After the Tomcat?

[Robert31178]

It wasn't fear that started Top Gun, it was a recognized need to win. Kill ratios were down for both the USAF and USN at 2:1, by the end of the war the USN had a 12:1. What happened was the powers to be decided that with the advent of missiles that ACM was a thing of the past, not understanding that the missiles were not ideally suited for small maneuverable fighters. Dogfighting became a lost art for most except the core guys at VX-4 and the RAG who got together and created tactics specifically to counter the MiG threat by talking with Israeli fighter pilots and also the Have Drill and Donut sessions.

 

At no point was the US fighter community afraid of MiGs, they were frustrated with poor engagement rules and restrictions that put their weapons systems outside of their optimal use envelope. The ineffectiveness was magnified by poor maintenance procedures, a lack of understanding by engineering manufacturers as to The reality of the field environments their missiles were being maintained in, and also by ground and air crews not fully understanding properly the missiles' parameters for a higher probability kill shot.

 

The politicians and policy makers might have been afraid, through misunderstanding of the actual or perceived situation, but generally the air crews dealt with the situation the best they could and were not "afraid". In fact, I would hazard a guess that they welcomed and hoped for engagements with MiGs as it offered a chance to prove one's self and validate one's training in a combat setting.

Edited November 29, 2017 by Robert31178

[rweaves6]

It wasn't fear that started Top Gun,.

 

I agree with this and maybe "fear" was the wrong choice of words. The point was it was a real air war and the american pilots knew when they launched there was a real chance of encountering migs, and not only that, some of them could be a challenge. Top gun was started because they were getting their a#% handed to them. There, that was worded better ;)

[probad]

Top gun was started because they were getting their a#% handed to them. There, that was worded better ;)

hardly. in vietnam the shock was that the mighty us air forces weren't utterly crushing the living daylights out of a small, "third-rate" airforce. the great gun debacle was not about the lack of gun somehow making pilots more vulnerable to rear aspect missile shots (think about it) but about pilots frustrated that they were losing "free kills" on migs flying inside rmin.

in us military history parlance, even a favorable 2:1 ratio is typically described as "poor" and "losing". for example, the much-maligned "obsolete" and "inferior" f4f always enjoyed a positive kill ratio against the vaunted a6m. it's not until you get beyond 10:1 ratios that you start seeing favorable descriptions.

Edited November 29, 2017 by probad

[Volator]

Draken! And an SK 60 would be great too! Or a Lansen... or a Tunnan.

[Scrape]

Balanced never was "realistic", if you go to build realistic environments, you require real weapons and systems, the rest coming with the good use of each side capabilities and the mission makers.

 

 

You misunderstand how I meant balance. It isn't in terms as most would use when relating to gaming. Equal capability to kill each other does not mean we have a mirrored method to obtain a kill. The only balance is that either side CAN kill the other side, but that doesn't mean they have to do it in the same way or with the same tools.

 

Win conditions don't need to be exactly the same either. What achieves a balance is reaching an objective with a certain degree of challenge. This means more than one way to achieve victory and more than one way to be defeated, so that the player must not only anticipate the weapons they are up against, but the methods they will be employed with as well. A strategic and tactical layer for both sides in MP is when DCS shines its brightest. Most servers forgo the former, and tactical engagements are plentiful to find.

 

I wasn't speaking about realistic or to build to it. The weapons and systems are in the game. A few more bits in the tools department and DCS would be right on the money. Currently the conflict I describe is available and like I mentioned a couple of servers try to give players that. I think it would be a little better if DCS took the reigns. This would guarantee that players always had a place to go to experience the world DCS is selling.

[rweaves6]

hardly. t's not until you get beyond 10:1 ratios that you start seeing favorable descriptions.

We are getting way off topic but I keep getting bombarded by know it alls :)

The powers-at-be admitted they were getting “it handed to them” since they had a 2-1 ratio to a small, (what they felt was an insignificant), developing country. 2-1 for THE world superpower vs a developing country (and yes helped by China and USSR), is beyond getting “it handed to them”, sorry. Those that initiated the Top Gun program knew that the brass had lost sight and thought dogfighting was dead. History has a way of repeating itself and we find ourselves in the very same situation nowadays. It’s always a push for advanced technology and always gets reverted back to basics.

 

I appreciate your opinion.

Edited November 30, 2017 by rweaves6

[flybull]

Rweaves -

 

Gulf War 1 had a significant number of A-A engagements

 

My personal favourite though is Mid East 1982. Bekkaa Valley. IAF F-16s/F-15s vs Syria. Plenty of guns kills there. Total tally alleged to be circa 80.

[carss]

Rweaves -

 

Gulf War 1 had a significant number of A-A engagements

 

My personal favourite though is Mid East 1982. Bekkaa Valley. IAF F-16s/F-15s vs Syria. Plenty of guns kills there. Total tally alleged to be circa 80.

 

I doubt an Israeli war map would be made, although if some third party company tried I'd totally take it

[SspectrumM]

We're working on another complex jet which will make good use of our own technologies. We're also looking at expanding the F-14 product, but will look more closely at what exactly that means after release. That said, 2018 will be mostly the year of improvements to both the F-14 and Viggen.

 

We don't want to be stuck in the eternal Beta rut.

 

[carss]

I believe the A-6 was already announced years ago by Razbam

[Robert31178]

Maybe a collaberation??

[Donut]

Maybe a collaberation??

 

I hope so! If Heatblur has developed dual cockpit technology, it would be great if they shared it with other third party developers to help speed of the aircraft development process. I know Razbam is waiting for A-G radar technology to move forward with the A-6 so hopefully everyone is helping each other. An A-6 and an F-14 would be a dream come true for me.

[Airj247]

 

Maybe? Picture ain't working nvm :(

[carss]

Or maybe....... ;)

 

[mjeh]

Bombcat or Tornado would be awesome!

 

Both would be ... well time to quit my job

[Robert31178]

Mjeh......exactly lol.

[Coxy_99]

Boeing 737

[Baz000]

I like the idea of a SH-60

[Bad Idea Hat]

You guys are Swedish, right?

 

Go for the Draken. It only makes sense for you.

[carss]

You guys are Swedish, right?

 

 

Just out of curiosity, would an early version Gripen be possible?

 

Like a JAS-39A or possibly a JAS-39C?

[Tomcat Driver]

Just out of curiosity, would an early version Gripen be possible?

 

Like a JAS-39A or possibly a JAS-39C?

 

I would love a Gripen in DCS! When I went to Fairford airshow last year this jet impressed me most! Awesome jet.

[QuiGon]

Just out of curiosity, would an early version Gripen be possible?

 

Like a JAS-39A or possibly a JAS-39C?

 

;)

[Coxy_99]

An multi crew RAF Tornado any version, Would fit nicely in DCS

[carss]

;)

 

HAHA I already know of that ;) ;)

 

Kinda the reason I said so XD

[Destroyer37]

After the tomcat.... Lots and lots of practice. Keep it up Heatblur Simulation s!