Journey of a new pilot...

[GGTharos]

Bad dogfight (you got killed in this one... don't care what the video shows), bad, horrible, unsafe landing approach, horrible landing rollout.

 

Man, I hope cofcorpse can get some reasonable form of over-g punishment in, as well as hot brakes exploding the tyres etc.

[USARStarkey]

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.

[Buckeye]

Hi Ace,

 

I'm a total noob too and I'm still learning the F15 and a new HOTAS at the same time (lots of restarts) and I haven't flown online yet. I'm also not that huge into the theory. I will be willing cannon fodder if you want some practice, perhaps we can both learn a bit :D

 

Absolutely. Once I get the internet connection up and running I will hit you up to establish a time. It'll be nice to fly with someone else who is also learning, but isn't as worthless as the AI.

 

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.

 

Thanks for the pointers, mate! Much appreciated.

[Stuge]

Bad dogfight (you got killed in this one... don't care what the video shows), bad, horrible, unsafe landing approach, horrible landing rollout.

 

Man, I hope cofcorpse can get some reasonable form of over-g punishment in, as well as hot brakes exploding the tyres etc.

 

C'mon what Max needs is love and understanding and support...

 

Sure Max's dogfight skills are taking baby steps right now..

 

But I don't think the landing was bad (unless your goal is to achieve full competency of IRL procedures. Not everyone loves procedures. Some concentrate more on maximizing combat action and effectiveness on the battlefield.

 

Procedure rarely equals combat effectiveness.

 

Some aspects of this simulation are optional. I think they should be kept that way, not indoctrinated into people.

[GGTharos]

But I don't think the landing was bad (unless your goal is to achieve full competency of IRL procedures. Not everyone loves procedures. Some concentrate more on maximizing combat action and effectiveness on the battlefield.

 

That's great, but combat action requires precision at the very least, never mind all the other fun stuff. If you can't even be precise about landing, how are you going to be precise in combat?

 

Procedure rarely equals combat effectiveness.

Actually it does. This is precisely why RL training is procedure. Some of it does not apply in simulation, some does.

 

Some aspects of this simulation are optional. I think they should be kept that way, not indoctrinated into people.

Yes, this is why airquake exists. And it's cool. :)

 

PS: You're right Max needs help right now. I can't help much right now though, but I think knowing that these things are going bad is a good thing. I don't mean to be insulting.

Edited June 27, 2014 by GGTharos

[Buckeye]

Stupid question alert: How do I get my TWS to shift/pivot it's focus right or left? In the controls, what is the Command Title I need to be looking for? I have the Scan Zone U, D, L, and R bound to a hat. The up and down have always worked, the left and right never have...I've finally given up and decided just to ask.

 

ps...I tried referencing the YT video that explains TWS mode very well, but with me not having normal internet currently (as mentioned before) the temp connection I am using isn't strong enough to stream.

[GGTharos]

Move the TDC. :)

[Buckeye]

Move the TDC. :)

 

hahah wow!! Can't believe it was that easy. I remember in the old video I watched to learn about the radar systems he was using Scan Zone Left and Right to slide his "cone" back and forth-- was this changed somewhere along the line in an update? I like this way better anyway, just curious. Thanks for clearing that up for me though!

[GGTharos]

Yes this change came in a little while ago :)

[USARStarkey]

That's great, but combat action requires precision at the very least, never mind all the other fun stuff. If you can't even be precise about landing, how are you going to be precise in combat?

 

Actually it does. This is precisely why RL training is procedure. Some of it does not apply in simulation, some does.

 

Yes, this is why airquake exists. And it's cool. :)

 

PS: You're right Max needs help right now. I can't help much right now though, but I think knowing that these things are going bad is a good thing. I don't mean to be insulting.

 

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.

[GGTharos]

That bit about procedure is not exactly true.

 

It is 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.

 

Actually it's all still procedure. That's why they brief all the contingencies.

 

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.

 

Knowledge and practice of this knowledge gets you into the other guy's OODA loop, not making things up as you go. I don't know what you're thinking when it comes to 'thinking outside the box', but it really doesn't exist in the context of a dogfight. If you have to think outside of your box, your knowledge in the area is deficient. That's how it is.

 

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.

 

If you can't fly a landing with precision, you can't fly a fight with precision. They both use the same skill.

 

Whether you want to concentrate on one thing over another is a different subject.

[USARStarkey]

It is exactly true.

 

 

 

Actually it's all still procedure. That's why they brief all the contingencies.

 

It is impossible to brief all contingencies, Period. Unless you can read the enemies mind, and you intelligence is somehow perfect.

 

 

 

Knowledge and practice of this knowledge gets you into the other guy's OODA loop, not making things up as you go. I don't know what you're thinking when it comes to 'thinking outside the box', but it really doesn't exist in the context of a dogfight. If you have to think outside of your box, your knowledge in the area is deficient. That's how it is.

 

 

 

If you can't fly a landing with precision, you can't fly a fight with precision. They both use the same skill.

 

Whether you want to concentrate on one thing over another is a different subject.

 

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.

[Maximus_Lazarus]

......... procedures.............

 

 

:D

 

I don't mean to be insulting.

 

Please do not worry about insulting, the whole point of this video was to show badness ! I would have posted a worse one but they would only show a black screen and me driving myself in the ground :D

 

Anyway, i feel like i'm hijacking this thread.

 

Also i'm going to give starkey some + rep ! The red bar seems very undeserved. !

Edited June 27, 2014 by Maximus_Lazarus

[Frostie]

Yt

 

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."

 

That sounds way off base, a more appropriate analogy would be 'if you can't ride in a straight line, how can you expect to pull a wheelie', which rings true in my book.

Flying is flying.

[USARStarkey]

Yt

 

That sounds way off base, a more appropriate analogy would be 'if you can't ride in a straight line, how can you expect to pull a wheelie', which rings true in my book.

Flying is flying.

 

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.

Edited June 27, 2014 by USARStarkey

[Frostie]

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.

Define 'get dogfighfing' anyone can dogfight to a level of competent after a bit of practice but that doesn't equate to them understanding it. Somebody who understands BFM will be able to fly BVR succesfully providing they learn the correct procedures. That is GG's point. How you apply yourself in one way is going to run the same for all.

 

If you don't use procedure then you're already losing against someone who is. Fighter pilots don't have years of training from the very best instructors to then get in the heat of battle and start making stuff up. That's how you get yourself and your flight into a right mess.

[Bushmanni]

How do you define procedure in context of A2A fight? First thing that comes to my mind is checklist type of rigid ordered procedure or choreography. While fighter combat certainly has that aspect in form of operating the plane and its systems correctly I have hard time imagining procedure that gets you in a favorable situation in respect to the enemy to employ weapons effectively as the enemy seldom follows the same procedure as you. Of course if you fumble the weapons employment procedure your skill in getting to a shooting position is useless.

[Frostie]

Procedure is method ie. co-ordinated tactics employed, maneuver tactics, aircraft handling to understand limits and achieve maximum performance, mutual support etc. Otherwise you have a bunch of guys doing their own thing hoping for the best while yanking on their sticks

[TAW_Blaze]

Even the thoughtprocess of a BVR fight is a procedure. If you're not thinking about the right stuff you'll get killed.

[winchesterdelta1]

Otherwise you have a bunch of guys doing their own thing hoping for the best while yanking on their sticks

 

Sounds like the public 104th team speak on a friday night :joystick: :megalol:

[104th_Maverick]

Sounds like the public 104th team speak on a friday night :joystick: :megalol:

 

No.... its most nights sadly :D

[winchesterdelta1]

A well. We having fun. And never had so much random people to fly with in years. We will get there some how. For me the hardest part is concentrating on everything at the same time. It's hard to fly yourself and think about the others as well. Especially when they don't know what to do themselves. But some day's with the right people we are super effective. But than the other team leaves quickly :(

[Bushmanni]

Yes, as a thought process it makes sense to say A2A is all about procedure like any other 'conflict' where all the possible playing pieces and moves are known (still what pieces are in play or where they are might be unknown) ie. no innovations are allowed or possible.

 

But then what kind of thought process I should practice to have? Shaw's book describes tactics in a "bandit does this, you do this" kind of style but I personally don't like that kind of style and Shaw doesn't exactly seem to imply that it's necessary either. I prefer to have more general rules of thumb that result in the described tactics when applied to certain situations. It requires more thinking and less remembering which I prefer but it's less straightforward and more error prone but also more flexible.

[Frostie]

Obviously if you have the procedures down and a good understanding of the concept of it all then adjusting tactics to suit the situation becomes fluent and second nature, not just for you but for the whole flight. The alternative is tumbleweed.

Procedure is not a one way street, it's a compliance for everyone to be on the same page.

[USARStarkey]

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.