Ground attack loadouts discussion

[Temetre]

vor 28 Minuten schrieb Bozon:

Aim-7s be damned - we have a cannon!

 

USAF: "God damn we actually need guns"

USAF: *proceeds to have 75% of their kills with missiles*

Not that I mind having a gun with radar gun sight, its very nice as backup, for limited ground attack and dogfights  

Edited June 4, 2023 by Temetre

[Elf1606688794]

On 6/3/2023 at 6:53 PM, LanceCriminal86 said:

The adapter in the photo is the so-called "Special Weapons Adapter", which is bolted into the MAU-12 and replaces its ejector rack. It's not the entire assembly, but is basically an LAU-34 that bolts into where the MAU-12 ejector would go so it's stronger and no bracing is needed. It was the only instance that could be found in the F-4E TOs that showed loadouts with a TER of 3x bombs AND with AIM-9s on the inner pylons at the same time, due to clearance. Apparently, it was cleared for use in the mid-80s but only the Phantoms out of Clark with 3rd TFW had been seen to use them. And in the photo from the Gulf War they used the pylons but not fully loaded. The only TO that showed TER+bombs+AIM-9s was a very late one.

The T.O. for loading weapons gave us warnings and cautions for things we couldn't do and the only warnings/cautions it gave concerning TERS (that I can recall) were due to clearance issues for the bottom rack. I don't recall any warnings about loading Sidewinders on the rails while bombs were loaded on the shoulder stations of the TER. The shoulder stations were the only ones that might have interferred with the launch of a Sidewinder and even then only if the pilot didn't jettison his A2G ordinance before engaging an enemy aircraft. It would be beyond dumb to keep your A2G ordinance and suspension equipment while engaging enemy fighters due to the significant performance loss that stuff would cause.

If the T.O. didn't specifically say you couldn't do something it was assumed that you could. 

[Temetre]

vor 39 Minuten schrieb Elf1606688794:

It would be beyond dumb to keep your A2G ordinance and suspension equipment while engaging enemy fighters due to the significant performance loss that stuff would cause

Hornets did that in first Desert Storm strike apparently, quad 2000lb bombs, and they shot down two Mig-21s with sparrows, before proceeding to their objective.

But thats of course a quite different time, setting and plane.

[Jetguy06]

27 minutes ago, Temetre said:

Hornets did that in first Desert Storm strike apparently, quad 2000lb bombs, and they shot down two Mig-21s with sparrows, before proceeding to their objective.

But thats of course a quite different time, setting and plane.

Yeah, the Hornet was the first fighter designed to be able to do that, and that engagement in ODS was basically a proof of concept. But any other aircraft prior to that point would have had to jettison their A2G loadout before engaging enemy aircraft.

[Temetre]

vor 8 Minuten schrieb Jetguy06:

Yeah, the Hornet was the first fighter designed to be able to do that, and that engagement in ODS was basically a proof of concept. But any other aircraft prior to that point would have had to jettison their A2G loadout before engaging enemy aircraft.

I see, wasnt aware thats actually been a first. Probably helped a lot to have very reliable avionics and weapons at that point.

Tho it would be interesting to see if we could replicate it with an F-4E in DCS. Gotta make sure to understand all the limitations, of course. 

[Jetguy06]

2 hours ago, Temetre said:

I see, wasnt aware thats actually been a first. Probably helped a lot to have very reliable avionics and weapons at that point.

Tho it would be interesting to see if we could replicate it with an F-4E in DCS. Gotta make sure to understand all the limitations, of course. 

You can absolutely do it in the Phantom. It's not like your missiles won't shoot if you have bombs on board. But your maneuvering potential will be severely limited if you need to defend against a missile or you get to the merge with all that weight and drag on your jet.

[Temetre]

vor 3 Minuten schrieb Jetguy06:

You can absolutely do it in the Phantom. It's not like your missiles won't shoot if you have bombs on board. But your maneuvering potential will be severely limited if you need to defend against a missile or you get to the merge with all that weight and drag on your jet.

Of course, though I assume the same would be true for a Hornet^^

[Jetguy06]

3 minutes ago, Temetre said:

Of course, though I assume the same would be true for a Hornet^^

Iirc, the Hornet's FBW system allows alot of the maneuverability to be maintained, though you'll still be severely G limited. I could be wrong, though. Anyone feel free to jump in and correct me.

[Temetre]

Gerade eben schrieb Jetguy06:

Iirc, the Hornet's FBW system allows alot of the maneuverability to be maintained, though you'll still be severely G limited. I could be wrong, though. Anyone feel free to jump in and correct me.

I dont think the Hornets FBW actually changes maneuvrability, but yes, to my understanding its an inherent feature that it makes the plane control similarly when heavily loaded and clean. And the limiters probably make sure that youre unlikely to overstress the airframe, evne when pulling turns.

Gonna be more difficult in a Phantom.

[Baco]

I am guessing that the Sidewinders are there to protect yourself in your way OUT,not in   After leaving all the weight and drag with the enemy below...

 

[JB3DG]

On 6/6/2023 at 12:29 PM, Temetre said:

Hornets did that in first Desert Storm strike apparently, quad 2000lb bombs, and they shot down two Mig-21s with sparrows, before proceeding to their objective.

But thats of course a quite different time, setting and plane.

Engagement dynamics weren't even close. They didn't even get into a maneuvering fight. It was all headshots with AIM-7s and all-aspect AIM-9Ms. No need to dump bombs if you can kill before the merge with missiles. The F-4E would be different as the AIM-9E/J are all still tail aspect shots only. Maybe could get AIM-7s off if you could identify the bandit early on.

[Temetre]

vor 7 Minuten schrieb JB3DG:

Engagement dynamics weren't even close. They didn't even get into a maneuvering fight. It was all headshots with AIM-7s and all-aspect AIM-9Ms. No need to dump bombs if you can kill before the merge with missiles. The F-4E would be different as the AIM-9E/J are all still tail aspect shots only. Maybe could get AIM-7s off if you could identify the bandit early on.

I mean Aim-7s against enemies like Mig-21s are pretty great. Enemy has almost no ability to attack you head one  

[Quid]

1 hour ago, Temetre said:

Wait, the Aim-9E/J are tail aspect? I thought they didnt care because they dont need to aim for engines like early sidewinders?

Correct.  The first "all aspect" IR variant of the AIM-9 was the AIM-9L.  I make this caveat because someone may quote the AIM-9C, which was a SARH AIM-9 (seeker was called the semi-active radar alternative head (SARAH)) and was all-aspect because it was radar guided, but was also never fired in anger and wasn't considered useful against fighters, not necessarily because of the missile seeker, but because of the F-8's radar tracking reliability and limitations especially at low altitudes.  The AIM-9B/D/E/G/H/J/N/P (excepting later "P" series that received comparable capabilities to the later AIM-9L and M) and export variants based on them were rear-aspect missiles.

Edited June 8, 2023 by Quid
Verbiage

[Temetre]

vor 6 Stunden schrieb Quid:

Correct.  The first "all aspect" IR variant of the AIM-9 was the AIM-9L.  I make this caveat because someone may quote the AIM-9C, which was a SARH AIM-9 (seeker was called the semi-active radar alternative head (SARAH)) and was all-aspect because it was radar guided, but was also never fired in anger and wasn't considered useful against fighters, not necessarily because of the missile seeker, but because of the F-8's radar tracking reliability and limitations especially at low altitudes.  The AIM-9B/D/E/G/H/J/N/P (excepting later "P" series that received comparable capabilities to the later AIM-9L and M) and export variants based on them were rear-aspect missiles.

Thx, tho my confusion came from that I thought you said the Aim-7E was tail aspect, which of course makes no sense^^

Gonna be fun to do head on attacks on Mig-21

[WinterH]

7 hours ago, Temetre said:

I mean Aim-7s against enemies like Mig-21s are pretty great. Enemy has almost no ability to attack you head one  

Well depends, if you mean Vietnam, yeah. But our MiG-21Bis and F-4Es all have capabilities post-Vietnam, so if you don't limit loadouts in the mission, MiG can return the favor with R-60M and also R-3R to some degree.

[Temetre]

vor 2 Minuten schrieb WinterH:

Well depends, if you mean Vietnam, yeah. But our MiG-21Bis and F-4Es all have capabilities post-Vietnam, so if you don't limit loadouts in the mission, MiG can return the favor with R-60M and also R-3R to some degree.

Thats fair, tho I didnt find those missiles arent overly reliable in head on engagements.

[Aussie_Mantis]

@Temetre

The F-4E will, overall, hold the range advantage in any engagement versus the MiG-21. The weapons are slightly more reliable.

As for R-60 vs AIM-9J/N/P, the discussion goes both ways, but I think the AIM-9P has slightly more range (effective out to 2.5nm in a tailchase instead of 1nm).

On 6/7/2023 at 2:58 AM, Jetguy06 said:

Yeah, the Hornet was the first fighter designed to be able to do that, and that engagement in ODS was basically a proof of concept. But any other aircraft prior to that point would have had to jettison their A2G loadout before engaging enemy aircraft.

On 6/7/2023 at 3:09 AM, Temetre said:

I see, wasnt aware thats actually been a first. Probably helped a lot to have very reliable avionics and weapons at that point.

Tho it would be interesting to see if we could replicate it with an F-4E in DCS. Gotta make sure to understand all the limitations, of course. 

As for these, you could theoretically do it in an F-4E in DCS. It's not totally unreasonable. An example of this scenario would be an F-4E with AIM-9Js and AIM-7Fs going into combat with the very, very typical load of 4 AIM-7F + 4 AIM-9J + 2x 370 gal drop tanks (outboard) + 6 Mk 82s on two TERs. Assuming DCS allows us to use TERs+Winders then we can have the F-4E switch from A2A to A2G at a single push of the "CAGE" switch located on the left throttle, and then use the pinky switch to rapidly flick between Sidewinders and Sparrows and Gun after pressing the "ACM" mode button in the front pit.

Keep in mind however that unlike future planes, the F-4E has a few hardpoint interlocks- for instance, the front two sparrows won't shoot if you have anything on the centerline at all- you have to jettison everything off it to fire.

Edited June 10, 2023 by Aussie_Mantis

[Temetre]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Aussie_Mantis:

@Temetre

The F-4E will, overall, hold the range advantage in any engagement versus the MiG-21. The weapons are slightly more reliable.

As for R-60 vs AIM-9J/N/P, the discussion goes both ways, but I think the AIM-9P has slightly more range (effective out to 2.5nm in a tailchase instead of 1nm).

Hm, I looked it up on wiki. Aim-9 should also have a 9kg warhead, compared to the R-60s 3kg.

Btw were talking R-60M I assume? Apparently base R-60 didnt have cooled seeker, should be rather unrealiable in anything but tail aspect?

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Aussie_Mantis:

As for these, you could theoretically do it in an F-4E in DCS. It's not totally unreasonable. An example of this scenario would be an F-4E with AIM-9Js and AIM-7Fs going into combat with the very, very typical load of 4 AIM-7F + 4 AIM-9J + 2x 370 gal drop tanks (outboard) + 6 Mk 82s on two TERs. Assuming DCS allows us to use TERs+Winders then we can have the F-4E switch from A2A to A2G at a single push of the "CAGE" switch located on the left throttle, and then use the pinky switch to rapidly flick between Sidewinders and Sparrows and Gun after pressing the "ACM" mode button in the front pit.

Keep in mind however that unlike future planes, the F-4E has a few hardpoint interlocks- for instance, the front two sparrows won't shoot if you have anything on the centerline at all- you have to jettison everything off it to fire.

Yeh, talked about that on the discord as well (im reymt there). Theres a fuse to disable the lock tho  

Winders+Ters is gonna be there, weve seen it a lot in the trailers and its in the manual.

[WinterH]

21 minutes ago, Temetre said:

Hm, I looked it up on wiki. Aim-9 should also have a 9kg warhead, compared to the R-60s 3kg.

Btw were talking R-60M I assume? Apparently base R-60 didnt have cooled seeker, should be rather unrealiable in anything but tail aspect?

R-60s have puny warheads. But afaik even baseline R-60 is not just tail aspect but more rear hemispehere. It is give and take between pre-L AIM-9s and R-60s. Sidewinders have better range and greater warheads, probably better flare rejection too, not sure. R-60s are a lot more agile, and have a very short minimum range. R-60Ms are mostly all aspect, but by their time AIM-9L and M could be possible too which are overall better anyway.

As for the AIM-7s, they are A LOT better than R-3R of course. However, they didn't have a great track record either, even upgraded variants like AIM-7Ms in Desert Storm, also in F-4E, as far as I remeber you need to wait for 4 seconds after a radar lock for a Sparrow to be ready, otherwise it'll go dumb, and afaik you need to manually count, there isn't any indication. I expect this will make their use tricky up close, especially head-on.

[Temetre]

Everything from Aim9D onwards is a cooled seeker. Feels like the R-60 is way overmodelled if its similar in performance?

vor 32 Minuten schrieb WinterH:

As for the AIM-7s, they are A LOT better than R-3R of course. However, they didn't have a great track record either, even upgraded variants like AIM-7Ms in Desert Storm, also in F-4E, as far as I remeber you need to wait for 4 seconds after a radar lock for a Sparrow to be ready, otherwise it'll go dumb, and afaik you need to manually count, there isn't any indication. I expect this will make their use tricky up close, especially head-on.

Tbf the PK stuff is very complicated. IIRC the Aim-7s, in the end, got the most kills even in Vietnam. So clearly there must be conditions under which it works very effectively.

Edited June 10, 2023 by Temetre

[WinterH]

1 hour ago, Temetre said:

Everything from Aim9D onwards is a cooled seeker. Feels like the R-60 is way overmodelled if its similar in performance?

I wasn't thinking about how it's modeled tbh, afaik there are target acquision angle charts floating online for it and even original R-60 wasn't totally tail chase afaik. But I could be wrong as I don't have docs I can quote right away.

In the end though, I really don't believe F-4E vs MiG-21Bis will be nearly as clear an advantage for F-4 as you think, but we'll see. And that's unless AIM-9L or M is involved of course. I didn't see them in the manuals I had (I think latest one I had was late 70s or 80s, seems they are mentioned in 90s update of the manual) but it looks like they were a possibility, and they are visible in teaser material we've seen so far. With those Phantom will have a pretty decent and reliable head-on lock and they're a lot less likely to happily eat flares than R-60M. Even then I'd still say it isn't a black-white advantage, but a significant one anyway.

I'm also looking forward to F-4E and Mirage F1 matchup. And while we're at it, why not throw in F-5E too  even though this one is historically less likely than others. We'll eventually have MiG-23MLA too at some point, and I personally expect it to out-do Phantom in BVR unless two BVR missiles end up proving too few a number, we'll see. By the time it's released perhaps Naval F-4s with pulse-doppler radars will be a thing too who knows.

Anyway, the thread is air to ground ordnance options and this started to feel like a detour from that

To be fair I personally am more looking forward to F-4E for old'sCOOL "advanced" air to ground stuff anyway. Gimme them crap TGPs, old Mavericks, LGBs and TV bombs, and a whole load of iron bombs to use with old-ass funky bombing modes  And shrikes. Yes, gloriously useless shrikes

[Bozon]

The “all aspect” title is handed to missiles quite liberally. Getting a tone for a split second from front aspect says very little of the actual kill probability.

At least in the Israeli air force the aim-9 and Shafrir of the 80s up to early 90s (L?M? & Shafrir 3) were still considered as reliable only in 90 degrees aspect. The older missile were considered “1840” - 1800 meters and 40 degrees aspect.

There was also little faith in the Sparrows. Up to early 90s only the F-15 and Phantom carried then in the IAF (no Aim-120 at all). F-16s were heaters only. As one pilot described them to me, the Aim-7s purpose was to force the opponent to “break 90” at a few miles so you could enter WVR with an advantage. That was the advantage of the F-15 vs. F-16 in mock dogfights, and allowed the Phantoms a little bit of a fighting chance vs. the others.

Missiles seekers in DCS are performing a bit on the optimistic side of the spread in the real things. That is not criticism, it is like that when they are modeled on official data. Also remember that when referring to missiles in controlled experiments, those are brand new, polished and carefully prepared, and launched in very controlled conditions, with as little interference in the background as possible - in combat these would be missiles taken out of a long storage, hastily mounted in field conditions, and launched in some erratic conditions with clouds and sun glares in the background.

[Temetre]

R-60 isnt all aspect; with an uncooled seeker Id imagine it should probably pretty rough. The R-60M is an upgrade from the 80s with a cooled seeker head, that supposedly has limited all aspect.

The stuff people say about the Sparrow being so bad seems more and more like a myth though. Sure, the missile had a rough time in Vietnam, with poor training, bad maintenance and quirks to be ironed out. But doing a double check, it got apparently a similar kill number as the Aim-9s. So if the missile is so bad, then why did it get so many kills?

Desert Storm is 22 Aim7 kill and 6 Sidewinder kills, and thats despite the rules of engagement limiting BVR usage. Seems pretty efficient?

Edited June 10, 2023 by Temetre

[Pede]

15 minutes ago, Temetre said:

R-60 isnt all aspect; with an uncooled seeker Id imagine it should probably pretty rough. The R-60M is an upgrade from the 80s with a cooled seeker head, that supposedly has limited all aspect.

The stuff people say about the Sparrow being so bad seems more and more like a myth though. Sure, the missile had a rough time in Vietnam, with poor training, bad maintenance and quirks to be ironed out. But doing a double check, it got apparently a similar kill number as the Aim-9s. So if the missile is so bad, then why did it get so many kills?

Desert Storm is 22 Aim7 kill and 6 Sidewinder kills, and thats despite the rules of engagement limiting BVR usage. Seems pretty efficient?

 

Don't know where you're getting the "it's a myth" from; the aim7 was never reliable, in desert storm two mig25's faced off against two F15C's, both migs escaped and one F15 was damaged due in large part to three of the four fired aim7's failing entirely. Not sure how much DCS you've played but aim9m and earlier have a terrible PK so comparing a veitnam era aim9 to an aim7 is just further proof of how incapable the system was, especially compared to something like AMRAAM. 

[Bremspropeller]

You'll have to separate at least three categories of issue with the Sparrow:

1) Handling and OPS troubles (e.g. groundcrew mistakes  and those issues coming off of the operations, e.g. keeping the Sparrows on board for ages, including multiple traps and cat-shots for the Navy or high humidity effing with the electrical connectors and electronics for everybody)

2) Firing outside of envelope or switchology issues (not enough training) => that one also messed up a couple of Sidewinder shots

3) Actual missile suckery