aircraft simply by taxiing out to the runway :music_whistling:). Some of you would run off the side of the runway while attempting to accelerate to rotation speed. Others would stall and crash once rotating to liftoff. Still others who NEVER fly with any kind of wind on their PC simulator of choice would never be able to fly a ground track, which is essential to line up with the runway. Others would lose too much altitude in turns just trying to get back to the runway. Others may get disorientated and lost just trying to fly around the pattern. Then there's the people who have pulled no more than the Gs required to go up in an elevator who would feel disorientated just from the "feel" of flying. Still more would stall and crash on approach. Others would oscillate and land on an unprepared surface with similarly spectacular results. Others would oscillate vertically in the flare and stall and crash. Others would land too hard and structurally damage the aircraft - at best. However, a few, who kept their head, planned the flight, knew enough to remove FOD from the aircraft (flags/pins), studied the pattern, practiced, knew what to expect, and how to deal with basic weather conditions - even on a clear day - weather's still present! - had someone to help guide them (a pilot or controller on the ground), perhaps they might be able to successfully fly and come through the experience unscathed. OFF TOPIC.... Yes we do. What do you think happens when we leave military airspace? We deal with the FAA and are subject to getting violated (not what you think :megalol:), or in violation of FARs (Federal Aviation Regulations). AFI 11-202v3 para 1.1.2 states: This AFI is a common source of flight directives that include: Air Force-specific guidance. Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs). International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs). This AFI provides necessarily broad guidance and cannot address every conceivable circumstance. PICs are expected to use their best judgment to ensure the safe conduct of the flight. (Bold is my emphasis) Whether we fly in the US or other countries airspace - as long as it's controlled by a civil aviation authority, we are still subject to civil aviation regulations. As an anecdote, my flight commander decided to forgo the pilot bonus and leave the military for the airlines. He failed to run a check of his FAA issued flying license. (Yes, many of us who fly in the military also have a civilian license). He had a violation incurred when he was flying in airspace near Qatar. The controller asked for his name and he was not using his cranium and gave it out. The civil authority there filed a violation of their civil rules and it got to the FAA. Consequently, he couldn't find employment when he left. Last thing I heard, he was trying to get back into the military. Something similar happened to a guy stationed at Osan, AB ROK. He was vectored into a mountain by the controller. Again, we turn to AFI 11-202v3 para. 1.1.1: Pilot in Command Authority. The Pilot in Command (PIC) is responsible for, and is the final authority as to the operation of the aircraft. We, as pilots are still responsible for the safe and mission effective conduct of the sortie. It's our responsibility, in this instance, to tell the controller to politely go F00K him/herself. We should do a sanity check of any order we're given, whether from a controller, or otherwise. The controller gives you an order, it's still up to you, as PIC to know whether you ca comply. Those of us who sign the AFTO 781 after a flight as FP, or MP should be able to know the difference.
  24. Ahh.... No. The 2 times I've hit birds, I've seen them and tried to maneuver to avoid. Othewise I'd have hit birds 5 times.:smartass: Birds tend to dive when they see a big fast piece of metal coming at them, so we learn to climb and turn to avoid. Of course, reaction times being what they are - it takes about 0.5-4 sec to sense, decide, react, and another 0.2-2 sec for the aircraft to react, depending upon its size (larger = slower). So in the best case, it may take you 0.6sec to react and the aircraft to maneuver once you've already perceived a bird. I've hit a bird in a T-38 at 360 knots, it going into #1 engine, zoom climb, abort low-level, and RTB without damage, as it was a small bird. I've hit a bird in an F-15 during LOWAT, resulting in minor damage to the left wing pylon. The probability increases the lower you fly, and are most possible during takeoff or landing. At AF bases, we have a Bird/Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH) program that monitors & collects data to decrease probability of birdstrikes. We get a bird watch condition prior to takeoff and during mission planning for LOWAT (low altitude training) includes tactical navigation and low altitude air-to-air training. We get pretty low during this training, and birds are always a factor.
  25. Ok, let's look at that. But first, a question. What do you think the differing philosophies regarding air power were during the cold war? You're a European, right? Tell me how much your country invested in fighting the cold war? Not much, I'd say. No offense meant. The bulk of the expense was borne by the US while Germany, Netherlands, Italy, GB, et. al. supplied money and basing for the US to have a military presense to deter the Warsaw Pact. Now who went for the large numbers of cheap fighters? Who went with the small numbers of highly capable and technologically advanced fighters? What was the reasoning behind this? It's simple. NATO had the ability to keep and continue a professional force of technicians to service the highly technical aircraft. The all-volunteer force fielded by some countries allowed western military organizations the ability to select intelligent recruits that were motivated to be in the military and make it a life-long career. A small number of highly trained and well equipped air forces are relatively cheap, and require fewer people in the armed services than the Warsaw Pact. The opposite side had a harder time motivating their military to keep and maintain their equipment in fighting order. While they had a large number of members in their armed services, they also had a high turn-over rate (as soon as they're trained, their time in service is met and they can leave the military). Imagine a conscript who's not motivated, taking care of an advanced fighter or bomber aircraft. Heck, engine repair couldn't be done at certain bases, and the number of spares had to be high. The industrial complex wasn't as advanced. Aircraft had to be simple and easy to maintain. They also had to be easy to fly for those pilots with minimal currency in their aircraft's mission. More people, less training, more reliance on command and control, and spares. Lots of money. If you go the way of cheap and plentiful, you've got to have people to go with it. Should we (in the US) reinstate the draft, or make military service mandatory? The arguments for these proposals have been made and rejected. The armed forces are better off having people motivated to be in the military and to stay in as company grade officers - those who are the backbone of any air force. While I agree with you about weight of figher aircraft, I still think you've got to remember that Sprey is talking about aircraft with less weight than an F-16. How do you think it's going to stay in the air for protracted periods of time? Levitation? No matter how much we hate it, we still burn dead dinosaurs. They're heavy. They take up space, but not having them is worse than having them. No matter where you go, you've got to take gas with you because turbine engines burn fuel, not wishful thinking. Your notion that there's a constant elint aircraft presence is just plain nonsense. You can't stay in the air indefinitely with JSTARS, RIVET JOINT, GLOBAL HAWK, etc. Sooner or later they've got to come down. Oh yeah, did I mention that they can't maintain a presense where there's an active IADS or air superiority hasn't been attained? The only high ground we can maintain against an enemy air force that hasn't been subdued is by satellite reconnaissance. Amazing logic.... What do you think will happen with massive numbers of cheap aircraft? Do you think they'll maintain themselves? Even if those aircraft you're so enamored with require half the maintenance, if you have 4 times the number of these aircraft over Raptors, how many people do you think will be required to maintain those mass-produced cheap aircraft? And since when is maintaining a fighter a "silly, non-military task"? What? :doh: UAVs HAVE pilots! Very light does not equal "loitering many hours in the skies." They must be produced in quantity so they can take the place of the one running out of gas. They fly in shifts. They must be capable of inflight aerial refueling. How many tankers do you think this will take? How many pilots does it take to fly a tanker? Two, last time I checked. Tankers also require an enlisted boom operator, as well as maintainers and crew chiefs. Did you factor this into your equation? Huh? :doh: Are you kidding? How are you going to prevent a country from utilizing it's air force? Are you talking about a preemptive military strike with cruise missiles and tactical ballistic missiles? I don't think so. What prevents Iran from getting frisky and using its air force against the Israelis or vice versa? It's the fact that they can defend itself. There's no way that either country will NOT launch aircraft for it's defense. We monitor potential threats all the time. It still doesn't preclude the need for fighter aircraft to project power and take the high ground so the boots on the ground can secure strategic and tactical objectives in support of operational plans and contingencies.
×
×
  • Create New...