F-14A has become my primary ride

[Victory205]

On 3/11/2021 at 3:22 PM, SgtPappy said:

This is such a great story, I can't get enough!

 

It's so great to hear what aircraft transitions were like and how fiercely loyal people are with their favourite jets. 

 

Truth is the F-4s and the F-14 (especially the A) have so much history and endless combat accolades with both the US and other countries who used them in combat (i.e. Iran and Israel). They are ace makers. 

 

@Victory205 I am curious about something based on your post - maybe it's been asked before but how easy/hard was it to keep track of these low fighters in TWS? In DCS, I've understood that it's quite realistic for the AWG-9 to lose track fairly easily against a beaming target near the ground and that the RIO had to be good with Pulse to pick anything up (which I assume is very susceptible to chaff). Do you feel that meta is reflected well in DCS where AIM-54s are spoofed fairly regularly by a low closure targets? 

 

 

The F4 was a great airplane for its day, and remained a force multiplier until the end of its service life. It is a natural progression for new technology to replace old. 

 

There is a tendency here for sim pilots to constantly compare NATO aircraft against each other. We spent far, far more energy worrying about how to fight our enemies, not whether the F15C block whatever was better than the F18 block something or other. That's all ego bluster that has been facilitated by social media. I didn't care a whole lot about threats that were on my side, other than the best way to integrate their strengths to get a target properly hit. It's why both the A7 and F18 were valuable, they were versatile platforms and were integrated into a strike plan accordingly. 

 

BTW, few pilots in my day knew the exact block their own jets were, and we usually had a few outliers. It didn't mean a whole lot operationally. Software and missile availability was more important within variants. 

 

I'm the wrong person to ask about DCS weapons fidelity online. I don't recall ever going on line on any server here for a host of reasons having to to with the typical artificialities that create pages and pages of miserable, irrelevant posts. It just isn't interesting to me.

 

Fighter sized targets were detectable in TWS a long, long way out, much father than the typical threat radar range we faced, depending upon RCS and overall geometry. Detailed, faithful RCS data isn't something that will likely ever be modeled in any simulator. Hopefully you understand that RCS is contingent on a host of factors, starting with aspect.

 

TWS could track targets orbiting waiting for a tanker or holding somewhere before commencing a setup of some sort. RIOs had their favorite techniques to break out formations and deal with ECM, but one must remember that ROE and weapons load out drove the way the radar was used. The less experienced, the more RIO's seemed to rely on TWS. During Bright Star, we had RIOs that picked up fighters about the time their landing gear was retracted after takeoff, switched to pulse to say "They're in line of bearing left", then back to TWS, and there they were. RIO's had to be descriptive in the search modes, TWS or STT let the pilots glance to the HSD to get the picture.

 

There is a lot of angst about notching (and a lot of misunderstanding, even from some real world pilots) on what could or could not defeat certain missiles. All I can say is that an enemy going nose off in an attempt to defeat my radar or missile didn't bother me at all. We had tactics to exploit that, and getting your threat to turn away is a good thing, keeping in mind that this was before adversaries possessed active missile technology. Hell, we were the only US assets that had it as well.

 

The AIM54 wasn't used more often primarily because of ROE. Few BG commanders wanted to risk Blue on Blue, and some overall commanders used things like NCTR vs TCS as a means to secure certain missions for their own purposes. The AIM54 was extremely effective against maneuvering fighters depending of course, like every other missile, range. 

 

There were hundreds of AIM54 shots in continued testing that we were briefed upon. I had full confidence in the missile to do its job when properly employed. They were carried during Desert Shield, and Desert Storm, usually in a 2/3/2 load out, which should speak volumes as to what the USN thought about them. There were places where certain techniques could be employed to ensure that friendlies weren't engaged, or where in order to protect HVA, we were going to shoot a threatening target and accept certain risks. Better be on the RTF profile, if you get my drift, and the boat is surrounded by nasty floating SAM sites, which AFAIK, aren't modeled in DCS. That's part of why the rhetoric about "challenging" the ship is naive, risible fodder. You are getting your arse destroyed several times over, by systems you don't know exist. 

 

If you ever have to hit a target, you'll understand that air combat isn't about 1v1 or sterile setup bragging rights. First thing I want to know is where are the EA6B guys, and what can they eliminate...

[SgtPappy]

On 3/17/2021 at 5:17 PM, Victory205 said:

 

The F4 was a great airplane for its day, and remained a force multiplier until the end of its service life. It is a natural progression for new technology to replace old. 

 

There is a tendency here for sim pilots to constantly compare NATO aircraft against each other. We spent far, far more energy worrying about how to fight our enemies, not whether the F15C block whatever was better than the F18 block something or other. That's all ego bluster that has been facilitated by social media. I didn't care a whole lot about threats that were on my side, other than the best way to integrate their strengths to get a target properly hit. It's why both the A7 and F18 were valuable, they were versatile platforms and were integrated into a strike plan accordingly. 

 

BTW, few pilots in my day knew the exact block their own jets were, and we usually had a few outliers. It didn't mean a whole lot operationally. Software and missile availability was more important within variants. 

 

I'm the wrong person to ask about DCS weapons fidelity online. I don't recall ever going on line on any server here for a host of reasons having to to with the typical artificialities that create pages and pages of miserable, irrelevant posts. It just isn't interesting to me.

 

Fighter sized targets were detectable in TWS a long, long way out, much father than the typical threat radar range we faced, depending upon RCS and overall geometry. Detailed, faithful RCS data isn't something that will likely ever be modeled in any simulator. Hopefully you understand that RCS is contingent on a host of factors, starting with aspect.

 

TWS could track targets orbiting waiting for a tanker or holding somewhere before commencing a setup of some sort. RIOs had their favorite techniques to break out formations and deal with ECM, but one must remember that ROE and weapons load out drove the way the radar was used. The less experienced, the more RIO's seemed to rely on TWS. During Bright Star, we had RIOs that picked up fighters about the time their landing gear was retracted after takeoff, switched to pulse to say "They're in line of bearing left", then back to TWS, and there they were. RIO's had to be descriptive in the search modes, TWS or STT let the pilots glance to the HSD to get the picture.

 

There is a lot of angst about notching (and a lot of misunderstanding, even from some real world pilots) on what could or could not defeat certain missiles. All I can say is that an enemy going nose off in an attempt to defeat my radar or missile didn't bother me at all. We had tactics to exploit that, and getting your threat to turn away is a good thing, keeping in mind that this was before adversaries possessed active missile technology. Hell, we were the only US assets that had it as well.

 

The AIM54 wasn't used more often primarily because of ROE. Few BG commanders wanted to risk Blue on Blue, and some overall commanders used things like NCTR vs TCS as a means to secure certain missions for their own purposes. The AIM54 was extremely effective against maneuvering fighters depending of course, like every other missile, range. 

 

There were hundreds of AIM54 shots in continued testing that we were briefed upon. I had full confidence in the missile to do its job when properly employed. They were carried during Desert Shield, and Desert Storm, usually in a 2/3/2 load out, which should speak volumes as to what the USN thought about them. There were places where certain techniques could be employed to ensure that friendlies weren't engaged, or where in order to protect HVA, we were going to shoot a threatening target and accept certain risks. Better be on the RTF profile, if you get my drift, and the boat is surrounded by nasty floating SAM sites, which AFAIK, aren't modeled in DCS. That's part of why the rhetoric about "challenging" the ship is naive, risible fodder. You are getting your arse destroyed several times over, by systems you don't know exist. 

 

If you ever have to hit a target, you'll understand that air combat isn't about 1v1 or sterile setup bragging rights. First thing I want to know is where are the EA6B guys, and what can they eliminate...

Thanks, Victory for the in-depth insight. This is the kind of thing that makes aviation so rich is the stories people have to share and the real world tactics that we don't get to see in games.

 

The MP environment in DCS is interesting and airquake is fun in some aspects. Luckily there's a lot of diversity and a bunch of servers are dedicating more mission design to teamwork where 1v1's will get you shot down. Maybe one day far into the future planes like the EA-6 will play a large role in the simulation gaming world.