DCS series, no Air to Air?

[MBot]

If they did, link meh! Circumstances tend to be important and this sounds very interesting :)

 

I read the story about 15 years ago in a magazine covering Desert Storm. Here is a quick find on wikipedia:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/A-18_Hornet

 

F/A-18 pilots were credited with two kills during the Gulf War, both MiG-21s.[17] On the first day of the war, U.S. Navy pilots Lieutenant Nick Mongilio and Lieutenant Commander (now Rear Admiral) Mark Fox were sent from the USS Saratoga in the Red Sea to bomb an airfield in southwestern Iraq. While en route, they were warned by an E-2C of approaching MiG-21 aircraft. The Hornets shot down two MiGs and resumed their bombing run, each carrying four 2,000 lb bombs, before returning to Saratoga. Mongilio and Fox become the first pilots to register air-to-air kills while still completing their original air-to-ground mission.

[Shaman]

MiG-29? F-15E? Pfffffft! I want a TRUE multirole aircraft.

 

DCS: An-2 Colt

 

Cropdusting... Paradropping... Polish VIP transport... Firefighting waterbomber... regional airliner... Aerial ambulance...

 

Can your precious Sukhois and MiGs stop a forest fire, drop a few paratroopers behind enemy lines, carry General Zyskowska to his next meeting, spray the kolkhoz's crops, and then carry little Ivan to get his kidney transplant - all in a day's work? All this and be able to land and takeoff in the length of an IL-76's wingspan?

 

No? Didn't think so.

 

:)

 

you didn't mention it can tow aerial targets for both - fighters, and AAA to train on :)

[GGTharos]

Awesome - also please note they're the first. :)

Exceptions do not make the rule (but this may become the rule in the future - who knows? )

 

I read the story about 15 years ago in a magazine covering Desert Storm. Here is a quick find on wikipedia:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/A-18_Hornet

[sobek]

Exceptions do not make the rule

 

Definately. I doubt that they would have tried that against properly trained pilots, not to speak about newer fighters.

[arneh]

Awesome - also please note they're the first. :)

Exceptions do not make the rule (but this may become the rule in the future - who knows? )

 

But those were also the only kills F/A-18s made in Desert Storm, and F-16s didn't make any. So one could say that all kills made by multirole fighters in desert storm were done with A/G weapons still onboard ;)

[EtherealN]

Sample size, man. And apply relevant controls such as air cover present - sufficient dedicated air superiority flights and you will only rarely see A2G flights needing to engage fighters, especially with the numerical superiority that was seen in that operation. Close to 2000 aircraft versus some 700, with the former having the technological edge as well as better training... This can cause artefacts in the dataset. ;)

Edited August 31, 2009 by EtherealN

[Dudikoff]

Why? It's an old piece of junk. :P

Wish for an SMT at least or something!

 

Well, we need first DCS-level simulated old pieces of junk before moving on (or even better - we can just stay in the 80s and the Cold War scenarios with real-men airplanes, limited capability missiles and dumb bombs :) ).

[joey45]

Well, we need first DCS-level simulated old pieces of junk before moving on (or even better - we can just stay in the 80s and the Cold War scenarios with real-men airplanes, limited capability missiles and dumb bombs :) ).

 

That would be more better IMO.

[MBot]

we can just stay in the 80s and the Cold War scenarios with real-men airplanes, limited capability missiles and dumb bombs :) ).

 

Amen :D

[Speed_2]

Awesome - also please note they're the first. :)

Exceptions do not make the rule (but this may become the rule in the future - who knows? )

 

It will become more and more the rule in the future, with long range missiles and bombs. You are less handicapped in BVR by heavy weight than in close range fight. You keep SAYING that you cannot do effective A2A with bombs and tanks, and I still disagree, because that is a BLANKET statement, and while right in some cases, is completely wrong in others. Again, the F-16 with the bomb load would have absolutely no reason to jettison his weapon load to engage a MiG-21 at 25 miles with an AMRAAM. Those F-18s probably just lined up on two non-manuvering aircraft and closed to within winder range. Again, no reason to jettison, but you can bet they would have had those MiGs suddenly started to turn nose-hot to enter a turning fight. So both aircraft are engaging in effective A2A combat without ever having to jettison ANYTHING.

 

If you look through at the recent air to air engagements that the US/NATO have been in, they have all been very lop-sided like this. In a lop-sided engagement, the superior aircraft often has no need to jettison anything, as the engagement happens at very long range or against poorly trained pilots. With new even longer range AAMs, this becomes even more true. I mean, what is the possibility of there actually being a "fair" dogfight, against equally-matched opponents IRL? India vs Pakistan, or Greece vs Turkey is all I can think of right now. As long as the US has the F-22 and actually uses it over a battle area, honestly, no foreign aircraft really has a chance. Now, maybe if a F-15 came up against a SU-27, that would be a different matter, but that's not likely to happen anytime soon. Besides the nuke danger, major powers actually getting into a war with each other is bad for business, you can't make $$$ if trade is shut down.

 

As far as the USAF using the F-15E for air superiority, yes, those situations I was envisioning were desperation, or last-resort scenarios. If you've really got a Battle of Britain type battle for air superiority, I would think that perhaps the mudhens might be sent up. If for some reason, AWACs decides that a flight of enemy aircraft MUST be taken out, and by chance, the F-15Es are the only ones that could make the interception, I would think it possible they might be ordered to do so, but I don't know USAF doctrine reguarding such scenarios, if there is any.

 

And I claim that this is because you don't understand BVR. It's one thing to self-escort and toss a missile at an opponent who slipped through to get him out of the way - either by shooting him down or forcing him defensive - and another to actually start a serious BVR fighter sweep or intercept on another fighter. These are all fuel-consuming tasks where your primary mission is A2G.

 

You think that I don't understand the difference? I mean, I thought that point was so obvious it didn't need stating. OF COURSE no one should engage in aggressive A2A with bombs aboard, but fuel tanks SHOULD be kept for as long as possible without risking the aircraft.

 

The entire point has been lost I think. What I say, and still contend is that the F-15E is an excellent ground pounder, and would make an decent to good energy fighter. That it should not do both offensive A2G and offensive A2A at the same time should be such an obvious point that it need not be stated, as this applies to all aircraft as well. Furthermore, that it does not engage in offensive air to air IRL is a moot point as what virtual pilots do with their virtual aircraft is their own business.

Edited August 31, 2009 by Speed_2

[GGTharos]

I believe you misunderstood the meaning of the statement 'an exception does not make the rule' ;)

 

The F-15E will not make a decent anything fighter until you strip all the A2G equipment off it. Finally, you are also likely wrong about the future of air warfare. More and more countries are buying more advanced aircraft now; they'll have datalinks, they'll have ARH.

 

You also seem to have some misconceptions about how BVR is ACTUALLY done. F-15Cs WILL punch the tanks for the BVR sprint (which, by the way, you'd have known if you had looked up said NATO engagements yourself ;) ). What's the F-15E gonna do when it's so loaded down it has to use min burner to keep up with its tanker? Aaaaah, ooooh ... uhoh!

 

And what about after it has dropped its bombs? Oh, dear, look at the time - come on Maverick, we don't have the fuel for this!

 

If you want to live in a simulated world of exceptions where you're plinking cessnas away while loaded down with 2000lb JDAMs, that's certainly your prerogative. Your MP opponent however is unlikely to oblige. Further, should you encouter said pair of MiG-21's and they get into winder range and they might have competent pilots at that? You've lost. Just like that.

 

I suppose I can't really emphasize this enough: The incident with the two hornets was an exception to the rule.

Edited August 31, 2009 by GGTharos

[Speed_2]

I believe you misunderstood the meaning of the statement 'an exception does not make the rule' ;)

But what about when the exceptions become the rules and the rules become the exceptions? Fair fights between fighters have become a thing of the past, at least from a western perspective. I hope we never see them again either, because about the only place I can imagine where we might see it would be a major conflict between Russia or China and the US. Weren't there some decent India-Pakistan dogfights in recent years though?

 

Maybe Georgia vs Russia might have some decently fair dogfights/BVR engagements? Does Georgia even have the money for a decent (but small) air force?

Edited August 31, 2009 by Speed_2

[GGTharos]

But what about when the exceptions become the rules and the rules become the exceptions?

 

Now that's ridiculously unlikely. If your strike planes are doing A2A + A2G, you're losing - unless your opponent has been attrited to the same level.

 

An exception is not a rule and 'what if' is not much of an argument. Regardless, an F-15E will still suck in A2A when it runs into a fighter.

 

There's two types of planes in the sky: FIghters and Targets.

 

You're carrying A2G anything? You're a target.

 

Currently only two USAF aircraft can pull off the swing role - the F-18 and the F-16. This is because they can literally get rid of every single piece of A2G hardware save for the pods - which means they'll be in reasonably prime A2A fighting shape, but it's even better if they don't have the pods. The F-15E CANNOT. It has those draggy, heavy CFTs and the pods do their own number on the drag, too.

 

Fair fights between fighters have become a thing of the past, at least from a western perspective. I hope we never see them again either, because about the only place I can imagine where we might see it would be a major conflict between Russia or China and the US. Weren't there some decent India-Pakistan dogfights in recent years though?

 

Fair fights never existed, and I don't recall India and Pakistan ever having anything that resembled a decent engagement.

 

Maybe Georgia vs Russia might have some decently fair dogfights/BVR engagements? Does Georgia even have the money for a decent (but small) air force?

 

Georgia barely has money to buy UAVs, and they never had any real fighters to begin with.

 

It really doesn't matter which scenario you pick - F-15Es are still pretty horrible until you strip all that A2G stuff off of them - when you do, they end up having very similar energy performance to an F-22. ;)

[topol-m]

 

Maybe Georgia vs Russia might have some decently fair dogfights/BVR engagements? Does Georgia even have the money for a decent (but small) air force?

 

 

 

With the size of its territory and its position ;) and the resources it has Georgia doesn`t stand a chance even if you give them F-35s and F-22s :)

[tflash]

I do not think you have to strip the CFTs; they are quite aerodynamic and kept on the F-15E's while they do A2A training (as I once read about 1/3 of the time at Lakenheath AB).

 

But I guess they do not train for air superiority but for self-defense. At which with their powerfull engines (more powerfull than F-15C) and advanced avionics they should still be quite good.

 

I would agree that even current "swing" role planes like Rafale and Typhoon that explicitly foresee a reconfiguration in flight between A2G and A2A are never meant to do air superiority in the same mission as strike or cas.

 

For one thing, you would be flying in the wrong airspace, at say 25K instead of 50K. I cannot imagine also that a flightpath drawn for a strike mission would put you in an interesting position to do fighter sweep?

 

So, in the ideal world you would have dedicated air superiority fighters. Next best is having 187 of them. :D

[th3flyboy]

Personally, I would want a F-14, F-18, F-16 or an SU-33, preferably the 14, 33, or the 18 though, as I would like to do some carrier ops...

[GGTharos]

I do not think you have to strip the CFTs; they are quite aerodynamic and kept on the F-15E's while they do A2A training (as I once read about 1/3 of the time at Lakenheath AB).

 

But I guess they do not train for air superiority but for self-defense. At which with their powerfull engines (more powerfull than F-15C) and advanced avionics they should still be quite good.

 

In training F-15C's keep their two wing tanks as well. The CFTs are both draggy and heavy, and they might further limit the amount of g you can pull or stick-throw. I don't have the charts with the CFTs on, but they are different than the ones when you have CFTs.

 

Stripping the CFTs is a relatively major operation - either way, those powerful engines barely make up for their presence, and if you want performance straight out of hell, you take those bags off ;)

 

Edit: A lot of AA missions for the USAF require VID. Merging with extra weight/drag is BAD. This is why there are dedicated fighter missions.

Edited August 31, 2009 by GGTharos

[claud]

multi role = F-16

 

end of discussion.

[GGTharos]

You forgot the F-18, several mig and su variants, and who knows what else ;)

[Rhen]

Didn't two USN Hornets down 2 MiG-21 with Sidewinders during Desert Storm while keeping their A-G weapons, continuing to bomb an airfiled after their shootdowns?

 

Keeping A2G weapons while engaging an insensate flight of fishbeds is one thing. Keeping those heavy & draggy bombs on the aircraft while engaging an opponent that knows what he's doing is totally different.

 

BTW, one hornet shot the fish in the lips at 6.5nm with a heater (FOX2). The hornet driver then followed it with a Sparrow (FOX1)at 4.2nm. The heater made the kill, arriving to the target first, but the Sparrow also hit the lead bandit. The second hornet shot the trailer with a Sparrow (FOX1) at 2.1nm. Splash 2. It doesn't get any sportier than that.

 

Stupid, really to keep A2G ordinance on the rails this close to the bandits, unless the bandits are completely unaware of your presense.

 

If I know I'm going to have to do any BFM, whether it's against the bandits missile coming at me BVR, or if I've been careless enough to buy a merge, I'm gonna loose weight quick... in more ways than one! :fear:

[Zembla]

With all these talks about CFTs and the impact they have on wether or not an F-15E is anything but a bombtruck... I started wondering.

 

Are the F-16's with CFT similarly encumbered by the CFTs, or are those of a better design? I mean, of course, it adds weight, and increases drag, but they're smaller, and in a different position. So I wonder, does it result in a similarly adverse flight envelope, or is it comparatevely less of a problem than with the Strike Eagle.

 

[Edit] Same question can be asked about the Rafale and its CFT's I guess, but I'd imagine a lot less people work with those, and a lot less is known about that plane. Especially seeing as it's a relatively new plane, in a lot more limited service.

 

-Z

Edited September 1, 2009 by Zembla

[-Bazong-]

My bet is that after A-10, ED will release a SU-27.......... :-)

 

Amen! Ever since someone said (I believe Wags did?) that it was'nt certain the Apache would come after the Hog I´ve been thinking they'll release a Flanker. :D

It would be the logical choice: A helo, a modern A2G and a classic A2A.

[T.Goat]

I'll bet it'll be a Russian fighter. Su-27, MiG-29, maybe even a BiS or something older. ED might want to get a more advanced radar model and A2A AI worked out before they move on to more technical aircraft like an F-16/15E/18.

[claud]

You forgot the F-18, several mig and su variants, and who knows what else ;)

 

ya but u gyus were going at it about the F-15E like crazy...

 

so i gave a quick solution :D

[Celo63]

...dude...you are in luck ;) ...

All 3 of those are on the list!!

 

...along with F16c, Mi24, AH64a, A10a/c

 

Where is this "list"? Any chance us mere minions can have a look at it? I'd love to find out what they have pencilled in for consideration so far.

 

It would certainly make sense for ED to make an A2A fighter sometime soon in order to keep all their sim fans happy. Considering theres probably a fair number more jet pilots than helo pilots in the simming community anyway, it would be a good move on their part. Cover all angles early on then mix and match as they want into the future. Good plan.