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

[GGTharos]

F-16 does both because it can, though it isn't how it was conceived. It's simply economical this way. But there you have the F-15 ... and the F-22.

It is a very simple fact, that an aircraft designed for air superiority WILL dominate the multirole planes whose primary role is A2G. You -cannot- have it both ways. It isn't physically doable. Design matters.

[mvsgas]

Keep in mine the F-22 practice A2g as well man. The only guys that where one mission fighter pilots are F15C guys and they are crossing to the F-22 in bigger numbers every month.

 

P.S.

This days is more about unit mission than aircraft design. Most units are task with both to A2G and A2A this days. At least in my experience.

[GGTharos]

F-22s -barely- practice A2G. All they do is truck a bomb to high altitude and speed and cast it off to its destination. It's not the same as an A-10 does, or even an F-16. They added that capability quite simply as an appeasement for the budget, and it was added WITHOUT designing for it. Keep in mind, it was the bombs that were redesigned for capacity, not the F-22 ...

 

The F-15C guys could easily have A2G capability, if the Air Force so desired it ... they specifically removed this capability, and I don't think we'll see F-22 crews doing any rmoe A2G than long-range bomb drops onto some nasty SAM sites. There are aircraft far better equipped for ground attack when it comes to other situations.

 

And I'm quite serious ... design matters. In a pinch, you could have a fighter 'do both', and this is economical ... when you don't have capable enemy fighters in the air. Once you do, the only way to have air superiority and favorable exchange ratios is to have the better pilot AND the better, purpose-designed machine.

 

While everyone croons multi-role, you have but to look at Air Force publications to see that Air to Air is still the 'big game'.

[mvsgas]

According to F-117 pilots that where former F-15C drivers, F-15C has a A2G function but they never use it. Normally dose guys had the hardest time transitioning to F-117 mission because they did not know anything about A2G and all of A2G concepts. I don't know man, I don't think we would see specialize pilots in the future. They also told me ( I don't know if it true or not) that F-22 units train in A2G as much as F-16 unit. AF leadership is trying so hard to get more F-22 from congress they would do anything, even adding A2G to daily F-22 training curriculum and mission.

 

By the way , this only the view from a little mechanic, I don't see the big picture. Like the movie "the crow" and I quote:"I'm a little worm in a big F#$%^) hook", I don't claim to be and expert, just commenting on what I see.

[tflash]

F-22s -barely- practice A2G. All they do is truck a bomb to high altitude and speed and cast it off to its destination. It's not the same as an A-10 does, or even an F-16. They added that capability quite simply as an appeasement for the budget, and it was added WITHOUT designing for it. Keep in mind, it was the bombs that were redesigned for capacity, not the F-22 ...

 

The F-15C guys could easily have A2G capability, if the Air Force so desired it ... they specifically removed this capability, and I don't think we'll see F-22 crews doing any rmoe A2G than long-range bomb drops onto some nasty SAM sites. There are aircraft far better equipped for ground attack when it comes to other situations.

 

And I'm quite serious ... design matters. In a pinch, you could have a fighter 'do both', and this is economical ... when you don't have capable enemy fighters in the air. Once you do, the only way to have air superiority and favorable exchange ratios is to have the better pilot AND the better, purpose-designed machine.

 

While everyone croons multi-role, you have but to look at Air Force publications to see that Air to Air is still the 'big game'.

 

Well, I guess the fundamental doctrine is that you try to destroy the enemy's airforce on the ground. How do you tackle a hornet plague in the summer? Are you chasing each hornet in your garden or are you going to look at the hornet's nest?

 

In the first gulf war, the Iraqi Airforce was essentially smashed on the ground. It is what was left that the F-15's cleaned up. It is certainly not the case that F-15C's would have first cleaned the air for the others to come in. They were definitely not the first to enter Iraqi airspace. (First A2A kill was by an ... F-111 who manoevred an Iraqi Mirage F1 into the ground) You need true A2A air superiority when your primary objective has failed, i.e. root the enemy at the ground.

 

So, I really do not see what else F-22's would be doing - in an offensive role - than trying to smash SAM sites so that other assets can disable the enemy's airfields? Chances are slim that it would face interception by fighters, no?

[159th_Viper]

Alternatively that 65% of the participants to the Poll canna be arsed with AAMRAM-SPAM AirQuake......:D

 

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

 

tflash - Excellent Hornet Analogy :)

[GreyStork]

An attempt to sum things up

 

No one will dispute that A/A is a very deadly game, which will get you killed if you don't know what you're doing. It requires a great deal of skill to master the art that it really is.

 

That said, and in spite of all the advocacy for A/A, it still remains a question whether it really is more interesting than A/G. It shall be no secret that my personal inclination is toward the latter. I've assumed both roles during both single-player, multiplayer team-on-team, and multiplayer cooperative simulations, so I'd like to think I can explain the allure of both roles.

 

A/A is a very individual sport, and a task that will awaken the hunter in any simulation pilot. A single skilled fighter pilot may surely wreak a lot of havoc on an enemy air force. That is why it appeals to people who are competitive by nature; it's a game emphasizing individual achievement.

 

At first glance, there isn't much to it: just point and shoot. However, it soon becomes apparent to the novice that you can mess it up in more ways than there are chicken recipes on this planet. An air superiority jockey must be a master of precision four-dimensional geometry. He must be able to analyze the capabilities of an opponent quickly - recognizing the aircraft type is not enough; he must recognize the capabilities and preferred style of the opposing pilot as well - and fight accordingly. He must counterbalance weaknesses of his own aircraft, compared to that of the opponent, and force the fight into areas of the flight envelope where his aircraft is superior. Turn radii, G-forces and speed must be managed with with great discipline to this end. He must anticipate and guard himself against any possible move within his opponent's abilities, which might put him at a disadvantage, if at all possible. If that proves impossible, he must expose himself to the less deadly of all possible consequences of his actions. Perhaps most importantly, he must anticipate potential mistakes his opponent might make and be prepared to immediately exploit them, should they occur. Lastly, he must have intimate knowledge of the capabilities of his own weapons in order to maximize their efficiency. He may only get a single opportunity to take a shot at his opponent - an opportunity, which must often be created by placing oneself at a disadvantage - and wasting it may prove fatal. No less important is intimate knowledge of the opponent's weapons, and how to foil them.

 

It is indeed easy to appreciate the exhilaration a fighter pilot experiences when he succeeds in killing his opponent through superior skill.

 

Then, of course, there is the reality of a complex theater of operations. Engaging in air-to-air combat tends to seriously narrow a pilot's situation awareness, and that, in and of itself, is extremely dangerous. In such an environment, it is very rare to encounter a situation where both sides face anything approaching even odds of survival, and consequently, A/A engagements tend to last only a very short time. In most cases, A/A is either easy pickings or sudden defeat. Losing the bomber wing you're supposed to protect to an enemy fighter ambush definitely belongs in the latter category, and so does getting tied up in a fight with escort fighters while enemy attack aircraft decimate your ground troops. In the end, air power is only an aid in winning the ground war.

 

Personally, I find that things get most interesting when you're forced to view your objectives in light of a grander strategic scheme. When you constantly have to weigh your potential losses against your potential strategic gain, that's when significant decisions must be made. Every battle must bring you closer to winning the war, and thus, sometimes ending a mission in failure is preferable to a costly success.

 

Stating that air to ground combat doesn't require significant skill and experience would also be a mistake. The weapon systems employed in A/G combat are usually more complex to operate than A/A weapons and, in addition, are more plentiful and diverse, even in terms of the precision flying required during delivery. The diversity in potential ground targets is fully reflected in the diversity of A/G ordnance: iron bombs, retarded bombs, laser guided bombs, TV guided bombs, runway and bunker penetration bombs, anti-radiation missiles, cluster munitions (although banned by an increasing number of nations), incendiary munitions, laser guided missiles, TV guided missiles, rockets, and guns. There are basically three types of A/A weapons: radar missiles (ARH or SARH), IR guided missiles, and guns.

 

A/G missions require strict timing to minimize exposure to enemy ground defense systems while maintaining safe ordnance delivery spacing. As a result, they must often be skillfully choreographed between a dozen aircraft or more. Teamwork is very important, and I believe more important even than the cooperation between segment wingmen in air-to-air combat, while also taking place on a much grander scale.

 

In terms of skill and experience, I don't think there's much of a difference when it comes to perfecting A/A and A/G operations. There is no question, however, that it remains a matter of taste when determining which of the two offers the greater personal appeal.

[X-man]

Well, I guess the fundamental doctrine is that you try to destroy the enemy's airforce on the ground. How do you tackle a hornet plague in the summer? Are you chasing each hornet in your garden or are you going to look at the hornet's nest?

Great, so when you go after the hornet's nest, none of the hornets bugs you?? ;)

[GGTharos]

And what do you do if there's super hornets? :D

[Kuky]

A/A is a very individual sport, and a task that will awaken the hunter in any simulation pilot.

 

Well you see, this is completey wrong... if anything should be ever noted in any armed forces is concept of TEAM WORK :smilewink: Only in games you can get this concept of individualism.

[Ironhand]

Great, so when you go after the hornet's nest, none of the hornets bugs you?? ;)

Properly excuted, yes. None of the hornets bug you. :)

 

And what do you do if there's super hornets?

 

No difference. They're just as dead. :)

 

Rich

[GGTharos]

This is well written and at a glance maybe it even makes sense to some but ...

 

A/A is a very individual sport,

 

This is incorrect. Individual skill is imprortant because lack of it translates to the death of oneself and his wingmen.

 

That is why it appeals to people who are competitive by nature; it's a game emphasizing individual achievement.

Also incorrect. It may seem like so on the surface, but that's certainly not what air forces train for.

 

At first glance, there isn't much to it: just point and shoot. However, it soon becomes apparent to the novice that you can mess it up in more ways than there are chicken recipes on this planet.

Snipped for brevity ... all this stuff is pretty much right.

 

 

Stating that air to ground combat doesn't require significant skill and experience would also be a mistake.

But no one said THAT :P

Rather, some people chose to take it that way and get super-defensive ;)

 

The weapon systems employed in A/G combat are usually more complex to operate than A/A weapons and, in addition, are more plentiful and diverse, even in terms of the precision flying required during delivery. The diversity in potential ground targets is fully reflected in the diversity of A/G ordnance: iron bombs, retarded bombs, laser guided bombs, TV guided bombs, runway and bunker penetration bombs, anti-radiation missiles, cluster munitions (although banned by an increasing number of nations), incendiary munitions, laser guided missiles, TV guided missiles, rockets, and guns. There are basically three types of A/A weapons: radar missiles (ARH or SARH), IR guided missiles, and guns.

And one again, here's where you're wrong: A2G munitions require you to get in range and pickle. That's all you have to do; aside from cases where you have to sit there and lase, once you drop they'll -probably- hit the target and you're free to keep doing whatever. Not so in an air to air engagement; further, weapon parameters in A2A are more complex. It is no longer just a matter of 'get in range and shoot' but a matter of 'how do I get in range without being shot at'. While that kind of planning is necessary in A2G, in A2G this is FIXED. Other than an intelligence failure, the defenses won't be moving around on you. An enemy aircraft WILL. It will be constantly trying to screw up your position so it gets a higher Pk shot first.

 

A/G missions require strict timing to minimize exposure to enemy ground defense systems while maintaining safe ordnance delivery spacing. As a result, they must often be skillfully choreographed between a dozen aircraft or more. Teamwork is very important, and I believe more important even than the cooperation between segment wingmen in air-to-air combat, while also taking place on a much grander scale.

That's also incorrect. All you have to do is try and lead a 4-ship in A2G and A2A to see what the difference is. In A2G, you get to follow a plan - in A2A you get to follow a bunch of constantly changing contingencies.

 

In terms of skill and experience, I don't think there's much of a difference when it comes to perfecting A/A and A/G operations. There is no question, however, that it remains a matter of taste when determining which of the two offers the greater personal appeal.

A matter of taste is a matter of taste. As for experience, there's a huge difference, and that's exactly what those studies say. BECAUSE A2A is dynamic, RECENT experience is important. In A2G, not so much; surely, the more you've trained recently the better, but if you were just 'thrown into the fire', an A2G pilot will embarrass himself far less than an A2A pilot when both have not flown practice of some form for say, 3-4 weeks.

[GreyStork]

Well you see, this is completey wrong... if anything should be ever noted in any armed forces is concept of TEAM WORK :smilewink: Only in games you can get this concept of individualism.

 

That is true - to a point. If and when things deteriorate to a knife fight (which, granted, is becoming increasingly rare), it is basically the skill of an individual pilot that determines the outcome, even in real life. That individual pilot would in most cases be the segment lead, with the segment wingman usually acting as either rear sentry or bait in a drag maneuver.

[GGTharos]

This is certainly what you WANT to do, and what you CAN do against an airforce that isn't expecting it or whose generals have been bribed, etc.

On the other hand, in a NATO/WARPAC conflict that did not involve nukes for some reason, do you really think that you could just catch'em sleeping? Sure, it isn't out of the realm of possibility, but that's not how things were set up ... and THAT is why air superiority fighters exist to this day.

 

The F-22 is an offensive weapon. It is there to go in, blow things out of the sky, and if -really- necessary, pound some mud. But it's #1 mission is to drop bandits out of the blue with extreme prejudice and unfairness.

 

Well, I guess the fundamental doctrine is that you try to destroy the enemy's airforce on the ground. How do you tackle a hornet plague in the summer? Are you chasing each hornet in your garden or are you going to look at the hornet's nest? ?

[GGTharos]

No, wrong again. The fact that this wingman is there already de-emphasizes the individual. It really doesn't matter which one gets the kill now.

And you get saddled up, who's gonna save your butt? Not your individual skill ... it'll be your wingman who peels that bandit off your tail. Skill is IMPORTANT because it helps you and your buddies survive ... there -are- cases where flights will break things up into 1v1 fights, and then you're in trouble - because when they DO do that, it means they're very skilled and very confident. But guess what happens the moment one bandit is defeated? That aircraft immidiately goes to support one of his buddies. And it's a bit of a crap-shoot too, because if you're facing skilled opponents, whoever drops a bandit faster (and thus gains numerical advantage) will probably win.

 

That is true - to a point. If and when things deteriorate to a knife fight (which, granted, is becoming increasingly rare), it is basically the skill of an individual pilot that determines the outcome, even in real life. That individual pilot would in most cases be the segment lead, with the segment wingman usually acting as either rear sentry or bait in a drag maneuver.

[GreyStork]

Perhaps I didn't make that clear, but what I wrote was solely derived from my own experiences with simulations - or games, if you will. What air forces train for does not enter into the equation at all.

 

Individual skill is imprortant because lack of it translates to the death of oneself and his wingmen.

 

True, but if you're in a furball, it is still the skills of the individual that will determine the outcome. Even in real life. The teamwork is important in assuring that it doesn't get to that point, I understand that.

 

And one again, here's where you're wrong: A2G munitions require you to get in range and pickle. That's all you have to do; aside from cases where you have to sit there and lase, once you drop they'll -probably- hit the target and you're free to keep doing whatever.

 

You obviously haven't done much A/G work in a real study sim, not to mention employed basic attack profiles that take advantage of terrain. Or had to consider something as simple as illuminator gimbal limits. ;)

 

It is no longer just a matter of 'get in range and shoot' but a matter of 'how do I get in range without being shot at'.

 

That applies to A/G as well. Granted, the guys that shoot at you don't move. On the other hand, you can't see them, either. Basically, you don't know they're there until they shoot at you. And compared to the amount of enemy fighters you might encounter in a fight where you actually have a chance of survival, they tend to be concentrated in greater numbers, especially around the stuff I intend to blow up.

 

While that kind of planning is necessary in A2G, in A2G this is FIXED. Other than an intelligence failure, the defenses won't be moving around on you.

 

When you put it that way, there's always intelligence failure. There is no such thing as accurate intelligence in any remotely realistic campaign. Even if you had 100% accurate intelligence, it would likely be outdated in a matter of hours. Ground troops tend to move around in order to survive, even if they're not as fast as an aircraft.

 

All you have to do is try and lead a 4-ship in A2G and A2A to see what the difference is. In A2G, you get to follow a plan - in A2A you get to follow a bunch of constantly changing contingencies.

 

I have tried to lead a flight in A/A, many times, actually. It is very difficult indeed, and much depends on the skill level of your wingmen. Just as is the case when you're on a tight schedule during an A/G mission while simultaneously facing the need to adjust your 'fixed' plan in order to avoid the worst concentrations of air defense systems while still arriving on target the exact second you're supposed to.

 

A matter of taste is a matter of taste. As for experience, there's a huge difference, and that's exactly what those studies say. BECAUSE A2A is dynamic, RECENT experience is important. In A2G, not so much; surely, the more you've trained recently the better, but if you were just 'thrown into the fire', an A2G pilot will embarrass himself far less than an A2A pilot when both have not flown practice of some form for say, 3-4 weeks.

 

It is a very small minority of us who fly combat missions in real life, so again, I don't see how that's pertinent to the discussion here.

 

You can lose the ground war if you have insufficient air support (that would be A/G capability), but that doesn't mean you can win the war with A/G operations alone. You still need that tank and that infantryman on the ground. Attack aircraft is pretty much just airborne artillery.

 

Similarly, you can lose your ability to conduct A/G missions if you don't have air superiority (that would be A/A capability). That doesn't mean that air superiority is the most important thing in a war. A/A is merely a necessity in order to ensure that you can conduct combat air support without getting too distracted by enemy fighters. There are enough distractions as it is.

 

In terms of skill, I think we have to agree to disagree. Although A/A requires what could be compared to excellent fencing skills, A/G can be compared sprinting through a mine field with a metal detector while engaged in a game of horseshoe pitching. A/A jockeys need to concentrate a lot on a few targets, while mud movers need to concentrate on many more things all at once.

 

In a good simulation, the skills required for the two different roles are not the same by any means, but the skill level required is the same.

[GGTharos]

Right, but why do you think your sim experiences are what you are? :)

 

Perhaps I didn't make that clear, but what I wrote was solely derived from my own experiences with simulations - or games, if you will. What air forces train for does not enter into the equation at all.

 

I disagree. More to the point, it may take skill to get you into the furball at an advantageous position for yourself and your wingmen, but once in it, it's dice. Pure unadulterated luck. Or plain bad opposition.

 

True, but if you're in a furball, it is still the skills of the individual that will determine the outcome. Even in real life. The teamwork is important in assuring that it doesn't get to that point, I understand that.

 

I guess you missed the point here. It isn't my problem that you're a sitting duck while illuminating; this is something you've already planned to do, whether it's a toss, dive, level laser-designation, or whatever else you've chosen to do. You're still just getting in range and letting it fly. You don't really have much of anything else to consider. Unless you're trying to tell me that there's somehow more precision flying to be done than in air to air. ;)

 

You obviously haven't done much A/G work in a real study sim, not to mention employed basic attack profiles that take advantage of terrain. Or had to consider something as simple as illuminator gimbal limits. ;)

 

In Air to Air you might run into aircraft you won't see either. As I said before, there is no requirement to have skill or to lack skill to get ambushed. No one said A2G isn't dangerous ;)

And the number of SAMs required to present a speed bump to you vs. the number of fighters required to do the same should already be hinting at something.

 

That applies to A/G as well. Granted, the guys that shoot at you don't move. On the other hand, you can't see them, either. Basically, you don't know they're there until they shoot at you. And compared to the amount of enemy fighters you might encounter in a fight where you actually have a chance of survival, they tend to be concentrated in greater numbers, especially around the stuff I intend to blow up.

 

 

Ground troops can only move so far, and they are quickly dispersed and demoralized; unless they're content to hide in forests, which isn't a terribly bad idea either; then they can avoid being atritted by air power, and can meet the enemy's army for a fight.

I guess here you may have missed the point again; intelligence is always important, but fighter movements need to be updated in real time. This is why you have AWACS. When attacking a ground target, things will stay fairly fixed in the vast majority of cases ... unless you're on a SCUD hunt. Those did pretty well at not getting nailed, IIRC. But they weren't really fighting back, either.

 

When you put it that way, there's always intelligence failure. There is no such thing as accurate intelligence in any remotely realistic campaign. Even if you had 100% accurate intelligence, it would likely be outdated in a matter of hours. Ground troops tend to move around in order to survive, even if they're not as fast as an aircraft.

 

In any situation you need skilled wingmen; if they don't know what to do you have to baby them, and that can easily end up bad.

On the other hand, there's a big difference between just how much SA a wingman needs to have between the two missions.

In A2G it is /still/ 'ok, I maneuvered, enemy's still in that direction, over there' versus 'ok, where the hell did they go now?'

 

I have tried to lead a flight in A/A, many times, actually. It is very difficult indeed, and much depends on the skill level of your wingmen. Just as is the case when you're on a tight schedule during an A/G mission while simultaneously facing the need to adjust your 'fixed' plan in order to avoid the worst concentrations of air defense systems while still arriving on target the exact second you're supposed to.

 

Speaking in broad general terms, what works in reality works in sims also, and the same training issues apply.

 

It is a very small minority of us who fly combat missions in real life, so again, I don't see how that's pertinent to the discussion here.

 

I do believe there are some quotes by rather famous personalities that would disagree with you. I understand what you're saying, but by the same token, A2G is 'just a necessity' and so on and so forth - slippery slope.

 

A/A is merely a necessity in order to ensure that you can conduct combat air support without getting too distracted by enemy fighters. There are enough distractions as it is.

[RedTiger]

@GreyStork

 

I would argue that perceiving an engagement as a "furball" would mean that your team work is lacking. If everyone works together and keeps things straight, a lot of the fur on that ball will go away. :lol:

 

I'll give you a point about the choreography involved in an air to ground mission. Getting everyone to their places on time so that the main mission can be accomplished is a big part of it and can be difficult. If the SEAD guys are late, than the other flights might get a big surprise.

 

The thing is though, the same thing applies to air to air! Even boring CAPs will require you to be at your post on time and patrol that area for a predetermined time. The consequences are no less dire. If you fail to be on time or you leave early, an enemy might fly in and knock out something important to the whole war effort. Also defensive counter air might be a part of the entire strike effort. If they fail, then thats pretty much "gg" (good game, meant with sarcasm) when it comes to that mission.

 

So, as far as the choreography goes, A/A is just as difficult.

[Boberro]

Guys, I remind that 66% is for AG. It is almost 99%. People knows what is the best! Hehe ;)

[GreyStork]

Right, but why do you think your sim experiences are what you are? :)

 

I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you mean...?

 

I disagree. More to the point, it may take skill to get you into the furball at an advantageous position for yourself and your wingmen, but once in it, it's dice. Pure unadulterated luck. Or plain bad opposition.

 

I guess that depends on the simulation. In many I've tried, the outcome of furball combat isn't decided by chance. It actually matters how you fly and how good you are at avoiding the weak spots in your flight envelope and exploiting the strong traits. The first contestant who makes a mistake, dies. I wouldn't call that pure unadulterated luck.

 

I guess you missed the point here. It isn't my problem that you're a sitting duck while illuminating; this is something you've already planned to do, whether it's a toss, dive, level laser-designation, or whatever else you've chosen to do. You're still just getting in range and letting it fly. You don't really have much of anything else to consider. Unless you're trying to tell me that there's somehow more precision flying to be done than in air to air. ;)

 

Precision flying, indeed. I won't compare it to A/A maneuvers, since that's apples and oranges. However, there are plenty of cool A/G maneuvers you can use. 'Pop and slice' was one of my favorites in Jane's F-15. It involves approaching the target as low as you can without getting hit by that pk=1 thing down below. To confuse everyone, you don't fly directly toward your target, but instead on a course that will put you about 30 degrees offset to your target at a distance of about 2Nm. At that point, you're still too low to eyeball the target. That's when you roll a bit toward the target and start pulling up. You continue into a wide barrel roll, so you can eyeball the target while inverted, and end up with your pipper exactly on target the moment you roll out at 15-20 degrees nose down. You then pickle and hold, and pull up until release, then bank into the deck and exit at full mil. The initial pop and slice takes some practice to perfect.

 

As for being a sitting duck, the point is not to be one. You can maneuver and lase at the same time, so you hopefully stay out of range of whatever is defending your target. The trick is to keep your SA of where the target is (even though you're belly-flashing it and can't see anything), so you can predict what kind of flight path you can take without hitting gimbal limits before impact.

 

When it comes to planning, BVR A/A involves planning as well. Although you have to continually adjust your tactics, there's still a 'bag of tricks' you employ. Set maneuvers that are rehearsed in advance, so you can communicate your intentions to your wingmen in a timely fashion.

 

In Air to Air you might run into aircraft you won't see either. As I said before, there is no requirement to have skill or to lack skill to get ambushed.

 

That's correct. Getting out of an ambush is what requires skill. That would include a very keen SA.

 

And the number of SAMs required to present a speed bump to you vs. the number of fighters required to do the same should already be hinting at something.

 

I'm not implying that enemy aircraft aren't more deadly than, say, a SAM unit. At least they are infinitely more persistent when you try to run away from them. Nonetheless, if you plot the points in space during an A/A engagement where missiles are fired at you and compare those to the points in space where missiles are fired at you during an A/G engagement, you might be surprised to see a very similar pattern.

 

Ground troops can only move so far, and they are quickly dispersed and demoralized; unless they're content to hide in forests, which isn't a terribly bad idea either; then they can avoid being atritted by air power, and can meet the enemy's army for a fight.

 

Perhaps that may be true of ground forces incapable of defending themselves against aircraft. In all other cases, I believe you're assuming too much.

 

I guess here you may have missed the point again; intelligence is always important, but fighter movements need to be updated in real time.

 

That's what your radar is for. You can usually see the enemy before he gets within weapons range. In A/G you usually have no idea where the SAM and AAA units are before they shoot at you.

 

In any situation you need skilled wingmen; if they don't know what to do you have to baby them, and that can easily end up bad. On the other hand, there's a big difference between just how much SA a wingman needs to have between the two missions. In A2G it is /still/ 'ok, I maneuvered, enemy's still in that direction, over there' versus 'ok, where the hell did they go now?'

 

You forget that your enemy number one in low-level A/G has a pk=1. Lose SA and you end up a lawn dart in a second. Lose track of where that SAM missile is (or rather, where each of those three SAM missiles are) and chances are the result will be identical.

 

I do believe there are some quotes by rather famous personalities that would disagree with you.

 

Heh. I remember one quote in particular: Fighter pilots make headlines. Bomber pilots make history. ;)

[RedTiger]

Guys, I remind that 66% is for AG. It is almost 99%. People knows what is the best! Hehe ;)

 

Since when is anything the "best" just because all the masses like it? By that notion, reality television and SUVs are the greatest things ever produced by mankind. :P

[GreyStork]

The thing is though, the same thing applies to air to air! Even boring CAPs will require you to be at your post on time and patrol that area for a predetermined time. The consequences are no less dire. If you fail to be on time or you leave early, an enemy might fly in and knock out something important to the whole war effort. Also defensive counter air might be a part of the entire strike effort. If they fail, then thats pretty much "gg" (good game, meant with sarcasm) when it comes to that mission.

 

So, as far as the choreography goes, A/A is just as difficult.

 

I'm afraid I can't quite agree with you. It's true that arriving on station is important in CAP missions, but we're not talking about a magnitude of seconds.

 

In A/G, if you're five seconds late on your bomb run, shrapnel from your weapons will kill the guy who's coming in on his run right behind you - assuming he's on time. In order to minimize everyone's exposure to air defense, there is very little spacing, and hence very little margin for error.

[GreyStork]

Since when is anything the "best" just because all the masses like it? By that notion, reality television and SUVs are the greatest things ever produced by mankind. :P

 

Can't really argue with that. :)

[RedTiger]

Heh. I remember one quote in particular: Fighter pilots make headlines. Bomber pilots make history. ;)

 

They sure do...if the enemy sucks and the fighter jocks clear the way for them. :D

 

I'm hoping the arguement doesn't stray to which is more important, cuz if it does, ground warfare has you all trumped. :smartass:

 

Joking aside, no one is saying A/G isn't important, nor is anyone saying it isn't hard. We're saying A/A is harder and more perishable. I'm personally willing to make the argument that there are many things that make A/G easier, depending on what we mean by "air to ground".

 

You're pop and slice maneuver, for example. Short of OCA strikes, when would you use that? I get the idea that the A/G supporters do a lot of Death Star trench run type stuff. Yes, THAT is very dangerous and does take skill. Its also, at best, not necessary, and at worst, suicidal. There's a reason strike aircraft have FLIR, Sniper Pods, laser emitters, radar, CCRP -- just like there's a reason why MANPADs exist. :)

 

I think its important to figure out what we mean by "air to air" and "air to ground". The answer is going to determine the realtive difficulty. A/A could mean dogfighting with any combination of guns or missiles or it could be BVR. A/G could be anything from WW2-style dive bombing and strafing to dropping a JDAM at 60k feet.

 

I personally do not consider helicopters as air to ground. To me, they're glass tanks that can fly at 120 mph and have a 14km range with their "main weapon". They use a totally different set of tactics from air to ground aircraft.

[Geier]

Heh. I remember one quote in particular: Fighter pilots make headlines. Bomber pilots make history. ;)

Did you based on the ww2 experience?

 

Since when is anything the "best" just because all the masses like it? By that notion, reality television and SUVs are the greatest things ever produced by mankind. :P

:megalol::megalol::megalol: