Leatherneck Q1 Development Update - Part I

[BlackLion213]

http://navyflightmanuals.tpub.com/P-825/P-8250109.htm

[ATTACH]138793[/ATTACH]

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/navy/nrtc/14313_ch3.pdf

[ATTACH]138794[/ATTACH]

 

Nice references, thanks FWind.

 

-Nick

[Revelation]

I think tactics are being ignored in this convo about the phoenix.

 

It may not be useful at all against fighters, then again it may be the best anti-fighter BVR weapon of all time IDK.. However, I can dream up a situation where I'd WANT to pop off a few *2* 54's at a flight of bandits at long range. 1. on the hope that they may hit home. 2. It puts the enemy on the defensive at long range, if they are concerned with trying to defeat a missile coming down at them from the edge of space, they wont be concerned with you closing at burner to shoot them in the rear when they're defensive.

 

I'd be surprised if the navy didn't think of something like that.

 

A good thought on possible tactics / scenarios.

 

Another one for you...

 

SA-10 is operational in close proximity to the target site. Strike aircraft are inbound low and fast. Enemy DCA is up over the target area. The F-14 could track and launch on those aircraft well outside of the SA-10 engagement circle. (what is currently modeled in DCS)

 

Whether the -54C's are highly effective or not is irregardless. Enemy DCA will have to take evasive maneuvers out of pure precaution, thus minimizing their ability to intercept the strike fighters.

[Cool Breeze]

A good thought on possible tactics / scenarios.

 

Another one for you...

 

SA-10 is operational in close proximity to the target site. Strike aircraft are inbound low and fast. Enemy DCA is up over the target area. The F-14 could track and launch on those aircraft well outside of the SA-10 engagement circle. (what is currently modeled in DCS)

 

Whether the -54C's are highly effective or not is irregardless. Enemy DCA will have to take evasive maneuvers out of pure precaution, thus minimizing their ability to intercept the strike fighters.

This looks like a fun! I'm going to try to put together a scenario like this with AI and see how it plays out.

[flyingscotsman]

Just a big thank you to the dev team, with a carrier too, I'm very impressed. Just as well not too much detail below decks I always spent too much in the PX, LOL

[toni]

Any thoughts about adding steering+variable speed to the Forrestal ? Is a must to be able to heading into the wind for launch/recovery Ops .

[Frostie]

This is true but has nothing to do with the actual Pk of the BVR shots that were taken. The Sparrow performed very poorly overall in 1971-1973 (Pk of around 11% with 276 shots taken) and of only 28 shots made BVR, two (2) resulted in kills. Please read Higsby's paper for the details, he goes over everything you mentioned in detail.

 

Even in the Gulf War, with AWACS and 90's Sparrows and all that jazz, only 24 kills resulted from 88 AIM-7 shots taken, resulting in an overall Pk of 27% (BVR details uncertain, see Higsby for details). For comparison, 12 Sidewinders in the same conflict resulted in 8 kills.

 

 

Uh. I guess if you want to call official USAF statistics "not facts" I guess you can do that, but it's unlikely to contribute to the discussion. I cited the paper as support for my position on Cold War era BVR in general, not for the Phoenix in particular. Since the only account of the Phoenix in combat outside those two anecdotes already discussed is Tom Cooper's, it's obviously impossible to make any meaningful statistical comparison; hence my argument is based

 

Pk data gathered from a war is not a true reflection of a missiles capability. This can be seen from the huge variation in results, for example Desert Storm Aim-9 had 0% Pk even excluding the accidental shots, where as Falklands Aim-9 had 70% Pk, the same missile with contrasting results.

 

There is no set pattern in how a target responds to a BVR shot you need to realise the time of flight is far greater than any WVR shot so many things can happen during that time, more missiles can be fired, targets can turn cold, the shooter can go defensive himself trashing the shot so many variables affect the outcome. But one overriding factor that is missing from that paper is that the force with the greater use of BVR missiles won the airspace and that is all that matters.

[Agremont]

Hmm I wonder what went wrong with the second part of the update. Must have been something fairly major.

[foxmaner]

Hmm I wonder what went wrong with the second part of the update. Must have been something fairly major.

 

Yea. Almost 3 weeks late now ;(

But I can understand. They need to polish viggen before release :music_whistling:

[Agremont]

Yea. Almost 3 weeks late now ;(

But I can understand. They need to polish viggen before release :music_whistling:

 

The update is about the Tomcat though.

[Buzzles]

Yea. Almost 3 weeks late now ;(

But I can understand. They need to polish viggen before release :music_whistling:

 

Did you not know that everytime someone asks about the release, Cobra adds a day?

 

Why you do think he's the Delaymeister? :D

[mattebubben]

Even in the Gulf War, with AWACS and 90's Sparrows and all that jazz, only 24 kills resulted from 88 AIM-7 shots taken, resulting in an overall Pk of 27% (BVR details uncertain, see Higsby for details). For comparison, 12 Sidewinders in the same conflict resulted in 8 kills.

 

 

Well the PK is not always a accurate Depiction of how effective the missile is.

 

Lets say for example 2 Fighters launch 2 Sparrows each towards a target (4 missiles)

 

The First missile hits and kills the target.

 

That Gives you a 25% Hit chance even though the first missile hit the target.

 

So if they had only launched one it would have been a 100% Kill Ratio.

 

And it was in no way uncommon for multiple missiles to be launched at the same target.

 

Either by the same fighter or multiple aircraft launching Missiles at the same target.

 

And if the target is already dead the missile cant very well kill it.

 

And that problem is smaller with Aim-9s since they are launched at closer ranges so they impact the target much quicker.

 

So its less chance for multiple fighters to fire at the same target or for the pilot to launch a second missile before the first one reaches the target

(As he will know if the missile will hit at a earlier point)

Edited April 20, 2016 by mattebubben

[Drag0nWIng]

Sigh, nearly another weekend again.

[TomCatMucDe]

It's not Part I and Part II anymore. We are talking about 2 different updates now when there are weeks in between.

[Raven68]

I'll say it again. LNS is great with putting together a quality sim, but are terrible when it comes to delivering something as "promised" in particular with updates. Seen it too many times now, but what do you do other lower your expectations?

[Beamscanner]

in most scenarios people already have enough time to turn back around after defending a 20nm 120 shot;

Yea, hence my statement "the 120 will have little end game energy to play with." And that's my point. In a 1v1 scenario at 20 miles separation, the F-14 with the AIM-54 is far better off then someone with a AIM-120 because the AIM-54 has more kinetic energy and the AIM-54 seeker can detect it's target further out then the 120's seeker(meaning the f-14 can 'forget' the missile and defend earlier).

 

a max range 54 shot isn't going to be effective because you certainly won't be closing 30nm (especially not to a cold enemy) in that window to capitalize. A long tail chase is also not a very good idea because even a newbie generally ends up running down the line of allies all itching to have a go at you.

 

there are smarter ways to set up engagements that doesn't involve spamming 54s.

 

Who said anything about spamming AIM-54s? Who said anything about shooting the AIM-54 at max range?

 

I said

Also, give credit where it's deserved. The 54 has a larger seeker and greater kinematic range then the AIM-120. At a 20 mile shot, the 120 will have little end game energy to play with. At that range the 54 will run you down if you don't break LOS...

Meaning firing the AIM-54 at 20 miles.

Edited April 24, 2016 by Beamscanner

[IASGATG]

Apart from the g limits for the aim54 which makes it possible to defeat through maneuver regardless of energy/speed. The same cannot be said for the 120.

[probad]

my reply was aimed at people imagining regular 60-70nm phoenix hits.

i am in accord with you that i expect 20nm to be a much more practical range in regular use.

Edited April 24, 2016 by probad

[Cobra847]

I'll say it again. LNS is great with putting together a quality sim, but are terrible when it comes to delivering something as "promised" in particular with updates. Seen it too many times now, but what do you do other lower your expectations?

 

Come on

 

We posted three seperate mini updates in the 10 days that followed Part 1. (MP Screenshot, screenshot #2, breakaway .gif)

Would you have been satisfied if I grouped them together into a post and called it Part 2 instead?

 

I also did not notice us missing the New Years Update deadline nor the one for this very update.

 

Disappointing attitudes.

 

EDIT: I sound redicilously grumpy in this post. Sorry! I just want to fling some poo. :D

Edited April 24, 2016 by Cobra847

[zantron]

Come on

 

We posted three seperate mini updates in the 10 days that followed Part 1. (MP Screenshot, screenshot #2, breakaway .gif)

Would you have been satisfied if I grouped them together into a post and called it Part 2 instead?

 

I also did not notice us missing the New Years Update deadline nor the one for this very update.

 

Disappointing attitudes.

yeah its quite ridiculous

[Agremont]

Come on

 

We posted three seperate mini updates in the 10 days that followed Part 1. (MP Screenshot, screenshot #2, breakaway .gif)

Would you have been satisfied if I grouped them together into a post and called it Part 2 instead?

 

I also did not notice us missing the New Years Update deadline nor the one for this very update.

 

Disappointing attitudes.

 

How's part 2 coming along? Or has there been a change of plans?

 

I'm not complaining btw, just curious.

[Cobra847]

How's part 2 coming along? Or has there been a change of plans?

 

I'm not complaining btw, just curious.

 

It's coming!

 

We'll do another mini update focusing on the Ranger first though.

We're moving towards doing more, smaller updates, especially as the Viggen is nearing completion and a few months will be spent solely on marketing. :)

[westr]

Come on

 

We posted three seperate mini updates in the 10 days that followed Part 1. (MP Screenshot, screenshot #2, breakaway .gif)

Would you have been satisfied if I grouped them together into a post and called it Part 2 instead?

 

I also did not notice us missing the New Years Update deadline nor the one for this very update.

 

Disappointing attitudes.

 

EDIT: I sound totally grumpy in this post. Sorry! :D

 

There has been a lot of negativity throughout the forums in recent months. But please don't think we are all angered annoyed or impatient. I can appreciate your team has a lot of work to do like I'm sure the majority of people on the forums do. We look forward to your updates and look forward to the releases of the modules even more. With patience. :)

[Agremont]

It's coming!

 

We'll do another mini update focusing on the Ranger first though.

We're moving towards doing more, smaller updates, especially as the Viggen is nearing completion and a few months will be spent solely on marketing. :)

 

Ah I see. So the Viggen seems further away than I thought. Oh well. looking forward to the updates. :)

[probad]

i for one am glad to see cobra grumpy

 

some people know no bounds you unless you stand up and tell them enough is enough

[Raven68]

Come on

 

We posted three seperate mini updates in the 10 days that followed Part 1. (MP Screenshot, screenshot #2, breakaway .gif)

Would you have been satisfied if I grouped them together into a post and called it Part 2 instead?

 

I also did not notice us missing the New Years Update deadline nor the one for this very update.

 

Disappointing attitudes.

 

EDIT: I sound redicilously grumpy in this post. Sorry! I just want to fling some poo. :D

 

Ok Cobra I'll try to give you all the benefit of the doubt. I guess I was looking for more in the way of information on status and possible timelines. PERHAPS I woke up a bit grumpy myself and fell short of thinking about what we have currently in this sim and then came off ungrateful. I guess I am just greedy and can't help for wanting to read, see and hear more about what's coming.