AWG-9/ AIM-54...straight from the Rio's mouth

[Cab]

2 minutes ago, lax22 said:

He’s just a troll who’s F16 got shot down one too many times by a Tomcat.

 

Strangely he isn’t complaining about the currently over performing Viper radar in DCS.

Wonder why that is

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/the-story-of-how-us-navy-f-14-tomcat-crews-learned-to-score-simulated-gun-kills-against-the-lethal-9g-capable-f-16n-captured-in-a-beautiful-artwork/

[Victory205]

1 hour ago, Jayhawk1971 said:

And, of course, it had to be the one that I started....

You could post a video of cute puppies playing in a laundry hamper and these nimrods would find a way to argue about it.

[lunaticfringe]

4 hours ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

Oh i listened to the vlog. 
The guy very specifically repeats numerous times , that THE F14 as a whole was designed for the soviet bomber thread. 

.... Meanwhile in DCS 

No, it wasn't.  Don't take my word for it- take the formerly classified internal Grumman memo to the CNO and Congress. 

Fleet air defense was secondary; it was always a fighter. Which leaves me to ask- what's wrong with your ACM technique if you can't beat a fighter that moonlights as a bus herder? 

Balance arguments are for Counter-Strike, son- not here. 

[Naquaii]

15 hours ago, DSplayer said:

This means that extrapolated targets cannot get un-X’d out correct?

They can but they'd have to fit the previous track parameters quite perfectly. Currently there's not really any situations in which tracks like that are lost in the first place in DCS.

Tracks that are lost due to maneuvering or while maneuvering are quite unlikely to fit the previous track parameters again.

[Cab]

4 hours ago, lunaticfringe said:

No, it wasn't.  Don't take my word for it- take the formerly classified internal Grumman memo to the CNO and Congress. 

Fleet air defense was secondary; it was always a fighter. Which leaves me to ask- what's wrong with your ACM technique if you can't beat a fighter that moonlights as a bus herder? 

Balance arguments are for Counter-Strike, son- not here. 

The paragraph that begins with, "With the F-111B eliminated..." makes it sound like the F-111B and F-14 were being concurrently developed, and when the F-111B was canceled the CAP mission (as the document puts it) with Phoenix missiles was shifted to the F-14 as an "alternate mission". If I am understanding that correctly, that is not accurate. 

[TLTeo]

Not really, the phrasing "with the F-111B eliminated" just means that - the F-111B was gone and something had to become the next fleet defender, not that it had competed against the Tomcat at any point.

[lunaticfringe]

1 hour ago, Cab said:

If I am understanding that correctly, that is not accurate. 

It is entirely accurate.

Grumman was working on the 303 design set as a conceptual replacement for the Phantom while the F-111B was under development, and they knew the design that became the Tomcat could carry the AWG-9 before the F-111B program was canceled.  While the DoD accepted bids from other firms for the VFX program, Grumman was already on the inside track and closest to being able to produce because they'd had it on the table already due to Navy's resistance to the F-111 at being able to do its job, or anything else. 

[captain_dalan]

8 hours ago, Cab said:

I remember when people said the internet was going to make everyone more educated and smarter 

Ah the romanticism of the 90's....

[Cab]

4 minutes ago, lunaticfringe said:

It is entirely accurate.

Grumman was working on the 303 design set as a conceptual replacement for the Phantom while the F-111B was under development, and they knew the design that became the Tomcat could carry the AWG-9 before the F-111B program was canceled.  While the DoD accepted bids from other firms for the VFX program, Grumman was already on the inside track and closest to being able to produce because they'd had it on the table already due to Navy's resistance to the F-111 at being able to do its job, or anything else. 

I agree with all the above. I just don’t think “alternate” is the correct word. 

[Karon]

18 hours ago, Cab said:

I remember when people said the internet was going to make everyone more educated and smarter 

I am one of them

[Biggus]

1 hour ago, Karon said:

I am one of them

To be fair, you've made quite a few of us a bit more educated and smarter.

[eatthis]

On 10/13/2021 at 7:37 PM, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

"The F14 was designed for the soviet bomber threat " 
"If you had aggressive fighters out there you had a problem" 

Meanwhile in DCS ..... 

 

 

 

erm thats not what they said!
1 if theres 24 agressive fighters the awg might have a problem.
2 f theres aggressive fighters around then thats a DIFFERENT problem. if youre gonna try and stir something at least get it right

 

[AH_Solid_Snake]

I really don't see anything to argue over here, everything they said is consistent with the materials I have available and have read, and also tallies with DCS.

The comments about 24 aggressive fighters being a problem was relating to the TWS implementation, which IRL and in the sim will indeed have trouble maintaining and re-correlating the tracks, the whole multi-shot TWS capability in the F-14 is designed to meet the soviet bomber threat.

The thing that perhaps everyone forgets it the F-14 is old at this point, hell its been retired IRL for coming up 15 years. When it was brand new and for a good decade or more after, no other platform could match that 6 shot, nor the range. All that is not to say that the F-14 was solely designed for that role, nor that you expect the gameplan for bombers to work against fighters.

Separately, the Phoenix as an anti-fighter weapon...using an STT lock then hell yes, you are losing a bit in terms of multishot, but another thing DCS pilots tend to forget is that real F-14s aren't going up as a 1 vs many expecting to take on all comers and laser accurate nail them at 90nm. The AIM54 is giving you a nice big range advantage in that scenario, but its your wingman and teamwork that are making up the rest.

[Harlikwin]

On 10/14/2021 at 8:20 AM, lax22 said:

He’s just a troll who’s F16 got shot down one too many times by a Tomcat.

 

Strangely he isn’t complaining about the currently over performing Viper radar in DCS.

Wonder why that is

 

I mean it just got "nerfed" in the last patch or two, so... IDK, its still not right IMO, but overperforming anymore might not be quite correct either. 

 

On 10/14/2021 at 8:41 AM, lunaticfringe said:

No, it wasn't.  Don't take my word for it- take the formerly classified internal Grumman memo to the CNO and Congress. 

Fleet air defense was secondary; it was always a fighter. Which leaves me to ask- what's wrong with your ACM technique if you can't beat a fighter that moonlights as a bus herder? 

Balance arguments are for Counter-Strike, son- not here. 

 

Actually the 14 does quite well in 70s/80s PVP servers with sparrow and sidewinder. 

[Southernbear]

Hell if we want to be that literal with it...the F-16 was designed as a light fighter for scramble attacks with IR missiles with no bombs what so ever, the F-18 was designed (when in the hands of the Navy)  as a CAS and ground support aircraft and the F-15 was designed purely as the USAF's main Air superiority aircraft never to carry air to ground ordinance (tho tbf that last one was true for a while) 

Point is, as it should be pretty obvious, what an aircraft is designed for and how its actually employed are 2 very different things and from a design on paper to an aircraft in the sky can cause a lot of variables to change a great many things. 

Edited October 16, 2021 by Southernbear

[Victory205]

Here’s another video for you to parse and analyze like it’s the Zapruder film. Be sure to make a list of demands to be immediately incorporated in the sim. 

 

 

Edited October 18, 2021 by Victory205

[Lurker]

Please, do not feed CS Go Oh Yeah anymore. Thank you that is all. 

troll

 verb

trolled; trolling; trolls

Definition of troll (Entry 2 of 3)

: to fish for by trolling

b: to fish by trolling introll lakes

c: to pull through the water in trollingtroll a lure

d: to search in or attrolls flea markets for bargainsalso : PROWLtroll nightclubs

2a: to antagonize (others) online by deliberately posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content… trolls engage in the most outrageous and offensive behaviors possible—all the better to troll you with.— Whitney Phillips

b: to act as a troll (see TROLL entry 3 sense 2) on (a forum, site, etc.)… is also notorious, for trolling message boards on the Internet, posting offensive material he himself has written and then suing anyone who responds in agreement.— Mark Hemingway

c: to harass, criticize, or antagonize (someone) especially by provocatively disparaging or mocking public statements, postings, or acts

 

Edited October 18, 2021 by Lurker

[eatthis]

On 10/14/2021 at 10:51 AM, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

Oh i listened to the vlog. 
The guy very specifically repeats numerous times , that THE F14 as a whole was designed for the soviet bomber thread. 

.... Meanwhile in DCS 

 
should put that opinion to bed, or at least show everybody capable of listening that its wrong

7 hours ago, Victory205 said:

Here’s another video for you to parse and analyze like it’s the Zapruder film. Be sure to make a list of demands to be immediately incorporated in the sim. 

 

 

 

you beat me lol

[captain_dalan]

8 hours ago, Victory205 said:

Here’s another video for you to parse and analyze like it’s the Zapruder film. Be sure to make a list of demands to be immediately incorporated in the sim. 

 

 

 

The fact he had his own YouTube channel somehow eluded me, despite some of his videos being in my watch history.... 
Subbed!