What interest you most, A-A or A-G missions?

[GGTharos]

The missile site still fires too early even with Ice's setup, though it's certainly more surprising.

[GGTharos]

If you were within 20nm of the S300 at 30000' you definitely should have been fired on - unless you were on top of it, but then you should have been fired on before you reach that position ...

 

Yeah, thats what I meant about trying for something more deliberate. In the previous scenario, the AWACS only served as a reason to fly into the engagement zone. It wasn't realistic in terms of actually trying to defend the AWACS. Imagine a single SA-10 site in the center and an AWACS doing donuts around it, with the donut being about 20nm in diameter. I figured that if I intercepted the AWACS and shot it down WVR, I'd be flying right at the SAMs and surely they'd shoot at me.

[tflash]

But then we would also need real "Suppresion" of Enemy Air Defenses instead of the hard kill we have now.

 

The whole idea in the nineties was that you fire a loadfull of HARM's, the enemy shuts down its radars temporarily to avoid being toasted and your strike package slips through. This way, the radar defense network kept alive untill strike aircraft performed a hard kill on the site.

[RedTiger]

About the SA-10s...

 

Yeah, I'm either full of crap on that one or I wasn't as close as I thought. Maybe both. :D

 

I made a mission with 4 SA-10s sites with overlapping search areas and threat zones. I was being locked up pretty much from take off. I was fired upon at well above 30k. I can see the problems people have with SAM realism. They do fire very early, making it easy to dodge and spoof the missiles.

[RedTiger]

But then we would also need real "Suppresion" of Enemy Air Defenses instead of the hard kill we have now.

 

The whole idea in the nineties was that you fire a loadfull of HARM's, the enemy shuts down its radars temporarily to avoid being toasted and your strike package slips through. This way, the radar defense network kept alive untill strike aircraft performed a hard kill on the site.

 

...as opposed to DEAD (destruction of enemy air defenses)?

 

Don't HARMs have a feature that allows them to use inertial guidance so you can hit something that's either at a pre-designated location or continue to fly towards the last detected bearing of the radar? I know that you can still get a kill in F4 even if the radar has stopped searching.

[GGTharos]

Yeah, but missile INS drifts quite a bit. Now that they have GPS they may be a -little- more successful, but there's no guarantees.

[mvsgas]

AGM-88 got INS and GPS? cool I did not know

[X-man]

The newest upgrade is the AGM-88E Advanced Anti Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM), which is a joint venture by the Italian Ministry of Defense and the US Department of Defense.

The AARGM will feature the latest software and enhanced capabilities. The AARGM is intended to counter radar shutdown. A passive radar and an active millimeter wave seekers will be installed on the AARGM.

They're working on it ;)

[GGTharos]

Almost every missile requires an INS. There are some exceptions, naturally.

Now that GPS is more miniaturized it's being stuck into bombs and missiles since it is more accurate.

[mvsgas]

I think anything we can read on RWR, radars or anti-radar missiles is not very reliable. I don't think we can truly know how any of this systems work unless u use them or create them IRL. Anyway, sorry.

[GGTharos]

It's not that it isn't reliable, it is that it is missing a lot of information.

For example, it will not tell you at what density the RWR may start becoming unrealiable, whatt he probability of misindefication of a contact is (And it does happen - one RWR told a pilot that a Patriot was an SA-2 and that patriot got a HARM stuck in it!) as well as the probability that it won't pick up the signal altogether.

 

The RWR's in LO are -extremely- efficient, and the missions lack emitter density which would cause a lot of trouble for Beryoza realistically speaking.

[mvsgas]

BTW still 65% for A2G, Ha! :D

[GGTharos]

As I said, it just means 65% people have been confirmed to suck at A2A :D

 

*calls the fire department*

[Boberro]

Hehe, we won :D AG rulez!

[joey45]

As I said, it just means 65% people have been confirmed to suck at A2A :D

 

*calls the fire department*

 

hands up, i do.:helpsmilie:

[Kuky]

Tried it, got bored of it quickly ;) Pretty safe to do if you do it from the right altitude as well.

 

Not if you have short range SAM systems like TOR or OSA in convoy as well... seems to me if you claim it's so easy and boring to do A2G and according to you it requires no skill like you A2A jockey :music_whistling: you have done nothing in terms of good A2G mission or grund targets settup so your opinion does not really matter much. You do A2A so stick with it as if you were doing A2G in properly setup missions you would not be that good as you might think.

 

And I will apply one principle now: If you go A2G and have anough aircraft and weapons to deal with all kinds of threats (SAM and IR) and have time to loiter, you could say it's relatively easy to engage A2G because you can take time and deal with SAM first from distance using stand off anti radiation weapons, then get in closer but keep altitude and take our IR air defenses... then you can enage remainig targets... you'd call this droping bombs on trucks which you seem to think is what A2G is all about :smilewink:

 

You apply same principle in A2A and you have good numbers are the same way you have time to loiter A2A is also very easy and quite frankly very boring because it is very repetitive and limited in what you can do in terms of engagement. Most LockOn servers that provide A2A are actually very arcade. They are based on continuos taking off... engaging other aircraft... firing radar active missiles and turning tail when being engaged... if you survive and even better, get a kill or two, you run home to rearm and refuel in 1min then go off again and repeat the same process over and over again. Talking about repetitiveness. What is even more reppetitive is that if you keep doing this enough time against same people you learn how they fly and what you need to do to take them out. Element of surprise can only be achieved when you fly unfamiliar route, map and mission. This in A2A is not the same especially if you fly same server with same map non stop.

 

In the end GG I am not going to claim what is more fun as this is just personal taste (some like repetition and arcade some not) but you claiming A2G is easy and requires no skill is crap... you talk very opiniated and with some of your comments you start unsulting others... me being one of them.

 

You might have some knowledge but when it comes to opinions you can be just way off. :pilotfly:

[RedTiger]

@Kuky

 

What you said about HL is probably true in many respects, but there also people out there who fly in vFighter Wings that try to be as un-arcade like as possible. They use brevity code and use accurate procedures to sort bandits.

[joey45]

nice one KuKy

[Kuky]

RedTiger, I am familiar with that, we do the same thing (when being more serious when flying A2A, at other times we just mock around). My point is GG has no merrit what so ever talking up how A2A is challenging and A2G isn't. D-Synthe said is some posts before that it all really comes down to difficulty of the mission... and that is really all it comes down to. If mission is setup easy then A2G is easy... if your oponents are not very good A2A is as easy too... so means jack what GG is on about. He can talk from personal persepctive and how he doesn't like to drop bombs on trucks from few KM altitude, which is what his version of A2G is, and thats fine... but he talks crap about some skill requirement and lack off. You don't need much skill to fire an active radar missile at someone and turn tail... I would say that's piece of cake and I'm sure many would agree with me. Comming from few years on WWII combat and all visual dogfight (as well as lots of A2G) from IL-2 series I can tell you what GG is talking about and how his way of combat is the hardest one, many more people would just shake their head.

 

I am not gonna do this because I have done prop aircraft and flying P-40 against faster german fighters of more nimble japanese (from IL-2) and still being goof at it, then modern air combat and flying again both A2A and A2G I can tell you every one of them requires lots of skill and thinking and every one of them is equaly hard and challenging. And it can only be as hard and challengin as you want it to be... 1 on 1 is not the same either in any aircraft as every aircaft has different streangth and weakneses and they all require different way if thinking and different approach to completing your mission and... if you want to claim you're so good... you need to stay alive as well. And no arcade setup mission/map/server will provide that.

 

And to prove my point again I can invite GG and all think alikes to some and join next RF. Let him show his skills in A2G... walk the walk if you wanna talk the talk... and I am saying this right now becase he is simply being disrespectful.

[rogue_blade]

As I said, it just means 65% people have been confirmed to suck at A2A :D

 

*calls the fire department*

 

what he said ^^^^^^^^^^^

[RedTiger]

@Kuky

 

What I think GG is saying A/A skills are more perishable, not that A/G is easy. You know what that means right? Just like a food that is perishable, if you don't use them they spoil. This isn't something he pulled out of his ass. I wish I had a better source than just saying "I read it somewhere", but I have read an Eagle driver say this same thing with respect to Viper pilots. They have a full course load of A/G while the F-15 guys have the advantage in A/A since this is all they do -- and it shows when the Vipers do ACM/BFM.

 

Think about it this way: how many books, articles, etc. have been written about air to air? I can think of 3 well-known ones right off the top of my head - Fighter Tactics by Robert Shaw, "Aerial Attack Study" by John R. Boyd, and "No Guts, no Glory" by Frederick C. 'Boots' Blesse. Can you name 3 that solely deal with air to ground as intricately as these deal with air to air? If not, there might be a reason for this. ;)

 

This isn't to say A/G is a cake walk and someone can just do in their sleep. Saying its easy is an injustice to all the pilots who have been killed and wounded doing it. However, I do think its easier and is less perishable than air to air. I also strongly believe that it is far easier to understand and become proficient at. Air to air combat has many facets which seem almost contradictory to what seems logical. As Andy Bush from simhq said in one of his articles on ACM, it took him 6 years to feel like he could intelligently speak about BFA and ACM (this is coming from a guy who was an instructor at the USAF FWS and was a mud mover in Vietnam :notworthy:).

 

Also, DEADLIER /= HARDER. Air to ground can get you killed real quick but in many ways this just comes with the territory and isn't a product of being a crappy pilot. I could foresee even a very exceptional pilot being killed simple because air to ground can be so damned dangerous. "Sh*t happening" doesn't necessarily mean something is harder. :)

 

I know that you said that you wouldn't make this comparison, but for any IL2 simmer thinks who thinks modern A/A combat sims are easier than WW2 sims, I have a challenge. You and 3 friends learn to play F4AF until you're comfortable enough to start the campaign (which should be a couple months later :D). Then start the hardest campaign in a 2010 theater against ace level AI and fly a fighter sweep. You will encounter so much crap going on in the air, it will make your head spin. Try sorting a 4 ship of MiG-29s or Su-27s in that mess and THEN say modern A/A isn't difficult -- keeping in mind that this isn't even real people, just AI.

 

As for your RF, are you doing air to ground realistically? Like separate flights/packages for DCA, SEAD, along with your strike elements? How do you handle things like "C3" and FAC? I ask since Lockon is limited in the aircraft you can fly (can the A-10 do SEAD?). If you're doing it realistically, you should be able to reduced many of the dangers, increase your SA and make things easier. What aircraft are you using for which air to ground missions? Lockon doesn't have any flyable aircraft with ground radar, which limits your abilitiy to do things realistically. Something like a F-16 could fly interdiction missions with CBUs or Mavericks and stay high enough to avoid a lot of the danger, as could a multirole MiG-29 counterpart. If you're doing all of this in Hogs and Frogs, then yeah, I can see why it would be dangerous!

[GGTharos]

^^^^^

Quite right

 

Last page

http://www.rand.org/pubs/rgs_dissertations/RGSD147/RGSD147.chap4.pdf

 

Although it doesn't say it 'in your face' like the other USAF study (because it studies something different); I've looked for the link to that one but I can't find it right now :D

 

 

And no, they're not doing RF A2G realistically. Those planes seem to get tasked with stuff they shouldn't be getting tasked with ;)

But this RF is about fun, not realism - and that makes it better for them.

[mvsgas]

Can we just get along, :devil_2:and you guys admit ( I mean all of us) that specialize pilots (i.e. A2A only or A2G only) pilots are a dying breed and now, like most aircraft in service, pilots must multi-task and be proficient at both and practice both so many time a week depending on you unit or squad missions and capabilities. Let us all come to term with the fact that most people like A2G. hee Come on, you guys sound way to serious. We are talking about a game after all right?

[GGTharos]

Absolutely incorrect. Whether in real life or in game, many people understand the need for specialization. ;)

 

Can we just get along, :devil_2:and you guys admit ( I mean all of us) that specialize pilots (i.e. A2A only or A2G only) pilots are a dying breed and now,

[mvsgas]

Well man every unit I ever serve in (mine you all F-16/F-117 units, 310fs, 36fs, 510FS, 31AMXS and 49AMXS) I never met pilots that where specialize in one mission. Except F-15 pilots Even the A-10 has several missions and F-117 pilots come from everywhere (A-10,F-16, F-15, U-2 etc)