Setting realistic expectations for the Hornet

[NineLine]

Guys discuss the real Hornet or DCS Hornet, lets try and keep other games and products out of the discussion. Thanks.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/rules.php#en

[RaceFuel85]

I know you didnt ask me but I cant resist: as the Turkey is an interceptor, you ought not to BFM with it unless you Foxtrotted up and got cornered...shoot 'em in the back from BVR...

 

No I know..as one VX-9 Tomcat driver told me...

 

"If I'm in BFM ..somewhere I've screwed up"

[neofightr]

Question for you..if it's not already been addressed..

 

What was your take on the F-14A vs the B/D in relation to BFM/ACM against them in the Hornet?

 

I believe the F-14A's optimum corner velocity was around 350 knots..which isn't that far off from the Hornet. Of course the Alpha cat couldn't regain energy as well since the TF30's were touchy to aggressive throttle movement and, as you said, slower to spool up.

 

I won't discuss specific numbers just generalizations.

 

I didn't have a lot of flying against the F14. Typically squadrons didn't do much cross bfm. So the few times I did I believe it was against the B. My understanding with the conversations I had with the crews was the A with the original engines were severely underpowered. This was rectified with the engine upgrades. Back in my day there were not many D squadrons around.

 

I remember the F14 holding its own against me in the few engagements I had, we basically remained at a stalemate through most of the turning eventually someone flinched and the other got the upper hand. But basically that was attributed to pilot skill and not the aircraft.

 

In basic terms to win a dogfight you need be able to maintain a threat with the nose at all times in other words denying your opponent any advantage in angles. If both players are consistently doing this then the turn circle turns into a scissor fight as the pilots jockey to get behind the other.

 

When different aircraft have similar performance numbers then it will always boil down to which pilot is better at maintaining optimum speed and AOA numbers through the entire engagement because by doing so you are maximizing what the plane can do and eventually you will control the fight and get the edge.

 

So my point is not to get hung up on the numbers between a/c but focus on the numbers of your aircraft as to always strive to maintain them. Because really it's a toss-up between all the last gen fighters when you factor in pilot skill and error.

[neofightr]

neofightr, keep it coming, I enjoy reading every sentence :thumbup:

 

I have a few questions, about a bit of everything.

 

1. This is a bit of a hot and ever ongoing topic around these parts. How hard easy is it actually to spot your foe, or loose sight of your foe, in a merge. How close are we with DCS really? And at what range, on a good day, can you expect to spot certain size jets?

 

2. When watching cockpit view carrier landings, and seeing how much stick movement there is, how much of that is actually seat of the pants inputs / reactions?

 

3. How much does the F-18 talk to you, when high AOA? I read somewhere that the F-15 is a bit of a chatterbox in that regard, shaking / buffeting like mad, while the F-16 does little to nothing.

 

1: on a clear day it's possible to spot an aircraft 10-12 miles away but they have to be showing max plan form (i.e. their top down angle to you). It also depends on the plane, much easier to spot an F14 or 15 than a 16 or 18. This is why the F5 is an ideal adversary fighter since it mimics the small profile of the migs that were commonly used out there.

 

It is very easy to lose sight during a hard turn when glancing down for that split second to mark your speed etc then looking up and wondering where did he go he was just there. It's even easier to lose that tiny speck at 9 miles, you cannot take your eyes off him or you will lose him guaranteed every time.

 

2. You do anticipate incoming ball movement based on seat of the pants (the feeling of rising or falling gives you the heads up that the meatball is about to move accordingly and you better be ready to catch it with power adjustment. The stick movement you see is pilots keeping that AOA fixed.

 

3. Betty wasn't that bad really. The occasional "altitude" w/ alert tone when you were in a dive for a bombing run but that's about it. Almost all modern planes (to include trainers) have buffeting designed into the wings to alert the pilot that the plane is about to stall. Some aircraft like the trainer t34c had a neat sound it made that sounded like the pouring of sand against a hard surface as you got closer to stall. This was needed for slower craft because there wasn't enough airflow to generate the buffet warning you find typically in jets.

 

To me after flying enough civilian sims is the altitude call outs that airliners have now that's annoying but if you train with it you get use to it.

Edited July 21, 2017 by neofightr

[neofightr]

Here is a terrific historical video explaining the big picture of engagements and dogfighting that applies to the Hornet and all jet fighters now and back then.

 

Produced in the era of Vietnam, you get a good idea what the Navy had learned from the gunless phantom and desired from the brand new tomcat.

 

This is a Grumman promotional video so Tomcat lovers are going to really dig this video.

 

 

Good stuff!

 

Even more good stuff, I am a big historical buff so these promotional videos are intriguing and only enhance the immersion when playing with the DCS planes and of course the upcoming f18 module.

 

Watch them both if you want the big picture on engagements and dogfighting amongst other topics..

 

And finally a more historical video of the F18 development. I am not a big fan of the more recent documentaries you find on tv because they tend to focus on people and not the craft themselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5jE6E5_Y3k

Edited July 22, 2017 by neofightr

[Mule]

Here is a terrific historical video explaining the big picture of engagements and dogfighting that applies to the Hornet and all jet fighters now and back then.

 

Produced in the era of Vietnam, you get a good idea what the Navy had learned from the gunless phantom and desired from the brand new tomcat.

 

This is a Grumman promotional video so Tomcat lovers are going to really dig this video.

 

 

Good stuff!

 

Even more good stuff, I am a big historical buff so these promotional videos are intriguing and only enhance the immersion when playing with the DCS planes and of course the upcoming f18 module.

 

Watch them both if you want the big picture on engagements and dogfighting amongst other topics..

 

 

And finally a more historical video of the F18 development. I am not a big fan of the more recent documentaries you find on tv because they tend to focus on people and not the craft themselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5jE6E5_Y3k

 

Great videos. So interesting to see the bigger picture. This is what fascinates me in the simulation. Being able to see stuff like that and think and take on board when flying longer missions. I remember Matt Wagner boasting that the maps in the up coming DCS (back in the lock on days) will be so big you will have to refuel on some missions and that got me thinking about the airframe and alpha strikes etc.

[Kev2go]

People assume since Jane's has the F18 at a max speed of M 1.8 that it will indeed be a racer.

 

No need to get on someone's six eh?

 

Did you know the first version of the Phantom when it was the cutting edge of fighters back in the day didn't have a gun? Yeah back then the smart people thought there was no need to worry about lining up on someone's six for a gun shot since the cutting edge sidewinder and BVR missiles is all you would need. Well we know how that turned out didn't we.

 

Point is even with the new head mounted displays and off boresight tech all it will take is that one time when the HMD, or missile system decides to fail just as you start your intercept run on an incoming bandit. Or you fire off your 9x's only to find out they were spoofed or you fired them off at too high an angle out of excitement.

 

Then what are you going to do? Wave hi as you zoom past that SU-27 bandit at full burner hoping to run away from that bad boy. :music_whistling: That is not going to happen.

 

I don't know about you but I plan to setup many an engagement with guns only because A: it's a realistic but undesirable position to be in B: it's hella fun trying to win the luffbury circle and and going into a scissor fight and C: shooting missiles at range can be boring and it's always interesting to see the differences amongst the different platforms in close dogfights. And as I mentioned before the Hornet is one of the best dog fighters out there if not the best.

 

And ironically enough the smart people are back and designing next gen aircraft with no guns again oh and to add insult to injury they plan on single engines for blue water ops. Imagine that.

 

Dollars to donuts there will be a revision slapping on a gun some point down the road.

 

By the way, the argument that interceptor designs shouldn't have guns because they are BVR fighters only is valid only when the design of the jet has it being a poor performer at slow speeds. Planes like the Mig-25 never bothered with a gun because it was not expected to be in a dogfight and would lose badly if it was. But a fast mover like the Mig-29 or Su-27 with great turn-rates definitely had guns at the ready.

 

This is the current argument being made for the phantom not having guns initially back in the sixties. The question then is asked then why did the air force slap on a gun for the revision, answer is simple really, it turned out to have a decent turn-rate against the competition and warranted guns for a last ditch effort when things went subsonic and missiles were spent.

 

All of this is academic in due time when drones replace manned jet craft and they will in due time.

 

NO need to meme about Vietnam, the end all strawman argument. The missiles back then weren't anywhere near as good, and tactics were centered around interception of strategic bombers not conducting air superiority against Fighters.

 

AS long as a Missile is used within its given parameters there is a very high chance it will impact the target. With the improvement of newer gen missiles over years these parameters have gotten Looser, and thus easier and more effective for pilots to engage targets.

 

Training with guns is nice to have as part of a pilots training curriculum yes, so if the time comes to use a pilot will have the know how and skill to do so, but today guns on aircraft for a2a are backup, in a same way a knife would be a last resort for a infantryman that has both an Assault rifle and a Service pistol at his/ or her disposal. Do most nations infantrymen get some form of melee hand to hand mixed martial arts combat training ? yes, but If they go to war, majority of the time they will be firing of their primary weapons, and being Jackie Chan.

 

as statistics show with the improvement of missile technology alone, IT has been less and less gun kills, and more missile centered particularly around BVR combat. the reliability and improvement of missiles was a quantum leap from the ones used in Vietnam, and they continued to get only better since then.

 

Guns are a backup. Frankly if you choose to fly the F18C like a gunfighter without making use of its radar, and/or missiles, you are severely limiting your combat potential if fighting against an aircraft adversary that has that has both modern heat seekers and radar guided missiles. Unless of course that is your intention for the fun and challenge, which is fine.

 

I get some people like this style of flying but if i want to fight like this i'l fly a P51 or a F86 thank you, and not try and force the F18 into a gunfighter role against foes that can engage with missiles. At least unless I am forced too close to engage with missiles or out of A2A armament.

 

 

For a ex navy pilot who flew into the late 90's your philosophies are coming off that of "Pierre's Sprey-ism's". Not necessarily wrong in assertions for ( at least not for the time), simply a form of mindset stuck in the past ( or "old school") ways of doing things, . Many pilots who have transitioned to 5th generation aircraft that are capable of being honest with themselves and are able to have a open minded opinion, say that newer Technology innovations and in particular the Situational Awareness/ information advantage in the newer aircraft means far more in combat than how good one can dogfight with guns against other platforms at visual range.

 

 

Edited July 22, 2017 by Kev2go

[neofightr]

NO need to meme about Vietnam, the end all strawman argument. The missiles back then weren't anywhere near as good, and tactics were centered around interception of strategic bombers not conducting air superiority against Fighters.

 

AS long as as a Missile is used within parameters there is a very high chance it will impact the target. with the improvement of newer gen missiles of the years these parameters have gotten Looser, and thus easier and more effective for pilots.

 

Training with guns is nice to have as part of a pilots training curriculum yes, so if the time comes to use a pilot will have the know how and skill to do so, but today guns on aircraft for a2a are backup, in a same way a knife would be a last resort for a infantryman that has bothan assault rifle and a Service pistol at his/ or her disposal. Do most nations infantrymen get some form of melee hand to hand mixed martial arts combat training ? yes, but If they go to war, majority of the

 

as statistics show with the improvement of missile technology alone, IT has been less and less gun kills, and more missile centered particularly around BVR combat. the reliability and improvement of missiles was a quantum leap from the ones used in Vietnam, and they continued to get only better since then

 

Guns are a backup. Frankly if you choose to fly the F18C like a gunfighter without making use of its radar, and/or missiles, you are severely limiting your combat potential if fighting against an aircraft adversary that has that has both modern heat seekers and radar guided missiles. Unless of course that is your intention for the fun and challenge, which is fine.

 

I get some people like this style of flying but if i want to fight like this i'l fly a P51 or a F86 thank you, and not try and force the F18 into a gunfighter role against foes that can engage with missiles, unless I am too close to engage with missiles or out of A2A armament.

 

 

I'm sorry to say that for a ex navy pilot your philosophy are resembling that of "Pierre's Sprey-ism's". a mindset stuck in the past ways of doing things. Many pilots who have transitioned to 5th generation aircraft that are capable of being honest with themselves and are able to have a open minded opinion, say that newer Technology innovations and in particular the Situational Awareness/ information advantage in the newer aircraft means far more than how good one can dogfight with guns against other platforms at visual range.

 

 

 

I have truly seen it all. being lectured by an outsider on my craft and career, stunning simply stunning.:noexpression:

 

You can throw all the video presentations you want at me, lecture me all you want but my thousands of hours in the tactical environment tells me you have no clue what you are talking about.

 

I never said guns was the first priority and everyone who read this thread knows this. You talk as if I did not have extensive training and practice with the whole inventory that was available to the Hornet. I actually fired missiles in real life (both AG and AA) something of which only a small percentage of tactical pilots get the luxury of doing outside of combat of course.

 

No form of technology has ever been 100% reliable, to train to such an assumption is folly. It is not how it's done in the real world and it will never be.

 

*Anyone with an open mind understands and accepts this.*

 

Just because I emphasize BFM doesn't mean I don't understand and appreciate BVR and have *extensive experience in it*.

 

You assume you know as much as me because you think you have access to the same resources I do and did, and guess what you don't you never have and you never will.

 

I think your primary desire is to shut down this thread and it might just work, keep it up.

[sobe]

I am sure that Kev2go must have 10 to 20 years of experience flying fighter jets since he speaks with such authority.

 

On a separate issue, I understand that the latest version of the super hornet may have conformal fuel tanks to offset perhaps the greatest flaw in the hornet-its short legs. What are your thoughts on conformal tanks that cannot be jettisoned in a BFM?

[NineLine]

 

I think your primary desire is to shut down this thread and it might just work, keep it up.

 

Indeed, I have already moved this to a different section, if it continues to drift into a pissing match I will close it, if people continue to post off topic of the Hornet they will receive warnings as I will assume their goal is to break the thread.

 

If you dont believe the OP qualifications then just ignore him, he isnt hurting anyone, he isnt stealing anyone's valor and he isnt swaying ED down some dark path that the DCS Hornet will be equipped with sharks with laser beams on their heads... so lets all just relax, if you want to talk to the OP, then do so, if you think he is full of dung, then ignore the thread... its simple.

[neofightr]

I am sure that Kev2go must have 10 to 20 years of experience flying fighter jets since he speaks with such authority.

 

On a separate issue, I understand that the latest version of the super hornet may have conformal fuel tanks to offset perhaps the greatest flaw in the hornet-its short legs. What are your thoughts on conformal tanks that cannot be jettisoned in a BFM?

 

This is surprising to hear since the Rhino took over carrier tanking duties for the S3 when it retired years ago. I thought it had all the gas it would ever need.

 

It's obviously a boon for CAP missions and such. Not sure what the trade-offs will be other than more wear and tear due to increased weight oh and a bigger fireball if it gets hit..

[neofightr]

Indeed, I have already moved this to a different section, if it continues to drift into a pissing match I will close it, if people continue to post off topic of the Hornet they will receive warnings as I will assume their goal is to break the thread.

 

If you dont believe the OP qualifications then just ignore him, he isnt hurting anyone, he isnt stealing anyone's valor and he isnt swaying ED down some dark path that the DCS Hornet will be equipped with sharks with laser beams on their heads... so lets all just relax, if you want to talk to the OP, then do so, if you think he is full of dung, then ignore the thread... its simple.

 

On the whole I think my posts puts this thread where it belongs, good move.

 

And by the way I am determined to get ED to have sharks with laser beams firing off the F18 rails, that would be righteous but maybe too much drag for the ol' killer bee to handle.

[sobe]

From an April 6, 2017 article on future super hornets:

 

 

 

Improving the aircraft’s stealth technology isn’t off the table.

“We think we do a little bit to the airplane to improve its stealth performance — very simple, very low cost things we can do,” Gillian said, but didn’t elaborate.

As previously proposed, the modifications would include shoulder-mounted fuel tanks capable of carrying 3,500 lbs of gas to increase the aircraft’s range by 120 nautical miles.

[neofightr]

From an April 6, 2017 article on future super hornets:

 

 

 

Improving the aircraft’s stealth technology isn’t off the table.

“We think we do a little bit to the airplane to improve its stealth performance — very simple, very low cost things we can do,” Gillian said, but didn’t elaborate.

As previously proposed, the modifications would include shoulder-mounted fuel tanks capable of carrying 3,500 lbs of gas to increase the aircraft’s range by 120 nautical miles.

 

My gut feeling is that this will affect AOA numbers and will hurt performance. But there's got to be a trade off somewhere.

 

This could also be a contractor's desperate attempt at more money, time will tell.

[GGTharos]

I don't believe this is an issue in the bomb truck role though. Even in CAP, depending on the type of opposition.

[mvsgas]

neofightr,

How different where the lots when you where flying?

What I mean is, where there mix aircraft in your unit, some updated and other awaiting updates?

 

For us (meaning USAF) for the most part all the aircraft where in some form of constant update. Basically when an aircraft got close to a mayor inspections, they try to do several updates at the same time as the inspection. So we had aircraft with a structural update and other not, some had new NVG lights other not and so on.

[neofightr]

I don't believe this is an issue in the bomb truck role though. Even in CAP, depending on the type of opposition.

 

I agree, it just shrinks the F a little and increases the A I guess.

[neofightr]

neofightr,

How different where the lots when you where flying?

What I mean is, where there mix aircraft in your unit, some updated and other awaiting updates?

 

For us (meaning USAF) for the most part all the aircraft where in some form of constant update. Basically when an aircraft got close to a mayor inspections, they try to do several updates at the same time as the inspection. So we had aircraft with a structural update and other not, some had new NVG lights other not and so on.

 

The big difference was around lot 20 (can't remember exactly), we had a pretty digital map to look at instead of the old plastic film moving maps on the center lower MFD.

 

At the time, typically the Navy preferred to keep a squadron with a specific lot. So lot's 10s (which were the oldest) were all upgraded for a squadron at the same time. It was no fun for a pilot to deal with varying lots in a squadron with the exception of the training squadron which had a mix of all the lots.

[probad]

what options are you looking for if you can't sucker the opponent into grovelling with you?

is that just a place you shouldn't be in -- you should have read the opponent properly before that happened?

 

or i guess in other words if i still haven't articulated myself well enough, how much of a one-way street is going slow?

you remarked in the op that you can run away, but how does that work in practice? do you actually accelerate better at the low end than an f-16?

Edited July 22, 2017 by probad

[neofightr]

what options are you looking for if you can't sucker the opponent into grovelling with you?

is that just a place you shouldn't be in -- you should have read the opponent properly before that happened?

 

or i guess in other words if i still haven't articulated myself well enough, how much of a one-way street is going slow?

 

Great question,

 

If you got into a gunfight after the merge before you used up your missiles and the opponent decided to turn tail and run because he now realized he was facing a hornet =) you would simply line up your missile shot and fired once he was back in the missile envelope again. But you had to make it quick because a fast mover might be able to get away in time.

 

Obviously experienced pilots would never turn tail unless they never turned at the merge to begin with and had tons of airspeed.

 

So once you commit you are in it till death do you part or a wingmen is free to assist because his opponent is dead or never engaged or lost sight etc.

 

You only go into a dogfight if you think you have a chance otherwise you better hope you have the greater numbers or he runs out of gas before you do.

 

And clearly a gunfight is the last option if you have missiles left but sometimes you have no choice because the missile params are not there.

 

There are so many scenarios to consider but those are some basic ones.

[probad]

maybe this would be better -- say vs an eagle, besides running away really quickly, are there any tells that makes you annoyed and think "hum, bad news"?

or are you just completely confident that you'll always have the better nosepointing authority and all you need is the overshoot?

 

any thoughts on the dcs antimissile barrel roll?

 

with neither the sim in hand nor firsthand experience it's hard to ask questions specific enough to really be relevant, but perhaps it would remind you of some interesting recollection.

Edited July 22, 2017 by probad

[neofightr]

maybe this would be better -- say vs an eagle, besides running away really quickly, are there any tells that makes you annoyed and think "hum, bad news"?

 

or are you just completely confident that you'll always have the better nosepointing authority and all you need is the overshoot?

 

Remember the faster the jet design the relatively worse slow performance compared to the hornet.

 

And no I would not be confident because each and every fight has a ton of variables with the biggest one being pilot skill.

 

If I went against a pilot with hundreds of hours more time in his cockpit then chances are he is going to eat my lunch even with a f15 or 16.

 

And remember this isn't realistic since odds are you are going against migs, Sus or chinese variants and that's a whole different world with regards to performance and skills that I won't get into.

 

So the only sign really for level of competence is whether he loses sight of you before you do him. This can happen. I remember a few times where my sparring partner lost sight of me and I was able to get on his six.

 

I honestly don't remember how many times that happened to me but I am sure it did.

 

It's hard to believe this when you are in the sim world because we have padlock views and nifty text headers pointing out the adversary and clean clear skies with no background distractions.:smilewink:

[probad]

just so we're at an understanding, most everyone in the pvp arena end up having to learn to fly without external views, padlock, labels or any other aids.

dcs has its own challenges -- lighting behaves differently in dcs than irl so things disappear and appear in different circumstances, but they nevertheless do disappear. lack of binocular vision [for most people] and lack of refraction makes canopy framing more problematic for visibility than in reality as well, although this issue is not so relevant to the hornet obviously.

 

but perhaps you can shed some light on just how significant the differences are between dcs visibility and your experiences beyond just ranges at which you spot things. ex. contrast vs ground, reflections, etc.

Edited July 23, 2017 by probad

[Vampyre]

My gut feeling is that this will affect AOA numbers and will hurt performance. But there's got to be a trade off somewhere.

 

This could also be a contractor's desperate attempt at more money, time will tell.

 

The CFT's being on top of the LEX on the Super probably will negatively affect the AOA. It also covers over the LEX spoiler which will affect nose down pitching moments. The plus side is that it carries enough fuel to replace drop tanks carried under the wings and/or on the centerline. This maintains the fuel load in streamlined tanks and removes the need for draggy pylons and tanks under the wing. It will be a real boon for the electronic attack guys and will also be good for trucking bombs around the AO as it will free up additional pylons for weapons or allow the removal of unnecessary pylons for better fuel economy. You will lose a little bit of nose authority with the CFT's but that is not really that much of an issue in the super now is it.

[neofightr]

The CFT's being on top of the LEX on the Super probably will negatively affect the AOA. It also covers over the LEX spoiler which will affect nose down pitching moments. The plus side is that it carries enough fuel to replace drop tanks carried under the wings and/or on the centerline. This maintains the fuel load in streamlined tanks and removes the need for draggy pylons and tanks under the wing. It will be a real boon for the electronic attack guys and will also be good for trucking bombs around the AO as it will free up additional pylons for weapons or allow the removal of unnecessary pylons for better fuel economy. You will lose a little bit of nose authority with the CFT's but that is not really that much of an issue in the super now is it.

 

Very astute observation, time will tell what happens.