USARStarkey

Thanks for all the rep peoples!

Whooh. I was worried.

I wont argue it was perfect lol. Far From it. It was from early days. I just put it up because music/dogfights are cool. You guys are right that I gave up that first turn pretty badly. But the battle at high alt it not quite as it seems. I will explain some things though. Yeah, I cocked up my first turn. I had a really poorly arranged control scheme at the time i got lost in my keyboard etc. That being said, I was going for a fast vertical turn, which I find usually works on Flankers. Alas, he got on my six, but he was somewhat distant, so I dove to gain E and did some Guns D to throw him out of sync long enough that I could get far enough out to accelerate out of gun range (.7-.8nm) Then I ran till I had about 1nm on him, and went vertical. He was far enough away in that climb that it was highly unlikely that he could hit me. My mistake at the top was that I didn't hold the climb long enough, I could have made a much tighter reversal and ended it there. He did not still have his nose on me, and at that point he had so little nose authority I dont think it would have mattered if he had. But I didnt take advantage like I should have. However, when we were spiraling around at 35k or whatever it was, I assure you(I know this from talking to the pilot) that he couldnt get his nose up on me, and we were both push as hard as possible to get around. Anyhow I just thought this would be fun to put up. My block of text is more to give insight into our perspective during the fight, since I know you guys can only see it from that "50000" ft view. :) Obviously there are alot of mistakes. Just clarify some things is all.

THIS. THIS RIGHT HERE. That is what I am trying to say!!!! Honestly, having finished GG's reading GG's posts, I think we might all be saying the same thing and nitpicking each others emphasis on things.

Nine-tenths of tactics are certain, and taught in books: but the irrational tenth is like the kingfisher flashing across the pool, and that is the test of generals. T. E. Lawrence

Too busy to respond right now but I will later. Need to to read giant posts in more detail. Generally though I'd say this: training is conducted not only to practice existing procedure but to come up with new ones. Because you cannot anticipate every eventuality, training helps you experience as many as possible, and continue to experience more. But you can never predict every thing. I'm paraphrasing here but TE Lawrence once stated that 9/10th of tactics are taught in books, but that last bit is what makes the difference.

Journey of a new pilot... That is practically spot on :)

Nobody briefs everything. I can't even count the number of times I've been through a brief that did not have everything. Not for the airforce, but I don't think they're any more omniscient than the army is.

No one is saying ttp's aren't a necessity. I'm saying it is more complicated than that. I just stated this in my last post... I'm also not advocating not practicing something just because your not good at it. The opposite actually.

I dont think you guys get what I am trying to say. Ill just leave it at this. Yeah, TTP's are a big part getting the job done. everyone knowing the proper TTP's and practicing them is a big part of any type of military training. It is impossible to predict every situation however, and a smart enemy knows your TTP's and will try to use them against you. When a situation arises that there isnt a exact TTP for, or an enemy does something you didn't know they could do, that is when a deep tactical understanding allows you to make decisions based on understanding how things are done a base level, when something happens you don't have a procedure for because it simply impossible to dream up every possible permutation and plan for it.

Nobody used externals for the fight. That is obviously just the replay. Labels were on because this is right after we both started playing. My brake was out because I had a horrible control scheme at the time an it was easier to just airbrake without any throttle adjustment sometimes. Like I said, this was really early on lol

My analogy wasnt great granted. My point is that human ability doesn't always manifest in a linear fashion. For many people flying may be flying. For some it just isnt. Like many other skills. I know someone who is quite good once he gets into the air, but cant taxi worth a nickel. I could go on and on with a great many non-aircraft examples, but it would be a tad out of context. Aircraft wise, i know people who get dogfighting, but dont get BVR at all. Or there are those who can fly, but cannot do any form of air combat well, and they like to move mud. I would like to add that a great deal of what makes people good at one thing but not at another in the same general skill set is that humans are in many cases good at what the want to be good at, and tend to disregard anything that they think wont be useful or boring. that is not the only reason though.

It is impossible to brief all contingencies, Period. Unless you can read the enemies mind, and you intelligence is somehow perfect. My second point I meant in a more broad sense. That is why I noted that air combat is quite technical. I train with people all the time who have no real conceptual understanding of their craft outside of a 1 + 1 = 2 application. (not air combat) That last bit is dead wrong. It is like saying, "If you cant tie your shoes, how can I expect you to ride a bike." This is a logical fallacy that is made all the time. Human beings have all sorts of quirks and inconsistencies. I know many people who can shoot quite well with one weapon, but are not nearly as good with another, despite the the same general skills being needed.

That bit about procedure is not exactly true. Yes, there a great deal of training is procedure, but one of the largest aspects of training is learning how to actually apply that procedure inside of a constantly changing and non-compliant battle-space. There is a fine line between improvisation and "procedure," so far as what achieves success. Some military MOS's are more procedure than others however, and air/sea combat is quite chess like. That being said, RL training cannot be described as procedure, as it is more about how to apply procedures in many different situations, and when its time to think outside the box. Furthermore, that bit about landing is also not correct. Many of the people I work with are very good at some aspects of their jobs and not so great at others. Many of those skills require what one might call "precision." Just because you cannot apply something in one area does not mean it will be true in another case. Human beings are quite illogical in that regard.

lol. I dont doubt that it was bad. Long time ago.

Ok. I dont know anything technical about this, but would it be safe to say the blast engagement range should be larger?

This is from not too long after I bought this game. Try not to rip too hard lol. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJRvpFePt3w

Im going to die of heart failure if they announce and P-38L. Agile, Fast, Good Climb, unparalleled range.

Ok got ya. So is proximity modeled in DCS? I've never seen one detonate without hitting its target

No that is why I'm asking the question. I'm not sure what the case should be. As for being directly behind the plane, Ive seen them do the same thing when equally close but not inside of an afterburner. Regardless, I am now confused, at least as I'm reading them your statements seem to imply that they do an do not have proximity fuses. So which is it? Do AAM's go for direct impact, or proximity blast? Or do they have the option for either. I know from a while back I read something about AIM-54's hitting targets directly, but the way it was phrased it sounded like this was not the norm.

If they make a P-38, it needs to be an L so it can compete with the other planes in the game date wise. Also, it better clock in at 443mph, not that crap 414 thats always quoted because of the tests being done at military power.

So aren't missiles like the 120 etc supposed to have proximity detonation? all the missiles seem to be going for direct impact. I watch ones of my 120s fly 10 feet behind a flanker and just limp there till it ran out of E.

Just some tips for the F-15. 1. You are Faster than the Su-27. 2. You have a better T/W at any comparable fuel weight. 3. You have a better instantaneous turn at very high speed, and about equal at medium. If the fight is guns only I like to do two things. 1. Go in fast, then try to cut around for a snap shot by using God's G in a vertical turn and capitalizing on a good one time high speed turn. If it doesn't work, I go burner and accelerate away while he is still turning about to give chase. 2. If the target saddles up on your tail, and he isn't and closer the .7nm, go vertical. If you fly straight up you will eventually stall out a Mig-29 or a Su-27. Make sure you have some separation before you attempt this, if he is right on your ass he will just shoot you as you go up. This is not a very good idea if the enemy has missiles, unless you can put the sun in a ir seekers eyes, or you have a crap on of flares and feel like being reckless.

Once the missile goes active it homes in on whatever the seeker sees. It does not IFF.

So, this thing is about in the same class as a F-86 Sabre in terms of P/W. That is ridiculous. Top speed is 640mph, making it only 37mph slower than a F-86. With a Wingloading of 16lbs per square foot, you could dogfight a Mig-15 and have a good chance of winning.