Is it me or is the F14 getting owned in multiply Player?

[River]

F 14 has better turn than the F 15, I was wrong on that in my first post. Especially in those slow downward spirals the Tomcat is a beast.

 

Another observation: guns only the F 15 can do the vertical stuff no problem, with heat seakers it's getting hairy for the Eagle. Doesn't matter how good you climb, a sidewinder can catch you no matter if you have better energy.

[Fri13]

exactly

simply due to the fact that the 18 is a better plane (hence why it replaced the tomcat)

 

The F-14D was beating the F/A-18C on left and right, but when you have extremely more expensive to service, to have a far longer service times and all, it doesn't matter how good the F-14D was when you can't have the operational status you can get with a F/A-18C.

 

That is something critical in the aviation, what is your service time and how easy it is.

 

Like think about a Viggen, you land the aircraft on a road, you park it inside a forest, you don't need to turn engines off for refueling and rearming and ten minutes later you are refueled and rearmed and you reverse out from the forest back on the road and take-off.

Same thing is with Gripen, you land on the road, ten minutes for turn-around time with five men crew and you are back to fight. No need to turn off engines or anything.

 

Even both are operated just with hand signals, no radio, no intercop, no cockpit opening etc. You come, go and back in the air.

 

What is the situation with F/A-18C? Bad compared to Gripen. And F-14 is even worse.

 

With Gripen you can be in operation 38 hours of the 48 hours. That leaves just 10 hours for service time with minimal crew, parts and other gear.

 

Huge difference is even that some aircrafts can operate from roadbases, secondary landing sites, and some requires a full 6000 men floating airbase to operate, and still takes far more time and money to use.

[jcdata]

Those planes are not even in the same design criteria.

 

That 18 hornet was never a long-legged designed fighter. The f18 replaced the F-14 due to politics as the latter was the top plane to go to in theater.

 

 

Cut any assembly line any plane's maintenance hours go up. It's common sense.

 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[firmek]

Some great comments here. I disagree with people saying the F-15 is arcadey, in term of avionics sure it is but in terms of ACM it still uses a PFM so the flight model should be consistent with the real deal.

So, the F-15 has to some extend has a detailed flight model simulation, avionics not. How does this however still not make it aracish?

Considering air-frame - just check how relatively easy it is to push the F-14 over its structural limits and damage it - which contrary is extremely difficult in F-15. Another aspect is the amount of work required to manage systems in F-14 and even in F-18 which on the other hand is so much simplified in F-15. This aspect comes from the simplified avionics - but not only this. Just consider the amount of effort put by HB and ED/BS to simulate the F-14 and F/A-18s radar and compare that to F-15.... I really hope you see the difference.

I don't understand why people insist to claim that F-15 is not much more arcadey that the full fidelity modules. If it wouldn't be why the need for all the effort and time devs are putting into making a full fidelity planes? Why real simulators used to teach the pilots have a real cockpits if the systems doesn't matter and hitting a key combination is enough to do a whole procedure? Sorry but the definition of FC modules is that those are simplified (aka more user friendly, less realistic) modules.

[jojo]

The F-14D was beating the F/A-18C on left and right, but when you have extremely more expensive to service, to have a far longer service times and all, it doesn't matter how good the F-14D was when you can't have the operational status you can get with a F/A-18C.

 

That is something critical in the aviation, what is your service time and how easy it is.

 

Like think about a Viggen, you land the aircraft on a road, you park it inside a forest, you don't need to turn engines off for refueling and rearming and ten minutes later you are refueled and rearmed and you reverse out from the forest back on the road and take-off.

Same thing is with Gripen, you land on the road, ten minutes for turn-around time with five men crew and you are back to fight. No need to turn off engines or anything.

 

Even both are operated just with hand signals, no radio, no intercop, no cockpit opening etc. You come, go and back in the air.

 

What is the situation with F/A-18C? Bad compared to Gripen. And F-14 is even worse.

 

With Gripen you can be in operation 38 hours of the 48 hours. That leaves just 10 hours for service time with minimal crew, parts and other gear.

 

Huge difference is even that some aircrafts can operate from roadbases, secondary landing sites, and some requires a full 6000 men floating airbase to operate, and still takes far more time and money to use.

 

Gripen A/C is a joke, too short legged to perform air defense over Switzerland (according to Swiss Air Force evaluation). :music_whistling:

[River]

So, the F-15 has to some extend has a detailed flight model simulation, avionics not. How does this however still not make it aracish?

Considering air-frame - just check how relatively easy it is to push the F-14 over its structural limits and damage it - which contrary is extremely difficult in F-15. Another aspect is the amount of work required to manage systems in F-14 and even in F-18 which on the other hand is so much simplified in F-15. This aspect comes from the simplified avionics - but not only this. Just consider the amount of effort put by HB and ED/BS to simulate the F-14 and F/A-18s radar and compare that to F-15.... I really hope you see the difference.

I don't understand why people insist to claim that F-15 is not much more arcadey that the full fidelity modules. If it wouldn't be why the need for all the effort and time devs are putting into making a full fidelity planes? Why real simulators used to teach the pilots have a real cockpits if the systems doesn't matter and hitting a key combination is enough to do a whole procedure? Sorry but the definition of FC modules is that those are simplified (aka more user friendly, less realistic) modules.

 

What we are trying to say is in a BFM dogfight it doesn't matter, full fidelity or not. The aircraft is ready to go, engines are running, systems are up. It is just about mastering the Hotas and the weapons then. What buttons do you click in the F 14 with your mouse during a dogfight ? None !

BVR is a different story, lots of system management required but in a knife fight you only need throttle, stick and rudder.

 

The F 15 PFM is great, the F 14 model seems even more detailed and harder to fly, I got to give this one to you. But don't forget the Eagle had already some fly by wire, kind of so to speak.

[jcdata]

This thread is going downhill..

 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[captain_dalan]

The biggest thing that the later aircraft had (including the F14D, of which 55 were built) was medium PRF and NCTR. That helped overland and with BVR ROE.

 

Interestingly enough, i recently saw a video on the Aircrew Interview channel on Youtube, and a Tornado driver mentioned the same thing for his ride, when he was asked what in his opinion was the Tornado's (ADV) greatest weakness. Not an F-14 related, but just a thought that came to mind.

 

Anyways...

 

Well said, Victory!

 

Heck, our simulators when I flew didn't even have viz at all!

Despite all that, I do love playing this thing :)

 

Wait.....this can't be true..... is it???? :huh:

[Zius]

Gripen A/C is a joke, too short legged to perform air defense over Switzerland (according to Swiss Air Force evaluation). :music_whistling:

 

 

Dunno, both Sweden and South Africa are much bigger than Switzerland.

Maybe the Swiss already decided that the Gripen was not for them and were just looking for arguments. :dunno:

 

 

But Fri13 has a great point, it's not only about raw performance.

In fact, usually other considerations are more important.

 

 

For instance, look how many countries are still flying the MiG-21 (incl. NATO members Croatia and Romania), while the MiG-29 has already been retired in similar countries (NATO members Czech Republic, Hungary and Romania). It seems obvious that the MiG-29 is superior to the MiG-21, but most likely more difficult/expensive to keep flying...

[Fri13]

DCS is also a very artificial world, with lots of gaming and flaws inherent in the core engine. ............... Just the fact that you can't die makes a huge difference in how you approach an engagement.

 

I made years ago wishes that DCS would allow a virtual pilot career in the servers. So the user will register a 1-5 virtual pilots on the server based the ED account. And then each of these virtual pilots has the career on that server. Once that pilot dies, it is gone and you need to make a new one.

 

The idea included that server doesn't allow to create new pilots in quick manner, it can be even day or two between one new pilot created.

 

And that virtual pilot has everything on it, so you want to start to protect that virtual pilot and not to lose it.

 

If you eject from the aircraft, your virtual pilot will survive, but you get the penalty for the task depending what was the reason for ejection. Did enemy shoot you down, did you just jump on the parking slot or crash without failures on the aircraft?

 

And based to those it is question when you get to fly that virtual pilot again. So on Hard Core server you can have just one pilot, while on normally you can have those five pilots and swap between them.

 

If you manage to get ejected, you need to wait that the virtual pilot lands and gets picked up by a SAR helicopter and returned to the closest base. If there are actual simmers flying the helicopter, they would speed up things a lot as they could drop downed pilots soon to the nearest airfield (and they gain bonuses from that, rescuing virtual pilots). And meanwhile you need to fly a another virtual pilot until the other gets safely returned. So no more ejecting on the enemy airspace behind the lines etc. If there are no simmers flying SAR, then it is AI that execute that and tries its best.

 

The server would as well log the airframes hours on the modules that has that, like Hornet and Harrier. So you don't want to overstress the engines, and each aircraft has the G-limiters so you do not want to pull higher G than safe ones.

 

The whole idea behind this is to deny the air quake on normal servers (there would be dedicated servers just for that, without any penalties etc, but no career advancements either) and put a small fear/reminder to back of the simmer head that what they are doing is too risky, it is wrong and there are consequences from everything they do.

 

The virtual pilot career would include all from the completing the sorties they have chosen to fly and their performance etc. And better you get in those, then more and more benefits there would become.

It would require from the DCS itself many new features like what does advancing in rank offer, like you get X amount of specific missiles more per week, or what ever.... Someone can think more about that if wanted.

 

But when a virtual pilot has the "life" that can be over after small stupid decision, like challenging a enemy fighter and dying after eating a IR seeker, it changes radically how the air combat are done.

 

No soloing, no flying there just to seek a easy kills etc.

No stupid landings and takeoffs etc.

Everything would become more serious.

 

And this would change dramatically how a dynamic campaign would work on multiplayer.

 

And as each airfield would have more realistic limits of available aircrafts, missiles and other supply, you definitely do not want to be the one who is consuming all those as you might get a transfer so your virtual pilots can't use that airbase. It is just how difficult you want to it for you....

 

And if the airbase really runs out the aircrafts etc, you don't get to fly a new one until one frees etc. And that change dramatically the operational capacity of the region because that airbase performance is inferior what enemy has.

So every pilot on servers would need to think about the big picture.

[Fri13]

What we are trying to say is in a BFM dogfight it doesn't matter, full fidelity or not. The aircraft is ready to go, engines are running, systems are up. It is just about mastering the Hotas and the weapons then. What buttons do you click in the F 14 with your mouse during a dogfight ? None !

 

That is why I claim that the Oculus Touch Controllers are far bigger immersion creator than VR itself.

 

You only bind to HOTAS the functions the real one has, nothing else. And everything else you do with your hands, around the cockpit. No mouse, no looking a button with cross and pressing a virtual mouse button etc.

 

You literally need to move the hand away from HOTAS and move it to operate the button, switch and dial.

 

So the switch/button/dial is on the right side of the cockpit? Well, now you notice that you can't do it with your left hand, you need your right hand, that is holding stick.

You want to flip the switch at the left hand console middle of the merge? Good luck for you to try do it...

 

At the moment the virtual hands still has the long laser beams for operations, and I am hoping they get cut to about 5 cm long only so you really need to move hand close to everything that you manipulate. As well the "right click" requires serious change, making that A/B or X/Y buttons are the buttons you press instead turn palm around 12'clock position to get it green or blue. The dials should be "drag'n'rotate", so you press and hold a A/X button and then you rotate your palm to adjust. Rotary dials on radios etc is done just with flipping mini-stick up/down.

 

You can't do this with a otherwise great virtual pointer on a finger that one DCS forum member started to produce and sell, but that is just limitation of those designs.

 

But point is, when you operate the aircraft avionics by physically moving your hands even with the controller and manipulating the different kind elements at different parts of the cockpit, you learn more about it than ever with a computer mouse or keyboard shortcuts or quick bindings on HOTAS behind multiple multipliers.

 

You learn to prepare the aircraft to the combat in advance, not then. You learn that you can't take your hands off from the HOTAS to perform in combat.

 

It is huge difference like VR vs TrackIR vs Pre-set camera angles. Where TrackIR players has performance that is a joke, the VR player really needs to move on his chair, to move hand away from HOTAS to grab and pull around to see what is happening. The situational awareness is totally different level with VR than it is with TrackIR, as even when you can't see at your six where enemy might be, you know far better where the enemy approximately is based your attitude, how did you move the head, how did you move the stick, what are your instruments telling.

 

A TrackIR user needs to use his vision to stay on track what is happening, where VR user can use physical body and experience what is going to happen next.

 

The next big step in virtual piloting is not the 6-7th generation VR visors, it is the next generation controllers. It is the virtual hands. Be it a glove or a hand tracking, but it needs to be such that you can grab a HOTAS and use them normally, and then just release and do something in cockpit and grab HOTAS again.

 

And that is what will finally change dramatically the whole virtual piloting. You literally would be closest to the real thing, sitting in a cockpit and using it as real one.

 

Because the Oculus Rift, it is easy to understand the heavy workflow the pilot needs to do in cockpit. The hands are everywhere, doing things around that F/A-18C and others has directly on the HOTAS.

And that makes one value Hornet more as you don't need to move hands away from HOTAS as often. You can focus for the combat and perform there better.

 

That you have a backseater doing things for you doesn't help, it is not advantage, because in Hornet there is just a one pilot, no requirements for communicating, no requirement to wait anyone else to do their job, not anything slowing you down. It is just the pilot that fly and fight and that happens with through the training and experience and it is far more easy than try to fit two pilots work together.

 

Two different designs, two approaches. Hornet is not a interceptor, strike or escort fighter like Tom Cat was. In terrible weather and at night, it is easy that pilot can focus just for flying while the backseater is operating all from radar, navigation and communications. Huge relief. While in Hornet pilot needs to do all. Heavier workflow etc.

 

But when it comes to knowledge, situational awareness, reaction times and performance, Hornet pulls easily ahead.

 

It is sad to say that the Heatblur F-14 module has shown how bad the Tom Cat was. Why it was good to retire. In time people start to learn more and more its limitations and heavy operation demands etc. After all it is already far more easier to get to fly with someone with Hornets, than to get someone to fly or operate with you in a Tom Cat.

 

Now if we would have a F-22 or F-35 in DCS, maybe in next 50 years (if ED is still up and going), those pilots has totally different value toward them than what Tom Cat or Hornet were. By all the features those offers.

[Victory205]

Wasting my time...

Edited April 8, 2019 by Victory205

[Kev2go]

People who have no experience in the real world will never understand. I didn't even have to talk to my Topgun RIO. He did things on his own when they needed to be done, without prompting. In a fight, a second person in the cockpit proved invaluable over and over in all missions. I wish I had a nickel for every single seat jet that I snuck up on and gunned into oblivion. All of those cool displayed and systems require burying your head in the cockpit to work.

 

In the ancient old F14, I could instantly find switches anywhere in the cockpit by feel, they are obviously designed that way if you take the time to notice. I never found myself wanting for more crap on the throttles or stick.

 

A desktop PC doesn't come close to providing a representative experience, even with VR or controller add ons.

 

Maybe you thought you didnt need more crap on that Throttle and Stick because you didnt know what you were missing out on? ;)

 

 

Its funny , single seat guys that flew glass pit fighters with proper HOTAS didn't feel that way at all.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3803638&postcount=84

 

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3803684&postcount=91

 

 

Not even Strike eagle pilot thought 2 seaters were really usefull unless for A/G tasks

 

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3803922&postcount=97

 

The dont at all require you to be distracted to stare at them instead of looking outside the pit. Less so in a WVR scenario as HUD displays more information ( especially critical ones like Airspeed, G overload) vs having to glace down at analog instruments. like you do in the A/B Tomcat because of a simpler HUD.

 

the glass pits are not any more distracting that having to glance down at the Tomcats displays. In fact arguably less so because they are located just underneath to the left and right of the HUD. and they would be used to display critical information that is actually useful like what your Radar sees or the SA page for Datalink.

 

 

 

 

Todays with more automated systems a backs seater is only really "Nice to have" for reducing workload when it comes to multitaasking for A/G related stuff, IE navigation or comms management, whilst the pilot manages the weapons.

 

Even a USMC study found that such functions a backseater only improved efficiency for A2G related roles, whereas single seater Hornet pilots had no issues handling A2A related tasks.

Edited April 8, 2019 by Kev2go

[BlackLion213]

Maybe you thought you didnt need more crap because you didnt know what you were missing out on? ;)

 

Oh lil' Kev....none of us take your crap, we just step over it. :D

 

 

Not even Strike eagle pilot thought 2 seaters were really usefull unless for A/G tasks

 

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3803922&postcount=97

 

The dont at all require you to be distracted to stare at them instead of looking outside the pit. Less so in a WVR scenario as HUD displays more information ( especially critical ones like Airspeed, G overload) vs having to glace down at analog instruments. like you do in the A/B Tomcat because of a simpler HUD.

 

Did you read what that post? That pilot also said that all their training was for the "single-seat mentality". If you don't train for crew coordination, then you won't do it right. And that pilot still mentioned significant benefits, but their division of labor left A-A to the pilot since F-15Es exclusively perform A-G as their primary mission. Their WSO is occupied with things on the ground.

 

As for the single seaters who don't see the benefit....between ego and lack of experience I can't take that opinion too seriously. Would you ask a homeless man for financial advise? Not sure why you would ask a F-16 pilot about the benefits of a RIO.

 

Todays with more automated systems a backs seater is only really "Nice to have" for reducing workload when it comes to multitaasking for A/G related stuff, IE navigation or comms management, whilst the pilot manages the weapons.

 

Even a USMC study found that such functions a backseater only improved efficiency for A2G related roles, whereas single seater Hornet pilots had no issues handling A2A related tasks.

 

The USMC's mission is A-G, they added a 2nd crewman because it was needed for the mission. Which says a lot when you take a short-legged F/A-18C and make it even shorter-legged - seems they really needed that guy. The same for the USN when they opted to have a F/A-18F squadron in every airwing after initially planning for only single seat squadrons.

 

But feel free to have your opinions....just a shame to see it constructed on things that are so flimsy.

 

-Nick

Edited April 7, 2019 by BlackLion213

[lunaticfringe]

"...a USMC study..."

 

That which is written in crayon should be treated accordingly. ;)

[ofpandafk]

"...a USMC study..."

 

That which is written in crayon should be treated accordingly. ;)

 

 

You think the crayons could have survived to the end of the study...?

 

 

Om nom nom, no way.

[Kev2go]

"...a USMC study..."

 

That which is written in crayon should be treated accordingly. ;)

 

considering that the US navy then decided to go that route and adopt the F/A18F for combat purposes and not just single seat E models .....

[Kev2go]

Oh lil' Kev....none of us take your crap, we just step over it. :D

 

 

 

 

Did you read what that post? That pilot also said that all their training was for the "single-seat mentality". If you don't train for crew coordination, then you won't do it right. And that pilot still mentioned significant benefits, but their division of labor left A-A to the pilot since F-15Es exclusively perform A-G as their primary mission. Their WSO is occupied with things on the ground.

 

As for the single seaters who don't see the benefit....between ego and lack of experience I can't take that opinion too seriously. Would you ask a homeless man for financial advise? Not sure why you would ask a F-16 pilot about the benefits of a RIO.

 

 

 

The USMC's mission is A-G, they added a 2nd crewman because it was needed for the mission. Which says a lot when you take a short-legged F/A-18C and make it even shorter-legged - seems they really needed that guy. The same for the USN when they opted to have a F/A-18F squadron in every airwing after initially planning for only single seat squadrons.

 

But feel free to have your opinions....just a shame to see it constructed on things that are so flimsy.

 

-Nick

 

 

 

Please dont twist My words.It is ironic that you try to dispute something i never said to the contrary. The Dual seater advantage as stated today is for Strike Fighter oriented aircraft, not A2A related roles. :doh:

 

and its not just a mere user opinion. F15 air superiority eagles have done just fine without ever considering RIos' and F22 is also designed around Single seat. The only aircraft that have been expanded since into dual seaters for combat use in US military are F15E Strike eagle, and the F/A18F Super Hornets. The F14 for most of its life was Fighter/Interceptor and being design dating from the 1960s when it would have in fact been too much complexity and workload for a Single pilot to manage such and advanced aircraft, for the sort of avionics found in the F14A and B. However we are not in the 1960s or 70s anymore, Its the 21st century. Hence as a retort neither can you take the opinion of pilot of ancient 2 seater seriously who has never flown a Single seater with modern avionics. ;)

 

 

 

A WSO is not a RIO. it is predominately for Strike related stuff that a backseater is nice to have to reduce workload, and thats because it involves multitasking. Othwise a RIO ( strickly for A2A purposes given the nomenclature literally means RAdar Intercept officer) is no longer necessary for fighters considering the digitization of various avionics and greater automation since the 80s. A2A tasks do not require the sort of workload that certain A/G tasks do. and it is simply unnecessary if not downright redundant to design an aircraft with a RIO for an A2A role in this present time.

 

But whatever cold war dinosaurs like you will continue to be stuck in the past.

Edited April 8, 2019 by Kev2go

[KlarSnow]

dude, you have no idea, F-15E WSO/Pilots are both fully involved in air to air and air to ground. The example RShackleford gave was specifically of something that nothing but a two seat jet can do. Has nothing to do with the air to air/air to ground utility of WSO's.

 

Thanks for telling me what my job is, next time I'm flying in an air to air sortie, I'll make sure that I don't talk or say anything thats not specifically related to air to ground and strike stuff, can't step on my pilots toes or help him out at all. Definitely wont touch any sensors or systems that is like half the curriculum of the B-course/MQ/upgrade cycle and half the role of my job.

 

I'll just go and tell all my instructors that I had to brief over and over again, my air to air gameplan when I was going through the WSO flight lead upgrade, that sorry, what I briefed is useless, only listen to me in the Air to ground part. I definitely won't think that anything I do will matter when it comes to completing the mission, cause WSO's are just there for the air to ground, definitely isn't my fault when the defended asset gets bombed, my pilot Frats someone, we targetted the wrong dude which lead to somebody else dieing.

When my pilot gets buried in the goo and loses track of the timeline, sorry bro, I'm just doing air to ground stuff, you got the radar, I'm definitely not going to help you out with that cause I have no idea what the hell is supposed to be going on there.

 

When we are tripping defensive response, I'm most definitely not going to remind my pilot hey man, notch range is coming up, we are spiked lets notch south.

 

When I hear the crucial piece of comm on the radio that nobody else has acknowledged about the low group that has end run around us and is about to have an unimpeded run to the defended asset, sorry I don't know anything about air to air, definitely not gonna talk up about that.

 

I definitely won't call out jinks or anything defensively related when we are wrapped up in a dogfight with a flanker, thats the pilots job, and if he aint good enough, guess I get to die as well huh. If my pilots too fast going into his breakturn, I'm definitely not going to be telling him that, so the over-G that happens from being transonic is 100% his fault, not at all mine.

When he gets slow in the break turn, I'm not gonna call out opt turn, or unload. Definitely not gonna tell him to tighten down when I see a heat nose from the bandit, most definitely not going to flare.

 

WSO's/Pilots are aircrew and are both actively involved with every phase of the mission.

 

you have no idea what you are talking about, at all.

Edited April 8, 2019 by KlarSnow

[Kev2go]

dude, you have no idea, F-15E WSO/Pilots are both fully involved in air to air and air to ground. The example RShackleford gave was specifically of something that nothing but a two seat jet can do. Has nothing to do with the air to air/air to ground utility of WSO's.

 

Sure they are involved, if an a2a aspect occurs.They are already there, and they have as well make themselves useful since this an aircraft already with 2 seats and 2 individuals and F15E's have to self escort. NO one said A2A is entirely foreign to the F15E or that WSO doesnt have a role, but is this a necessity for a backseat cockpit and its operator when the guy in front can already do everything? No they arent. Thats why you don't see 2 seater Air superiority Eagle or a 2 Seat F22. F14 was designed the way it was because with the technology at the time it would have been to much of a workload for a single pilot to manage everything for A2A. And int that configuration it is literally impossible for a pilot to function without the backseater

 

The F15E has been predominantly used for Strike purposes for most of its life, thats why it was viable to have a WSO when the aircraft was conceptualized for that specific role, whilst a RIO isn't for a F15C and especially not a F22. A2A simply isn't as demanding a task as A/G work is.

Edited April 8, 2019 by Kev2go

[KlarSnow]

Sorry, F-15E's have flown more defensive counter air CAP's (Air to air) in the last few years than any other platform. Again, you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Kev2go]

Sorry, F-15E's have flown more defensive counter air CAP's (Air to air) in the last few years than any other platform. Again, you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

 

 

 

 

 

and

 

 

 

 

Edited April 8, 2019 by Kev2go

[KlarSnow]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

 

:P

[Kev2go]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

 

:P

 

 

 

 

 

Nice ad hominum and insult hurling . again hard to take your response seriously when you cant even explain what that has to do with 2 seater crew being the reason for that, and when earlier you change goalposts resort to strawman and not to mention entirely twisting what i was conveying.

 

But then again we have a WSO here, so go figure.

Edited April 8, 2019 by Kev2go

[Fri13]

Would you ask a homeless man for financial advise?

 

Actually I would, as you would learn what is wrong in the system and what did he do wrong or what happen.

 

Same thing with the F-16, if they can perform the tasks they are assigned without a need for a WSO, then why they should be given to fly WSO?

 

There are times when a WSO is useful, but there are more times when WSO ain't needed.

 

For A-G tasks I would take a WSO, let him to focus purely for everything from communications, reporting, tracking, observing and navigation. Meanwhile I can just look around and enjoy from the view....