AV-8B is still pretty rough

[Fri13]

1 hour ago, cw4ogden said:

But it can be employed quite effectively as an attack asset, as it is.  There is very little, if anything still, that is "game-breaking".

I'm not advocating it is complete, just that it is no where near as bad as some of the pile on crowd would have you believe it is.

 

I think it would be better to explain that what is really broken or what is not.

Like I still consider for an Attack aircraft to be able use its main core targeting and navigation systems 100% reliably before calling it "not game-braking".

 

Like today I got on my common ARBS/TV + Mk.82 bombs testing mission a TV go crazy in two different ways.

1) After take-off the ARBS/TV turned itself On by itself and started to track something. I don't know what as it didn't show up in the EHSD or HUD. I couldn't undesignate but TV went to INS mode soon and then I couldn't get it back to locked to FPM. After playing around back and worth the NAV -> AG -> NAV -> AG I got finally the ARBS/TV back On and locked to FPM.

Then appeared another problem that I tested designation on front of me and it switched immediately to INS mode, but TD was set to proper location as EHSD did show. But, I couldn't get the ARBS/TV show up properly than over 30 degree left from the point, but never when flying toward the point, as well rolling any amount to right and the ARBS/TV gimballed out. After reloading the mission everything was again "normal".

 

2) Designating ARBS/TV using FPM on target 3 nmi ahead, and suddenly the TV starts to show like camera is hugging the ground, all I can see are just trees, terrain texture and all just flickering all over the screen, while I was flying level at 2000 ft. Did overpass of the target and the ARBS/TV turned back to INS mode automatically, was performing re-attack and turning to target at 5 nmi from opposite direction and same thing, TV screen just flickers all kind ground elements.

 

3) In two mission reloads couldn't get the AUTO mode work at all. Only way to get the AUTO release was to use CIP to designate target, but on flat terrain that TD was on moment of bombs release moved about 500-600 ft further distance, coming for re-attack 90 degree another direction and the TD was in totally different place than in the designation moment and what the ARBS/TV did show (target) until bombs release. So typical TD shifting randomly to completely different places.

 

The only way to get these documented would be to record every single flight with OBS, as the track files does not store anything that happens on the flight but gets broken or show totally different things.

 

Last update broke the night attack capabilities with the TPOD or using FLIR. I would say that is pretty "game-braking" element as Harrier is a Night Attack variant.

It is not just about that we would have problems with implemented systems and features, but we have improperly implemented systems and systems that has not yet been implemented at all.  But you do not get to know these things because reports gets moved to "Fixed" category even when the bugs exist for months or years.

[Fri13]

3 minutes ago, Hodo said:

The A-4E Skyhawk was used as an aggressor fighter by TOP GUN and well it was no fighter.  This doesn't mean that in a real world fight or in a DCS "real world" fight that it is a fighter or a good fighter or even a mediocre fighter.

 

Do you know why it was used even by TOP GUN? Because it is very maneuverable aircraft, just like why the BLUE ANGELS used it.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Hodo said:

The same goes for the AV8B NA.  I have the module I like it and I have used it for air to air.  But it is NO fighter.  

 

No, it is not a fighter, but that doesn't mean it is a bomber that can't maneuver or put up a challenging fight for fighters.

 

3 minutes ago, Hodo said:

It hemorrhages energy in a turn fight, one circle or two circle.  It has horrible low speed and high angle of attack handling.  It has a pretty poor sustained turn rate when compared to true fighters like the Hornet or Falcon.

 

And yet it can put up a fight.....

 

3 minutes ago, Hodo said:

It is like comparing the IL-2 to a bf-109F4.

 

Now that is just a wrong analogy... Better to stay in Harrier vs Hornet....

 

Now listen very carefully, no one is saying that Harrier is the superior fighter that can turn around any fighter at any given time etc.

It is that it is no where so bad as it is made to sound "It is just an Attack aircraft, it can't fight against fighters" and that is the problem.

 

Harriers do not fly solo, just like other fighters neither. The air combat starts with many different factors and they have more affect to what is ending than "Can I turn tighter" or "Can I accelerate faster" etc.

 

 

 

 

[Hodo]

44 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

Do you know why it was used even by TOP GUN? Because it is very maneuverable aircraft, just like why the BLUE ANGELS used it.

 

 

 

No, it is not a fighter, but that doesn't mean it is a bomber that can't maneuver or put up a challenging fight for fighters.

 

 

And yet it can put up a fight.....

 

 

Now that is just a wrong analogy... Better to stay in Harrier vs Hornet....

 

Now listen very carefully, no one is saying that Harrier is the superior fighter that can turn around any fighter at any given time etc.

It is that it is no where so bad as it is made to sound "It is just an Attack aircraft, it can't fight against fighters" and that is the problem.

 

Harriers do not fly solo, just like other fighters neither. The air combat starts with many different factors and they have more affect to what is ending than "Can I turn tighter" or "Can I accelerate faster" etc.

 

 

 

 

The Blue Angels have a history of flying the previous generation of attack or fighters from the USN.  So they went from the F6F to the soon F/A-18E Super Hornet.

 

The 18E is coming to the end of it's service life with the introduction of the F-35 Lightning II.   (Not going to debate this or argue this I have strong feelings against the 35.)

 

The only reason the Blue Angels used the A-4 was because the F-4 were in the process of being completely retired from USN service.  

 

The A-4 was still in service.  

 

It helps the A-4 has a really high roll rate but it has a rather poor power to weight ratio.  

 

 

[Wizard_03]

Maybe if the hornet driver fell asleep you'd have a shot. LOL If you don't slow down and don't go low and the harrier has zero chance of threatening you because It can't get into WEZ.

Edited February 10, 2021 by Wizard_03

[exhausted]

48 minutes ago, Wizard_03 said:

Maybe if the hornet driver fell asleep you'd have a shot. LOL If you don't slow down and don't go low and the harrier has zero chance of threatening you because It can't get into WEZ.

 

 

In a hypothetical 1v1 scenario, this is a possible case. But 2 v 2 or greater, then that advantage is seriously limited.

[cw4ogden]

2 hours ago, Fri13 said:

Last update broke the night attack capabilities with the TPOD or using FLIR. I would say that is pretty "game-braking" element as Harrier is a Night Attack variant.

It is not just about that we would have problems with implemented systems and features, but we have improperly implemented systems and systems that has not yet been implemented at all.  But you do not get to know these things because reports gets moved to "Fixed" category even when the bugs exist for months or years.

I'll admit I have no knowledge of DMT and I rarely if ever have used iron bombs.  Those things could well be broken and I'd just not know it.  

 

What's wrong with the FLIR?  I hadn't noticed anything and I use it day or night.

[Wizard_03]

57 minutes ago, exhausted said:

 

In a hypothetical 1v1 scenario, this is a possible case. But 2 v 2 or greater, then that advantage is seriously limited.

What does it matter how many? it could be 1v10 and it wouldn't matter because they can't get weapons on me unless 'I' decide to come down and and get slow for them. Its as basic as Dicta Boelcke. I have COMPLETE control over the engagement because I'm faster and can fly higher. Don't give that up and the harrier is 100 percent at my mercy. 

 

Nvmd the turn rate, energy management, and weapon system advantages the hornet has. None of that even needs to come into play, because I decide; if, when, where, and how the fight happens. The harrier doesn't get a say in any of that.

Edited February 10, 2021 by Wizard_03

[Harlikwin]

9 hours ago, Fri13 said:

And if in a BVR a doppler notching is so critical, it would be funny to try to just hover in BVR fight while lobbying AIM-120's at the target when it is completely incapable even see you while you are in hover or at so slow beaming speed. But that is just a fictional and hypothetical capability.

 

Amusingly there is a guy that is (in)famous for doing exactly this with the harrier in the online community. Using Aim9's obviously.

[Fri13]

18 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Amusingly there is a guy that is (in)famous for doing exactly this with the harrier in the online community. Using Aim9's obviously.

 

LOL....

 

Waiting to get AIM-120 to his arsenal... Then it becomes a deadly AIM-120 sentry in the air

[Draken35]

5 hours ago, Fri13 said:

 

 

Like today I got on my common ARBS/TV + Mk.82 bombs testing mission a TV go crazy in two different ways.

1) After take-off the ARBS/TV turned itself On by itself and started to track something. I don't know what as it didn't show up in the EHSD or HUD. I couldn't undesignate but TV went to INS mode soon and then I couldn't get it back to locked to FPM. After playing around back and worth the NAV -> AG -> NAV -> AG I got finally the ARBS/TV back On and locked to FPM.

 

 

@Fri13Are you using a TM Warthog with the TDC axes mapped to the slew nipple/mini mouse thingy by any chance ? I have and experience something similar when my finger touches it while moving the throttle ... It is kind of detecting a TDC down even though my TDC down is mapped to a different button and I have nothing mapped to the slew nipple press action...

[Harlikwin]

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

 

LOL....

 

Waiting to get AIM-120 to his arsenal... Then it becomes a deadly AIM-120 sentry in the air

 

Yeah, well like I said he is (in)famous. He has a loong list of folks (victims) that don't appreciate his antics. Though the usual tactic is to fly somewhere, land, wait for a passerby and using the excellent low level flight performance/acceleration, blammo, with a stealth fox2. 

Frankly, David Attenborough should come back to life to make an episode about him. 

[Fri13]

1 hour ago, Draken35 said:

 

@Fri13Are you using a TM Warthog with the TDC axes mapped to the slew nipple/mini mouse thingy by any chance ? I have and experience something similar when my finger touches it while moving the throttle ... It is kind of detecting a TDC down even though my TDC down is mapped to a different button and I have nothing mapped to the slew nipple press action...

 

Nope. This similar kind things happens with:

 

Thrustmaster TWS

CH Pro Throttle (expected by default have a large deadzone avoid ghosting)

VKB MCG PRO.

 

The designation just happens even when the is no binding, and to wrong places too.

 

I can't track problem down as it is so absurd. Like today was going to fly toward designated wpt 3 and checking the FPM arrow for attack guidance how it disappears too soon and points oddly wrong. And suddenly the arrow points about 45° to right, middle of nowhere. Even when TD is straight ahead. And there is no way that TD can be made somewhere where FPM is not.

[Draken35]

bummer.... I have an upgraded slew switch inbound and was hopping that was the solution...

 

I'm having fun with the Harrier but kinda frustrated at the same time with all of these issue, specially the readability of the cockpit. Today I decided to jump into the Hornet's cockpit and boy! Those MFD's and instruments are gorgeous ! I can read them very easily with the same setup which I cannot read the Harrier's! I'm sure the Hornet has its own issues as well, I haven't really done much with it yet I have the feeling that is about to change.

 

The discussion here, inspired this newbie to do some dogfighting... AV8B vs A4E 2.0 and F18C vs A4E. The rookie IA on the A4 kicked my rear end on the Harrier... But I easily defeated it with the Hornet.... The A4 had Sidewinders, I had only guns....  For what its worth ...

[Fri13]

5 hours ago, Draken35 said:

bummer.... I have an upgraded slew switch inbound and was hopping that was the solution...

 

The warthog throttle user deserves the upgrade, regardless of anything. As the official hat is said to be designed such that it is not great.

 

5 hours ago, Draken35 said:

I'm having fun with the Harrier but kinda frustrated at the same time with all of these issue, specially the readability of the cockpit.

 

To me the Harrier is like self inflicted wound. It is so much more fun to fly compared to hornet or A-10 that you want to come back to it as it mission capabilities and user interface is so great. (Listen the Fighter Pilot Podcast, where the Harrier pilot praises the cockpit design to be best in west, better even than what F-35 does have).

 

5 hours ago, Draken35 said:

Today I decided to jump into the Hornet's cockpit and boy! Those MFD's and instruments are gorgeous ! I can read them very easily with the same setup which I cannot read the Harrier's! I'm sure the Hornet has its own issues as well, I haven't really done much with it yet I have the feeling that is about to change.

 

Well, hopefully we get on next patch the fix....

Btw, I first read that you meant Harrier, how well you can read it displays etc, and I got confused, as I wanted the same as you that all is readable.... Boy did I get down when noticed my mistake that you talked about Hornet.

 

5 hours ago, Draken35 said:

The discussion here, inspired this newbie to do some dogfighting... AV8B vs A4E 2.0 and F18C vs A4E. The rookie IA on the A4 kicked my rear end on the Harrier... But I easily defeated it with the Hornet.... The A4 had Sidewinders, I had only guns....  For what its worth ...

 

The Harrier requires learning how to handle it. The Hornet by default give great benefits to point nose where wanted.

Like I wrote on another thread, my personal favorite is Su-27S, it is because so long time spent learning it, but as well it is most maneuverable fighter in DCS. And pilot can do things with it that others can't. But when you start to put time to learn it well, it will surprise. Through discipline you can make it wild things and control authority makes it feel really like a Ali Muhammad vs anyone, dancing around the opponents.

 

The Harrier is a own unique aircraft, demanding time to learn as there isn't such automated systems that Hornet does. But Harrier has different capabilities and characteristics that can surprise Harrier pilot when learned.

[Hawkeye_UK]

18 hours ago, Hodo said:

The A-4E Skyhawk was used as an aggressor fighter by TOP GUN and well it was no fighter.  This doesn't mean that in a real world fight or in a DCS "real world" fight that it is a fighter or a good fighter or even a mediocre fighter.  

 

The same goes for the AV8B NA.  I have the module I like it and I have used it for air to air.  But it is NO fighter.  

 

It hemorrhages energy in a turn fight, one circle or two circle.  It has horrible low speed and high angle of attack handling.  It has a pretty poor sustained turn rate when compared to true fighters like the Hornet or Falcon.  

 

It is like comparing the IL-2 to a bf-109F4.

 

And that my friend is not the full picture.  Why try and fight to the strength of your opponent, it's about the worst thing you can do.

 

In the right player the Harrier is extremely useful, i have lost count of the amount of tomcats / viper / hornets i have virtually shot down.  The biggest mistake you can force is the overshoot and many players just don't anticipate it early enough.  The harriers ability to lose energy is unmatched in game or for that matter its "thrust vectoring" akak viff.  You highlight it as a negative aspect however if flown correctly its actually a key attribute in winning a fight.  Also it is no slouch when unloading.  The key is getting to fox 2 range / the merge.  

 

The safest tactic against a harrier is to stay high at distance and fox 3, but if your over mountains and you go down to play you could very well have your pants pulled down and spanked.

 

Also i would recommend reading Shaw's book on BFM if you can get a copy, as relevant today as it was the day it was written all those years ago.  There are also guides that will take you through basic BFM. 

Edited February 11, 2021 by Hawkeye_UK

[Hodo]

3 hours ago, Hawkeye_UK said:

 

And that my friend is not the full picture.  Why try and fight to the strength of your opponent, it's about the worst thing you can do.

 

In the right player the Harrier is extremely useful, i have lost count of the amount of tomcats / viper / hornets i have virtually shot down.  The biggest mistake you can force is the overshoot and many players just don't anticipate it early enough.  The harriers ability to lose energy is unmatched in game or for that matter its "thrust vectoring" akak viff.  You highlight it as a negative aspect however if flown correctly its actually a key attribute in winning a fight.  Also it is no slouch when unloading.  The key is getting to fox 2 range / the merge.  

 

The safest tactic against a harrier is to stay high at distance and fox 3, but if your over mountains and you go down to play you could very well have your pants pulled down and spanked.

 

Also i would recommend reading Shaw's book on BFM if you can get a copy, as relevant today as it was the day it was written all those years ago.  There are also guides that will take you through basic BFM. 

 

Like every engagement the tactics used to survive will have to be flexible.  If you have the luxury of keeping distance do it.  If you don't you should know what your enemy is capable of.  Don't underestimate the capability of their aircraft or the pilot.  And lastly fight to your strengths not theirs.  Force them to fight on your terms if able.

 

These are the things I do in a Mirage to be successful against spamraam trucks.  And it works even in other fox-1 aircraft like the Mig-29 and Su-27/33. 

 

I am sure you can use a variation of this for the Harrier but in close the Harrier is at a major disadvantage due to its lower energy state.  

 

I like the Harrier but the version we have is no fighter.  That would be like strapping lipstick on a warthog and calling it your prom date.

[exhausted]

On 2/10/2021 at 2:03 PM, Wizard_03 said:

What does it matter how many? it could be 1v10 and it wouldn't matter because they can't get weapons on me unless 'I' decide to come down and and get slow for them. Its as basic as Dicta Boelcke. I have COMPLETE control over the engagement because I'm faster and can fly higher. Don't give that up and the harrier is 100 percent at my mercy. 

 

Nvmd the turn rate, energy management, and weapon system advantages the hornet has. None of that even needs to come into play, because I decide; if, when, where, and how the fight happens. The harrier doesn't get a say in any of that.

 

 

You are perfectly free to take yourself out of the fight to avoid a couple Harriers. But just be aware they can climb with an F-15. So if you want to make a point of you vs 100 Harriers, you'll just have 100 Harriers on your butt until you finally reach your golden perch.

[Wizard_03]

1 hour ago, exhausted said:

 

You are perfectly free to take yourself out of the fight to avoid a couple Harriers. But just be aware they can climb with an F-15. So if you want to make a point of you vs 100 Harriers, you'll just have 100 Harriers on your butt until you finally reach your golden perch.

Yes exactly, first and foremost I have that option, harriers don't. Second, a million harriers behind me isn't threat if they can't get into parameters. How are they going to catch me above mach 1 or at altitude, when I control the closure rate? Because this whole conversation is predicated on the harrier being a threat to the hornet.

 

Third and most importantly, by being able to choose when 'I' want to attack I can negate their clime rate advantage or any other advantage they might possess by simply not attacking when that might be a factor for them, and conversely attacking when it is the most favorable for the hornet.

 

I suppose I could envision a scenario where a hornet pilot might be Caught low and slow, and the harrier is the one that gets the jump on it. But again it would require the pilot to be asleep or so green he smells like grass. Neither of which are best practice planning rules for the harrier. Because by that reasoning a Mi-8 is a threat to the hornet. Or I should say, Its a threat if you let it become one, by getting yourself in a situation where it has a shot at you.

 

The only way the harrier wins is if you let it, by playing its game and trying to fight it where its more even and it comes down to pilot greatness. There's a great many scenarios where the hornet wins by just being better at xyz.

[exhausted]

All that is true. But if you just want to avoid a fight then you can't brag about winning or beating them. To me, that seems to make this angle moot.

[Fri13]

16 hours ago, Hodo said:

That would be like strapping lipstick on a warthog and calling it your prom date.

 

I think you have offended many people with that comment....

[Fri13]

5 hours ago, Wizard_03 said:

Yes exactly, first and foremost I have that option, harriers don't. Second, a million harriers behind me isn't threat if they can't get into parameters. How are they going to catch me above mach 1 or at altitude, when I control the closure rate? Because this whole conversation is predicated on the harrier being a threat to the hornet.

 

The conversation was not about is a Harrier a threat to a Hornet in every possible scenario. As it is not when other doesn't have BVR capability at this moment (it does when we get to buy the AV-8B+ as Razbam has promixed) as you can engage from the BVR distance instead getting anywhere in danger. But, your BVR weapons are not magical. When the Harriers are defending an area, they can notch, jam and chaff your BVR advantage out, forcing you either to engage them at the close or you to stay out of the mission.

 

No matter even todays Stealth technologies, the fight will eventually lead to visual range, to closer ranges where Stealth factors are gone. The only advantage the Stealth designs and covers are is that you shrink the engagement with BVR weapons to 50-60 km ranges. You are not stealthy as AWACS and especially EW radars see you from hundreds of kilometers distance. The advantage is that you can not be engaged with X-band radar guided weapon. That is why there comes the modern ECM capabilities where the detection is even denied and even if detected, the locking capability and accurate detection are denied. Again, forcing to merge and go with heat seekers.

 

You can try to think you are winning the war from the distance, but it does not help when you can not get your mission goals done. That is either denying enemy entering to your airspace that is to protect ground forces, difficult to do, eventually they get in. Or then to get inside a enemy airspace where you need to deliver weapon on the ground and it is protected by air patrols.

 

That is why you do not go to fight a fair fight, you go to fight with superior tactics or numbers. Major count of the US air victories are in 5:1 situations, so even hen there was two MiG-23 shot down by two F-15, there was another 6 F-15's in the area to play the game to deny the MiG-23 fight as no matter where they would go, they get attacked from vulnerable position.

That is what makes the Falkland war interesting as Harriers were in 4:1 situation where Argentina had 4x more aircraft. But UK had the advantage in the range, and it was not all fights in 4:1 situation. When other is required to return to base because limited fuel, they have limited changes to perform any fight compared to fighters that has more than enough to fight twice the required time. If you are tasked to deliver the bombs on target, it does not help that you would drop the bombs and go fight against fighters as you just could have staid home as you were not performing your commanded task.

 

All designs since WW2 has changed a lot, where we had specialized bombers, fighters, attack aircraft at early of war, and then later started to appear bomber-fighters so multiple tasks can be performed. Later on the multi-role fighters appeared. It was not anymore enough that your aircraft was just dropping bombs and then going home or being fighter, but you needed capability to fight your way in the protected area, deliver your bombs and fight your way out.

 

And key thing is, "fight in" and "fight out" is not same thing as "killing enemy fighters". But denying the enemy from stopping your attack, and then clear the way to get out of the area and escape to home. If your mission is to destroy the bridge or damage the energy factory, that is your mission and you need to be able get to do that, not to destroy enemy fighters stopping you. If you destroy the target and you get back to home without any hits to enemy fighters, it is 100% mission success.

 

Harrier can do that in limited manner, and AV-8B+ can completely do that. But even there the attack group is more of a 1:3 ratio with AV-8B N/A and AV-8B+ combined, where one part is tasked to attack and other part to defend the attackers, clear the hole.

 

5 hours ago, Wizard_03 said:

Third and most importantly, by being able to choose when 'I' want to attack I can negate their clime rate advantage or any other advantage they might possess by simply not attacking when that might be a factor for them, and conversely attacking when it is the most favorable for the hornet.

 

As defender you do not have that luxury, when the attacker is coming, you need to be right there to stop them. You can not choose that you are not going to engage them now, as they have the advantage. Either you stop them from completing the mission, or you stay away and let enemy win.

 

5 hours ago, Wizard_03 said:

I suppose I could envision a scenario where a hornet pilot might be Caught low and slow, and the harrier is the one that gets the jump on it.

 

What is with this "Hornet pilot caught slow and low" or "get jump on it from the rear" way of thinking?

 

 

5 hours ago, Wizard_03 said:

But again it would require the pilot to be asleep or so green he smells like grass.

 

Nope.

 

5 hours ago, Wizard_03 said:

Neither of which are best practice planning rules for the harrier. Because by that reasoning a Mi-8 is a threat to the hornet. Or I should say, Its a threat if you let it become one, by getting yourself in a situation where it has a shot at you.

 

The war is about information. Information that is gathered by intelligence. Example the air patrols routes and places can be known, and attack is planned so that it is timed such way that CAP has limited fuel or they are in disadvantage position when the commands are received on detection of attack.

You are not there to do 1 vs 1 situations or 2 vs 2. It is a complex war scenario where other is tasked to destroy something and other is to defend it.

 

This is why sports like a rugby or baseball are great as they teach tactics and strategies. All the time the important part of the game changes, the focus needs to change that what is the place and time you need to concentrate and when to switch it elsewhere.

 

5 hours ago, Wizard_03 said:

The only way the harrier wins is if you let it, by playing its game and trying to fight it where its more even and it comes down to pilot greatness. There's a great many scenarios where the hornet wins by just being better at xyz.

 

It is not about pilot greatness even, it is what is the purpose of the missions. AV-8B N/A is not sent to go BVR against a fighter with BVR capability. They are used such a way that Hornet pilot has no other change than enter to the field where the Harrier operates. Either you play, or you let the Harrier team win.

You are just trying to argue that Harrier N/A needs to come to play the game of Hornets, while that is untrue.

 

A common attack mission is not to go destroy the air-defense, their mission is to get to the area that is defended by the air-defense. That is the goal. Three parties: defended, defender and attacker. If the defender can not deny attacker getting in and destroying defended then game is over.

Then there are other players, for a SEAD and DEAD missions. They are not there to attack the defended, but to engage the defenders. They can perform distraction to defenders so they can't stop attacker reaching defended. Or they can engage defenders so later on attacker can start controlling the area.

 

The fight can be like sports, team A and team B. Team A defended is a bridge or a factory. Defended by the AA in the area. Team B attacker is trying to bomb those. The team A has CAP to engage possible attack group. But the team B has fighters to engage the CAP. And team B has a SEAD/DEAD to protect the attack group.

The Hornet CAP is against multiple different groups, it needs to see the enemy game and pick the fight that helps to defend the bridge/factory.

It can be that it needs to focus to stop SEAD/DEAD as otherwise air defense goes down and it can't stop attack group. And it might need to go through the fighters to do so. It might need to let the attack group go as that is job of the air defense. Or it can go straight to the attack group to assist air defense, rendering the whole attack group mission invalid, but it will have fighters and even SEAD/DEAD all over it and the attack group is capable defend themselves as well.

 

It comes to tactical positioning, timing and strategy. Where the Hornet pilot can not just "fly high and fast and I control who I engage".

 

This is why the DCS World does not simulate a modern war as it lacks the ground units and the capability play the game as RTS game. The units are idiotic because it requires too heavy scripting that is not flexible. There is no communications, there are no prioritizes there is nothing that makes DCS World combat to be even partially realistic.

It is great to build a scenarios and stories that are scripted from one point of view. Like "Fly there and bomb the factory" and the game is played all the time same way.

This is why the scripting engine needs to go and it needs to be replaced by the real world military command structure and planning. Where goals are given, defended areas, routes. There is requirement to have primary, secondary and tertiary objectives, routes and positions. To have a flexibility in ROE by the engagement lines, times, and exceptions.

It can't be scripted, it is required to be controlled by the AI that operates by the basic rules, fear, moral, heroism, health, vision, risk analyzes and commands, as all is based to basic training and expected capabilities of the unit.

 

In DCS there is nothing like that. The closest thing there comes is simple script value "Group alive less than __%". There is nothing to do when a unit detects fear, does the risk analysis that new tactic is required or so on.

Even the human pilots does not do anything for this because everyone know that no harm will happen to them if they get shot down, or if they eject or they die. There is no fear, no questioning for any tactic. It is just respawning and repeating.

 

And that is what is core problems in the DCS world that people get these silly ideas that they can just have fun when trying something idiotic. Just so that they can make a nice youtube video about it or so on.

We don't even have a realistic G forces effects.

So far almost all online servers (where the player vs player happens) are without clouds and default daytime. Scenarios are silly and support random soloing etc.

One side is denied to get a proper tactical datalink between flight group and air defense groups....

We do not have proper intelligence gathering and network that is factoring to everything from air-to-air and air-to-ground as well ground-to-ground and ground-to-air.

 

At least we are getting now the new weather engine that should make a huge difference to the combat how it is played as visual capabilities are changed, between air and the ground.

 

Yes, we can play the hypothetical game 1 Hornet vs 1 Harrier and play the idea that Hornet can keep distance and control time and decide when the engage. But that is not how the war happens and goes. Radars are not so capable and effective as in DCS. The Hornet radar is too capable. The BVR weapons are too capable.

 

 

 

 

[Wizard_03]

7 hours ago, exhausted said:

All that is true. But if you just want to avoid a fight then you can't brag about winning or beating them. To me, that seems to make this angle moot.

I'm talking about dogfighting. These principles apply to ACM. I don't need to get into a clime race with the harrier. I don't need to start in a neutral position. I can get the initiative before the first turn because I will have an energy advantage. 

 

Even I were to screw up, I can run away and come back and start over. There's no situation where the harrier is dictating to me how the fight goes. Its completely the other way around. Harrier is reacting to my decisions because I start with the advantages and it's only up to me to keep them. 

[Dragon1-1]

Your energy may not be good for much because the Harrier is an angles fighter. On top of its tight turn radius, it's got a very large arsenal of tricks that are designed to make you overshoot, which you simply cannot follow it through if you don't have thrust vectoring. Once you're committed to a turning fight, you can't just extend at will, you'll eat a Sidewinder if you try to just turn tail. Both USMC and the Brits have, over the years, developed a whole host of techniques designed to turn tables on otherwise better performing aircraft. 

 

Also, consider this: Harrier has no radar. No radar means no RWR. Your SA will suffer in this scenario, making your job harder, particularly when the Harrier decides to pull one of its TVC tricks. If you lose tally an an aircraft like that, you won't find it again. It's a problem against any aircraft, but the Harrier, when flown right, really gives you no room for error.

[Hodo]

2 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Your energy may not be good for much because the Harrier is an angles fighter. On top of its tight turn radius, it's got a very large arsenal of tricks that are designed to make you overshoot, which you simply cannot follow it through if you don't have thrust vectoring. Once you're committed to a turning fight, you can't just extend at will, you'll eat a Sidewinder if you try to just turn tail. Both USMC and the Brits have, over the years, developed a whole host of techniques designed to turn tables on otherwise better performing aircraft. 

 

Also, consider this: Harrier has no radar. No radar means no RWR. Your SA will suffer in this scenario, making your job harder, particularly when the Harrier decides to pull one of its TVC tricks. If you lose tally an an aircraft like that, you won't find it again. It's a problem against any aircraft, but the Harrier, when flown right, really gives you no room for error.

The last part is true of most fighters.

 

 

[Dragon1-1]

Yes, and I have mentioned that, but the Harrier, like most ground attack jets, is especially tricky owing to total lack of any RWR indications from it. Most jets that have a radar will keep it on in a dogfight, telling you when they acquire you and start lining up for a shot, which gives you a last-second chance to defend. No such luck with the Harrier.