Numerical Advantage (OT moved out of the R-27ET thread)

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

I understand. The 0.6 Pk is a real-world figure, counting all missile launches and hits, including duplicate missiles (ie. multiple missiles on same target) or missiles launched in poor parameters.

This is in the real world of overwhelming numerical and technological superiority.

 

FC puts F-15 in tougher position, no numerical advantage there, and no massive technological advantage either.

 

Therefore, in Flaming Cliffs, AIM-120’s are not launched from the most favorable tactical positions. And they miss. What’s wrong with that?

[GGTharos]

What's wrong is that this technological advantage needs to be reflected in the sim.

[D-Scythe]

This is in the real world of overwhelming numerical and technological superiority.

 

Are you still on about that? The F-15s enjoyed NO NUMERCIAL superiority in any battle - just because there are 100 F-15s in the theatre versus 20 MiG-29s doesn't mean that 5 F-15s will simultaneously engage 1 MiG-29 in every battle.

 

The F-15 has never enjoyed a significant local numerical supremacy - ever.

 

FC puts F-15 in tougher position, no numerical advantage there, and no massive technological advantage either.

 

Wrong again. The AIM-120/F-15C combination enjoys a MASSIVE technological supremacy over first generation MiG-29s and Su-27s - just like a Su-27SM would enjoy technological supremacy over the first generation F-15A.

 

Get over it.

[Kuky]

Are you still on about that? The F-15s enjoyed NO NUMERCIAL superiority in any battle - just because there are 100 F-15s in the theatre versus 20 MiG-29s doesn't mean that 5 F-15s will simultaneously engage 1 MiG-29 in every battle.

 

Sorry to say but, what the hell are you on about? You don't consider 100x F-15's in air vs 20x MiG's a considerate numerical advantage? :music_whistling:

[GGTharos]

While there were more F-15C's than MiG-29's in the theatre (were there?), the actual engagements were typically equal force where F-15's and MiG-29's were involved, or at worst 2v1's, AFAIK.

[D-Scythe]

Sorry to say but, what the hell are you on about? You don't consider 100x F-15's in air vs 20x MiG's a considerate numerical advantage? :music_whistling:

 

What GG said. Those 100 F-15s would not be in the air all at the same time, and those that are flying would be split across the entire theatre of battle for Escort, MiGCAP and fighter sweep duties.

 

Or did you really think air battles are fought when both sides deploy their entire fleet of their best fighters and duke it in the sky over the course of one day.

 

USAF General: "Hey, I'll send all 100 of my F-15s 40 miles South of Belgrade, I'll see ya there bud!"

Serb Air Force General: "Great, I'll send all 20 of my MiGs there too. Loser buys the next round!"

 

Sorry to burst your bubble Kuky with a little sprinkle of reality.

 

While there were more F-15C's than MiG-29's in the theatre (were there?), the actual engagements were typically equal force where F-15's and MiG-29's were involved, or at worst 2v1's, AFAIK.

 

In Allied Force, the number of (permanently stationed) F-15Cs and MiG-29s in the theatre were about the same - IIRC there were 12 single-seat MiG-29As in the SAF and 12 F-15Cs from the 493rd FS deployed to Cervia Air Base.

 

In Desert Storm, about 120 F-15Cs were deployed to the Middle East, to fight an Iraqi Air Force of 600+ fighters. Again, the F-15s never enjoyed local numerical supremacy in 95% of its battles.

[Teknetinium]

What GG said. Those 100 F-15s would not be in the air all at the same time, and those that are flying would be split across the entire theatre of battle for Escort, MiGCAP and fighter sweep duties.

 

Or did you really think air battles are fought when both sides deploy their entire fleet of their best fighters and duke it in the sky over the course of one day.

 

USAF General: "Hey, I'll send all 100 of my F-15s 40 miles South of Belgrade, I'll see ya there bud!"

Serb Air Force General: "Great, I'll send all 20 of my MiGs there too. Loser buys the next round!"

 

Sorry to burst your bubble Kuky with a little sprinkle of reality.

 

 

 

In Allied Force, the number of (permanently stationed) F-15Cs and MiG-29s in the theatre were about the same - IIRC there were 12 single-seat MiG-29As in the SAF and 12 F-15Cs from the 493rd FS deployed to Cervia Air Base.

 

In Desert Storm, about 120 F-15Cs were deployed to the Middle East, to fight an Iraqi Air Force of 600+ fighters. Again, the F-15s never enjoyed local numerical supremacy in 95% of its battles.

 

 

ye but everything els that is in the air like jammer plains awacs cruse missiles all that is not interfering the bandits , it doesnt or what :joystick: Im not trying to say that Mig-29A is better then F-15A/C but the fight was never fear, just deal whit it. And dont try to make the F-15 or f-16 look good becouse of them bringing down some half working piss off shit plains, it dosent.

[D-Scythe]

ye but everything els that is in the air like jammer plains awacs cruse missiles all that is not interfering the bandits , it doesnt or what :joystick:

 

I'm sorry, how exactly do cruise missiles contribute to air-to-air combat?

 

Im not trying to say that Mig-29A is better then F-15A/C but the fight was never fear, just deal whit it. And dont try to make the F-15 or f-16 look good becouse of them bringing down some half working piss off shit plains, it dosent.

 

The fight was unfair because it was 1 or 2 or 3 MiG-29s going up against 2 F-15Cs with AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles and AWACs support.

 

Numerical superiority had nothing to do with it when you're going up against such formidable opponents, no matter how badly you and your people try to make the F-15 or F-16 look.

[Teknetinium]

I'm sorry, how exactly do cruise missiles contribute to air-to-air combat?

 

 

 

The fight was unfair because it was 1 or 2 or 3 MiG-29s going up against 2 F-15Cs with AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles and AWACs support.

 

Numerical superiority had nothing to do with it when you're going up against such formidable opponents, no matter how badly you and your people try to make the F-15 or F-16 look.

 

F-15/16/18 are grate machines but I have another philosophy when it comes to wining a air to air combat then you.

[GGTharos]

Well, no one ever accused you of having realistic air to air combat philosophies, so that's okay :D

[nscode]

I'm sorry, how exactly do cruise missiles contribute to air-to-air combat?

 

 

Eeeer... it being an aditional target? And one that actually has grater priority than a fighter.

 

No numerical superiority? Man, they were arguing whose missile did the actual hit.

[Teknetinium]

Realistic would be Su-30MKI agains F-15E,

[GGTharos]

As far as F-15's are concerned, wasn't that only in the splash-two incident due to 3 missiles being launched at 2 aircraft?

 

No numerical superiority? Man, they were arguing whose missile did the actual hit.

[GGTharos]

You must have a different definition of 'realistic' than the rest of the world.

This would be an interesting match, but it is by no means 'realistic'.

 

Realistic would be Su-30MKI agains F-15E,

[Teknetinium]

GG u are not the world :)

[Boberro]

And dont try to make the F-15 or f-16 look good becouse of them bringing down some half working piss off shit plains, it dosent.

 

Agreed. This is why I'm laughing of people who says after fights these type (AFAIK it was only these type fights...), this "plane is better or even the best". It is no value of plane.

:)

[Cosmonaut]

Well Kuky does make a valid point regarding overwhelming force applied to a very small threat.

 

The idea that the USAF had waves of fighters and decided to shoot from the hip and allow a fair fight with the Migs or any other engagement is just insane. This is the difference between real pilots and VP pilots. Real pilots don't see any merit in selling their side as being as weak as their opponent especially when up against such a weak enemy.

 

The USAF hasn't faced an A2A opponent that was realistically capable of shooting anything down when up against so much air power since Vietnam . This is a credit to how well oiled the USAF actually is and the smartest thing an enemy can do is to berry their fighters in the sand and hope to weather the onslaught. I mean no F15 has ever been shot down but how many USAF A10's have been shot down by an A2A missile...? In fact when was the last time any aircraft in the US inventory was shot down by an airborne aggressor?

 

Trying to sell any engagement of the USAF post Nam as anything other than a turkey shoot is as misguided as believing the F15 is not the best fighter in the world (save 4th, 5th gen fighters of course). The Eagle and Ammram partnership builds on the same idea that the USAF have been building on since WWII. And that is to make a fighter easy to use with a weapons system that doesn't require an ACE to get a kill.. Why? Well becasue it's the average pilot that wins a war. P51/47/ F86/ etc All great fighters that used the same weapons system, 50 cal machine guns when everyone else was using cannons, which required a much higher skill level to hit a target. Squeezing the trigger on four to eight 50's means you're gonna hit something... Pure genius IMO and most other countries don't really consider the entire package when integrating a fighter into a winning "Airforce".

 

Now if the Eagle and it's weapons system were modeled in LO as they should be then you better believe they would be much more deadly than they are right now, but anything is beatable it just means tactics have to be adjusted ie stay out of the NEZ ;) etc.

 

 

Edit: berry huh.. lol I meant bury.

[GGTharos]

I don't need to be the world. I just need to be familiar with the meaning of the word realism and a bunch of facts.

 

I'd certainly try not to mistake fantasy with realism as you have done.

 

You could look both up in the dictionary. I encourage it :D

 

GG u are not the world :)

[Teknetinium]

facts off F-15C engaging Mig-29A whit one engine :).

[D-Scythe]

Well Kuky does make a valid point regarding overwhelming force applied to a very small threat.

 

The idea that the USAF had waves of fighters and decided to shoot from the hip and allow a fair fight with the Migs or any other engagement is just insane. This is the difference between real pilots and VP pilots. Real pilots don't see any merit in selling their side as being as weak as their opponent especially when up against such a weak enemy.

 

The USAF hasn't faced an A2A opponent that was realistically capable of shooting anything down when up against so much air power since Vietnam . This is a credit to how well oiled the USAF actually is and the smartest thing an enemy can do is to berry their fighters in the sand and hope to weather the onslaught. I mean no F15 has ever been shot down but how many USAF A10's have been shot down by an A2A missile...? In fact when was the last time any aircraft in the US inventory was shot down by an airborne aggressor?

 

Trying to sell any engagement of the USAF post Nam as anything other than a turkey shoot is as misguided as believing the F15 is not the best fighter in the world (save 4th, 5th gen fighters of course). The Eagle and Ammram partnership builds on the same idea that the USAF have been building on since WWII. And that is to make a fighter easy to use with a weapons system that doesn't require an ACE to get a kill.. Why? Well becasue it's the average pilot that wins a war. P51/47/ F86/ etc All great fighters that used the same weapons system, 50 cal machine guns when everyone else was using cannons, which required a much higher skill level to hit a target. Squeezing the trigger on four to eight 50's means you're gonna hit something... Pure genius IMO and most other countries don't really consider the entire package when integrating a fighter into a winning "Airforce".

 

Now if the Eagle and it's weapons system were modeled in LO as they should be then you better believe they would be much more deadly than they are right now, but anything is beatable it just means tactics have to be adjusted ie stay out of the NEZ ;) etc.

 

Absolutely agreed. Again, it wasn't fair, but it wasn't because there were more F-15s - i.e. it wasn't because of a numerical superiority - was the point I was trying to get across :)

 

Eeeer... it being an aditional target? And one that actually has grater priority than a fighter.

 

No numerical superiority? Man, they were arguing whose missile did the actual hit.

 

That "argument" on whose AMRAAM actually killed a MiG happened only once, on the third day of war - and it was between the flight lead and his wingman - the only 2 F-15s that participated in that 2 Vs 3 engagement, ironically the only engagement where in Allied Force where F-15s were out-numbered.

 

Making mountains out of mole hills?

[Pilotasso]

Agreed. This is why I'm laughing of people who says after fights these type (AFAIK it was only these type fights...), this "plane is better or even the best". It is no value of plane.

:)

 

Probably because people confuse sentimental apreciation with combat potential,and put misplaced coments and end up talking about different things. :)

[GGTharos]

Facts are there were enough F-15C v working Mig-29A's engagements. Try looking at -all- the facts, not just the ones -you- like.

 

facts off F-15C engaging Mig-29A whit one engine :).

[Pilotasso]

The USAF hasn't faced an A2A opponent that was realistically capable of shooting anything down when up against so much air power since Vietnam . This is a credit to how well oiled the USAF actually is and the smartest thing an enemy can do is to berry their fighters in the sand and hope to weather the onslaught. I mean no F15 has ever been shot down but how many USAF A10's have been shot down by an A2A missile...? In fact when was the last time any aircraft in the US inventory was shot down by an airborne aggressor?

 

Trying to sell any engagement of the USAF post Nam as anything other than a turkey shoot is as misguided as believing the F15 is not the best fighter in the world (save 4th, 5th gen fighters of course).

 

 

I disagree with this to a point. I have to say that US was not the only country to employ US manufactured aircraft. Israel has donne it and in numerical disavantage. F-15's were bloodied as they came off the crates from the US, a bunch at a time. It didnt so with the sparrow, it did with sidwinders and guns, precisely the migs strongest points.

 

However extrapolating these first engements to current day would be a deadly mistake, since we came along way from the unreliable BVR missilery from vietnam.

 

Comparing the A-10 record to riducule that of F-15 is a crazy thought. It opens up the doors for all kinds of absurd ideas wich have no place in any serious debate concerning AA aviation.

[RedTiger]

I've been reading this one since it got off track and figured I'd chime in with my hypothesis. For around 50 years you had two opposing factions competing with each other. Sometimes they had technological parity, other times not. Towards the end of that period (1970s-1980s), one side intentionally focused on pulling ahead of the other, even to the point of risking severe economic problems (don't believe me? go read up on the GDI "Star Wars" project -- that was "miraculously" dropped and swept under the rug shortly after the USSR's collapse -- and the effects it would have had). The idea wasn't just to gain an advantage, it was also a very well-educated guess that the other guy couldn't keep up. While one side would be damaged, the other side would face collapse.

 

Ok, so the other guy tried to keep up, did a fairly decent job of it for a while, but did end up collapasing, admittedly from other internal reasons, mostly. The point is that their technology for all practical purposes stopped advancing. The MiG-29A was an example of their "state of the art". And I mean that literally -- it wasn't cutting edge, there were more advanced versions being tested and designed, but it truly was an example of the general state of their technology. I'd dare say it was a very valid threat in its day, especially in greater numbers with the proper support.

 

The thing is, while one guy stopped advancing, the other didn't. So therefore, ANY comparison between their technology today is going to seem invalid and unrealistic, when infact, its the exact opposite. It is totally valid and a very true reflection of the state of things.

[Pilotasso]

^^^^very true. Also people can be very cynical and hypocrital about jumping into a naysaying bandwaggon. The motives for that often have has nothing to do with what is being talked about.