F-15: Aim 9 question
kmcl...@igs.net
this areqired extra step, I have in the past just got a lock on and
looked at the range, closure etc info on the right side of the hud...
thanks
Ken
PS... If you have an easy way to lock mavrks onto trucks using the
MANUAL ajustments please let me know, when I go to MANUAL it slews
past targets so fast I can't hit the TRK button fast enough...
thanks
Ken in Ottawa
Kyle Duggan
kmcl...@igs.net wrote in message <36573cde...@news.igs.net>...
>What advantage is there to UNCAGING the aim 9 seeker head in F-15? Is
>this areqired extra step, I have in the past just got a lock on and
>looked at the range, closure etc info on the right side of the hud...
>
Uncaging the seeker really serves two purposes for me.
The first is that uncaging the seeker right before firing the missle will
ensure that the missle is tracking the target. Uncage the seeker right
before you fire and if there is a very high pitched ringing, then fire.
Second is if my radar is out, I can aquire targets just with the seeker
uncaged. I lost my radar during a fight, and movedi n behind a bandit,
uncaged the seeker and the circle went right on the enemy, heard the high
pitched noise, fired, boom.
>
>PS... If you have an easy way to lock mavrks onto trucks using the
>MANUAL ajustments please let me know, when I go to MANUAL it slews
>past targets so fast I can't hit the TRK button fast enough...
>
Hmmmm...Are you using the patched version of F-15? I hope so, this allows
for much easier targeting of ground objects. Open up the weapons vid on one
mpd, radar on the other, once your in visual range of the targets start
clicking the mouse on the hud or on the radar around where the targets are,
then look down at the weapon video and it should center right on the truck.
You shouldn't have to use manual targeting, infact, i can't remember the
last time I used the manual maverick targeting.
-Kyle Duggan
Sean Frawley
within visual range and let the missile lock up on its own. The bogey is
taken by surprise and has much less time to react
--
_______________________________________________
Sean Frawley
Kingston, Ontario
Canada ICQ: 104622
s f r a w l e y AT c g o c a b l e DOT n e t
<kmcl...@igs.net> wrote in message news:36573cde...@news.igs.net...
>What advantage is there to UNCAGING the aim 9 seeker head in F-15? Is
>this areqired extra step, I have in the past just got a lock on and
>looked at the range, closure etc info on the right side of the hud...
>
>thanks
>
>Ken
>
>PS... If you have an easy way to lock mavrks onto trucks using the
>MANUAL ajustments please let me know, when I go to MANUAL it slews
>past targets so fast I can't hit the TRK button fast enough...
>
>thanks
>
>Ken in Ottawa
>
>
bumprr
at this point we being the "bogey"
Sean Frawley wrote in message <36572...@news.cgocable.net>...
kmcl...@igs.net
thanks
Ken in Ottawa
>Uncaging the 9m allows you to turn off the radar, approach a target that is
>within visual range and let the missile lock up on its own. The bogey is
>taken by surprise and has much less time to react
>
>--
kmcl...@igs.net
have not,now that I have had the program for a few MONTHS I just now
feel that I understand enough to give a reel opponent a try...
Ken
Robert W. Nielsen
System), doesn't even NEED the radar. It can just engage IRSTS, arm IR
missiles, and close in for the kill.
Charming, ain't it?
Bob "KnightRyder" Nielsen
bumprr wrote:
> Does anyone know if the enemy AI does this to us??
> at this point we being the "bogey"
>
> Sean Frawley wrote in message <36572...@news.cgocable.net>...
DeadCat
nearly every incoming missile. I say nearly because he does occasionally
miss a couple. In that case the only notification you'll get that you've
been fired upon is your caution panel lighting up and your WSO yelling "What
the hell was that!?"
bumprr wrote in message <7380o3$910$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
Sean Frawley
component is left out. Fighting a2a with a Mudhen isnt the most exciting...
However starting with 40-80 miles separation and trying to lock up on radar
can be a real challenge. Feel free to email or icq me (number below) if you
wanna give it a try. F15 isnt on my HD right now (reformatted recently...
have to reinstall), but can be in a flash.
--
_______________________________________________
Sean Frawley
Kingston, Ontario
Canada ICQ: 104622
s f r a w l e y AT c g o c a b l e DOT n e t
<kmcl...@igs.net> wrote in message news:3657aa93...@news.igs.net...
>Just noticed that you are in KINGSTON have you tried F-15 on the web I
>have not,now that I have had the program for a few MONTHS I just now
>feel that I understand enough to give a reel opponent a try...
>
>Ken
>
>
>>Uncaging the 9m allows you to turn off the radar, approach a target that
is
>>within visual range and let the missile lock up on its own. The bogey is
>>taken by surprise and has much less time to react
>>
>>--
Sean Frawley
tactic when close. I wouldnt wanna be over enemy airspace not knowing where
the bogey is trying this. I would guess it is a totally within visual range
tactic (hehe except in Hornet Korea in multiplayer where it is the ONLY way
to fly).
--
_______________________________________________
Sean Frawley
Kingston, Ontario
Canada ICQ: 104622
s f r a w l e y AT c g o c a b l e DOT n e t
<kmcl...@igs.net> wrote in message news:3657aa41...@news.igs.net...
>Oh, NASTY, .......... very good tip, I'm off to give it a try!!
>
>thanks
>
>Ken in Ottawa
>
>
Martijn Rammeloo
Robert W. Nielsen heeft geschreven in bericht
<3657BE0D...@uswest.net>...
>Probably. Of course, the MIG-29, with its IRSTS(Infra-Red Search & Track
>System), doesn't even NEED the radar. It can just engage IRSTS, arm IR
>missiles, and close in for the kill.
>
>Charming, ain't it?
>
Not completely...
- only 40 deg off-boresight capable and
- no symbology in the 'seeker' so pilot has to look down to get the info he
needs
nive try though...
Martijn Rammeloo
Micheal Smith
>PS... If you have an easy way to lock mavrks onto trucks using the
>MANUAL ajustments please let me know, when I go to MANUAL it slews
>past targets so fast I can't hit the TRK button fast enough...
cockpit management, then it becomes easier.
Mike
Scott Elson
and you've got AIM-7s and 9s. You fire a Sparrow at one of the bandits
and he starts beaming the missile. His wingman keeps coming straight
at you and gets within 'winder range. If you switch you the second bandit
as your target the Sparrow you've launched may not be able to follow the
switch and you've wasted the missile.
So what you can do is maintain your lock on the first bandit, and then uncage
your AIM-9s and engage the second one at the same time.
Elf
Sean Frawley wrote:
> Uncaging the 9m allows you to turn off the radar, approach a target that is
> within visual range and let the missile lock up on its own. The bogey is
> taken by surprise and has much less time to react
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Sean Frawley
> Kingston, Ontario
> Canada ICQ: 104622
> s f r a w l e y AT c g o c a b l e DOT n e t
>
> <kmcl...@igs.net> wrote in message news:36573cde...@news.igs.net...
> >What advantage is there to UNCAGING the aim 9 seeker head in F-15? Is
> >this areqired extra step, I have in the past just got a lock on and
> >looked at the range, closure etc info on the right side of the hud...
> >
> >thanks
> >
> >Ken
> >
> >PS... If you have an easy way to lock mavrks onto trucks using the
> >MANUAL ajustments please let me know, when I go to MANUAL it slews
> >past targets so fast I can't hit the TRK button fast enough...
> >
> >thanks
> >
> >Ken in Ottawa
> >
> >
Scott Elson
a bit to notice a missile since he can't be looking everywhere at once.
Elf
DeadCat wrote:
> Yes, some but not all do. But we have the extra safety of a WSO calling out
> nearly every incoming missile. I say nearly because he does occasionally
> miss a couple. In that case the only notification you'll get that you've
> been fired upon is your caution panel lighting up and your WSO yelling "What
> the hell was that!?"
>
> bumprr wrote in message <7380o3$910$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
> >Does anyone know if the enemy AI does this to us??
> >at this point we being the "bogey"
> >
> >Sean Frawley wrote in message <36572...@news.cgocable.net>...
DeadCat
9nm away, toss a heater at me, and a half second later my WSO gives me an
exact bearing. I'm not really complaining though. I suppose his near
robotic eyesight is built into the sim to compensate for the lack of
situation awareness that is inherit with any flight sim. There is only so
much you can see from a 17" two dimensional cathode ray tube.
Scott Elson wrote in message <36599DF2...@origin.ea.com>...
Clunk
Whilst on the subject of the 'Winder, does anyone find they prefer the 9P to
the 9M? I just started the Iran campaign again and decided to use the
"better" missile from the get-go (twice as many in stock as the Mike model)
and so far, have had my butt well and truly kicked by the Iranian F5's.
I subsequently made a bunch of check-rides in Instant-action with a 4x9M
loadout and a 4x9P loadout against a variety of opponents, including the
F5's in differing circumstances, such as head-on, tail-on, beam, etc. The
9M's had a very good kill ratio, around 70% in fact. With the 9P's OTOH, I
only got two kills out of about fifteen firings - not good.
Is this just me or is there a problem here? I've tried both caged and
uncaged and have nop answer so far. FYI, the missile reticle for the
P-model is about half the size of the M-model's when caged and when you
uncage, it disappears altogether. Very seldom do I get a growling tone and
then only if I steer the aircraft datum into the target reticle. What
gives?
Also, I've noticed a tendency for all AIM-9's to detonate way too early
against F5's - no such problems against everything else. Anyone else?
Best regards, Rik.
Kyle Duggan wrote in message <7375va$a...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>...
>
>kmcl...@igs.net wrote in message <36573cde...@news.igs.net>...
>>What advantage is there to UNCAGING the aim 9 seeker head in F-15? Is
>>this areqired extra step, I have in the past just got a lock on and
>>looked at the range, closure etc info on the right side of the hud...
>>
>
>Uncaging the seeker really serves two purposes for me.
<<<Good stuff snipped>>>
>-Kyle Duggan
>
>
John
Clunk wrote in message ...
while the 9P's are REAR ASPECT...you need to be rear hemisphere before
firing them... I fly with them a lot as it makes it a lot more
challenging...
Scott Elson
It's a
rear aspect only missile with a shorter range. I'd only use them if you've run
out of the other variants. There're also fun in multiplayer games when
you want more than guns, but not much more.
CJ Martin
>CJ can correct me if I goof this up. The 'P' variant is the export version.
>It's a
>rear aspect only missile with a shorter range. I'd only use them if you've run
>out of the other variants. There're also fun in multiplayer games when
>you want more than guns, but not much more.
Correct. The main reason I included it was to have a rear aspect only heater
for the F-15E.
-CJ
Robey
Uhhhhhh, you mean those Papas I carried back in the late 80's were
EXPORT AIM-9s?
8-) just call me Dimpy
Kurt Plummer
>
> In article <36649a96...@news.concentric.net>,
> first-tier Sidewinders along the L/M "all aspect" branch of the
> development tree to most of our NATO allies, Egypt, and so on.)
>
> Of course, calling -9P an "export weapon" is something of a partial
> characterization. While it is true that second-tier export was
> contemplated in the design spec, it was also intended to be a low-cost
> alternative in USAF use. The current USAF fact file on the weapon seems
> to suggest that all -9Ps have been withdrawn from operational status
> (though a good number of them may remain in the inventory). The Big
> AA-11 Scare of the early 90s may have had something to do with this.
>
> -R. "but you were making sure that the airplanes you were flying had the
> little stars-and-bars thingies on them, right?" Lee
>
> --
> _____
> Robin John Lee <amr...@ix.netcom.com>
> YLS '99 - New Haven, Connecticut, USA
> Vulture's Row/Russian Navy - <http://www.webcom.com/amraam>
Actually...
Starting with the AIM-9P-4 the 'J-canard' Winder has a 'limited all
aspect' capability. I assume this implies select engine settings and
view of the engine plume, hot-not-cold side.
AIM-9P-5 has reprogrammable IRCCM which is at least 'compareable' to the
AIM-9S variant of the L which we sold to Euromissile for Europeans
coproduction.
In the Gulf, the U.S. lend-leased AIM-9M-6/7 to a lot of users to fill
out their inventory and provide a common upgrade standard (I hear that
the Russians told us about a new flare and we rushed some IRCCM thru QRC
development).
NOW I understand we're using the AIM-9M-8/9 which has some new 'flex
stops' (no idea whether this is mechanical or software) to slightly
enhance the 24-27`, spring precess gimbals '2d' limits. I suspect it's
software since the cost is low and there is yet another CCM improvement
as well.
The BIG PISSER about F-15 is the TOTAL lack of useful weapons -on either
side- for Post-'21 warfare. I care not whiskers damn for on-ground
cluster footprints or ballute tails or the difference between a 10 and a
24 or /what/ #!(%&@* kind of submunition a CBU-58 has compared to a
CBU-87! The thought of delivering Durandal is particularly nauseating.
Nor am I terribly 'appreciative' of the difference between AIM-7 and
AIM-120B or AIM-9L and AIM-9M! What I want is a weapons inventory that
lets me make REAL (gross, easily sim-player understood) weapons envelope
overlay choices, both with the enemy and with pylon-fuel profile
choices. Ideally, there should be more than one (survivable) way to do
so.
If Janes ever get's their shit together and does a REAL 'upgrade' to
that airframe-sim I hope they (after a Euro-graphics engine) include
weapons with 10-20nm differences in range, and ALL standoff capable.
AIM-120B to C to ram-Stage III (FMRAAM equivalent say) in a ratio of
300-200-100 would give you the ability to compete with Alamo-short-rf-A
equipped MiG-29 (Basically today's Iran/Iraq and Balkan), 'Tomorrows'
AA-12 Adder-baseline (Syrian, Korean, Indian?) and 'Theoretical' AA-12PD
Ramjet shooters (Russia?) on a "Well we're flying over XX airbase today,
better get out the long(est) spears" basis.
Similarly, it's absolutely disgusting what the USAF has done with the
AIM-9X program. It will neither range nor accel beat the the
K-74/P4/AIM-132 class. But I still hope that Janes 'cheats' and
provides us both it and the JHMCS system so that we can use
sophisticated 'lateral-merge' (coatrail pullback conversions etc.)
doctrine and still hope to have a HOBA-in-hell chance against aircraft
with upwards of 10dps of turn rate advantage on us.
Alternately, with IMO, the gaudy failure of IAF, Janes could issue a
'Flashpoint Syria' game and straight-up employ the DASH/Python-4 system
with lighter weight Baz/Akef and Israeli knife-tactics.
Air To Mud is another scruggly. Tomorrow's strike warfare will likely
be charactere-phrased by: "Never below the horizon or across it". This
means that the pitch-over-into-pipe, DToss, methods will go right out
the window and Laydown (or at least low level LOS cross of the SHORADS
envelope) will be even dumber than it is today.
Systems like JDAM and JSOW or /at least/ WCMD will instead be 'stacked'
into multiple target aimpoint settings laid over APG-70 SAR images and
dropped from no less than 4 up and 6 out and as much as 20-25. No
GBU-15 'fly the seeker' BS but inertial flight paths with tailored
routes /programmed in/ (AGM-154), where needed. With these kinds of
standoff weapons you can then start to introduce REAL threat-AD weapons
systems in turn: Hot little items like Starstreak and RBS-90 in the
MANPADS category (below 16K and you're dead) and SA-10/12/17/Aster/NASAM
into the 'medium, multifire' category (inside 15-20nm without Weasel is
iffy) would certainly be less boring than 'SA-2 up the wazzoo'.
A side bonus of such a system is that a player can REALISTICALLY recieve
several, geographically distinct (i.e. 'take on the world' separate,
with independent AD complexes, defending) target matrixes in each
mission and use various profiles and weapons systems to ensure safe
delivery, particularly as he depletes his expendables categories (No
more smart toweds? TFR-'Toss' JSOW).
You might then have less "Total Failure or give that man an Air Force
Cross" type dissimilarity between sorties results; instead giving
partial success based on strategic shifts imparted from the weapon BDA
recce and subsequent logistical 'swings' imparted to an enemy MOVING
AROUND in a ground war (This Desert Storm bombing of a static enemy
whose 'C3' consists of a tent encampment and some camels is boring as
hell).
Never forget that by buying so few, we've essentially made the Mud Hen
another F-111, silver bullet type, interdictor. There will rarely be
more than a Wing in-theatre and if there's 2+ theatres active it may
only be a Squadron commitment or less. You must therefore use that kind
of platform capability -Very Carefully- with the /best/ weapons
available both to ensure it's survival and effectively 'contain' and
channelize an MRC. THEN you bring in the BUFF's from Garcia to carpet
bomb the Republican Guard!!
Oh, did I mention that I -miss- HARM/PDF/MALD? I don't care if their
'active' in the inventory. AMRAAM was ten years from 'active' when F3
came out but I defy a simmer to have won the a hard-level Israeli
campaign without it on his 16A...
Kurt Plummer
Joerg Jooss
>Whilst on the subject of the 'Winder, does anyone find they prefer
the 9P to
>the 9M? I just started the Iran campaign again and decided to use
the
>"better" missile from the get-go
Simple answer: The 9P is *not* the better model. It's a cheap
rear-aspect
missile.
--
Joerg Jooss
E-mail: Joerg...@home.ivm.de -- jo...@uni-koblenz.de
WWW: http://www.uni-koblenz.de/~jooss/
Phone: (+49) 2641 201967 -- (+49) 261 9119438
Clunk
of Janes F15 to the "P3 and P4" variants having all-aspect engagement
capability...? Whuh? Never mind. Basically, bigger warhead, rear-aspect?
;-)
Found a whole heap of great info on all sorts of missiles here
http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/text/missiles/
Check it out on one of those cold, rainy evenings when you've nothing else
to do.
Best regards, Rik.
Scott Elson wrote in message <366452B0...@origin.ea.com>...
Robin Lee
Capt. Dimpy <rf...@concentric.net> wrote:
>CJ Martin wrote:
>
>>Scott Elson <sel...@origin.ea.com> wrote:
>>>It's a
Stocky2
the P model.
Someone else way back explained what is going on. With both M and P you can
get a lock with plane radar however the seeker needs heat to find a target
after launch. While you can easily get a radar lock the seeker may not be
seeing the heat source expecially on the P model- the way to get the seeker to
find the source (target) is to uncage after radar lock and wait for the seeker
to see and increase growl tone. If the target then turns its heat source away
after firing the p model may lose the track- the M model being all aspect can
also pick up plane skin friction heat more easily and is the more advanced
model of the aim ir missiles between the two. Keep in mind after an ir launch
the missile is on its own and doesn't care whose side the heat source it finds
is on- it will even attack the sun if that is the hottest target in its view or
a friendly plane that it may find.
> campaign again and decided to use the
>"better" missile from the get-go (twice as many in stock as the Mike model)
The M, of course, is clearly the better model.
Sto...@aol.com
Robin Lee
Clunk <Cl...@BiTeMeSpAmMeRemail.msn.com> wrote:
>Yup, that makes sense although there is mention in the "reference" section
>of Janes F15 to the "P3 and P4" variants having all-aspect engagement
>capability...? Whuh? Never mind. Basically, bigger warhead, rear-aspect?
>;-)
Warning: this is a very long answer to a very short question.
The developmental history of the Sidewinder is a little complex and goes
something like this:
[USN line] [all-aspect line]
AIM-9B-----9D-----9G-----9H--------9L------9M------9R-----9X
+
+----9E-----9J-----9J/9N-----9P-/P2/3/4/5
[USAF line] ["export" line]
In the beginning there was the -9B, which was developed by the Naval
Weapons types at China Lake and really was the grandfather of the
heat-seeking AAM. This was promptly adopted by both the USN and the USAF
(as well as by overseas allies, who were the first to put it to use in a
combat situation). AIM-9Bs went into action with both services in
Southeast Asia; initial results were somewhat disappointing and it wasn't
long before people started looking seriously at improving the system.
The Navy went with the AIM-9D, which was an evolutionary upgrade to the
9B. The USAF, in what was perhaps one of the more questionable
technical decisions of the air war (see Michel's "Clashes" for a fuller
discussion), opted for more modest improvements to the 9B in the "Air
Force" AIM-9E. The idea was to use a "cheap" 9E until the "big future
upgrade," called the AIM-9J, could be deployed. That, unfortunately,
didn't happen until 1972, and the USAF was plagued with relatively
low-performance 9Bs and 9Es until then. In the meantime, the Navy was
getting substantially better performance with its own 9D/G/H line of
missiles, and they were getting it right away. At one point the USAF
requested a shipment of 9Gs from the Navy -- unfortunately, there was a
major design change at the AIM-9D stage that essentially made the entire
"Navy line" of Sidewinders incompatible with the existing USAF hardware.
The Air Force eventually got its AIM-9Js, but that came quite late in the
war.
The next major step was the "all aspect" revolution, and the USAF got on
board for this one. By this time the Navy AIM-9H had established itself
as the most effective Sidewinder in the world, and it was upon the 9H that
the next generation as based. That eventually became the AIM-9L, which
became world-famous in the Falklands and over the Bekaa Valley; in 1982,
the AIM-9M that we all know and love entered service. The 9M is a mature
weapons system at this point (9M-8 for the Navy, 9M-9 for the Air Force).
But that's not the end of the story. The "Air Force line" did not end
with the AIM-9J (which matured into the AIM-9N in 1973). Because the USAF
sensed the need for a low-end export variant as well as a "cheap" IR round
for its own use (and perhaps a sense of institutional wounded pride over
the whole 9E/9J affair), the 9J/N was further developed into the AIM-9P.
Note that this was not part of the all-aspect line that had developed out
of the Navy AIM-9H -- hence, the early 9Ps, 9P-2s, and 9P-3s are
rear-aspect only. This changed with AIM-9P-4, which cobbled some of the
9L seeker technology onto the 9P airframe to give it all-aspect
capability; 9P-5 was a further refinement with upgraded ECCM.
AIM-9P Basic AIM-9J upgrade, 1978
AIM-9P-1 Active optical fuze replaces IR influence fuze
AIM-9P-2 Reduced-smoke motor
AIM-9P-3 Active optical fuze, reduced-smoke motor, improved
warhead (more stable/longer shelf life)
AIM-9P-4 All-aspect seeker
AIM-9P-5 ECCM upgrade
The point of all this is that the AIM-9P is really a *cousin* of the
present 9L/9M; it's a product of a 30-year old USAF/USN dispute over the
future of AAMs and doesn't really fall directly within the same
evolutionary chain. In some sense it's a very different missile (perhaps
unsurprising, since the AIM-9 dynasty -- almost 50 years old -- is really
too large to encompass just one basic design).
>Found a whole heap of great info on all sorts of missiles here
>http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/text/missiles/
The official USAF fact file on AIM-9 is at
<http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/AIM_9_Sidewinder.html>. But the best
history of the Sidewinder that I've seen online is by an Australian
airpower analyst named Carlo Kopp (notable for his work on conventional
EMP bombs, among other things), available at
<http://www.sci.fi/~fta/aim9.html>. Kopp is a physics-trained type, IIRC,
so some of the account is densely technical, but it's a really nice piece
of work.
-R.
John
>Uhhhhhh, you mean those Papas I carried back in the late 80's were
>EXPORT AIM-9s?
>
>
Don't you remember, I think the Iranians traded them back to us
for TOW's <G>
CJ Martin
>Uhhhhhh, you mean those Papas I carried back in the late 80's were
>EXPORT AIM-9s?
>
>8-) just call me Dimpy
That would be my understanding. ;-)
The USAF and USN "aquired" a bunch of AIM-9P's for themselves (hence the
reason they are listed in the Dash/NATOPS manuals), however, the missile was
designed primarily for export. Kinda like the F-5 "Freedom Fighter"...
-CJ
CJ Martin
>Of course, calling -9P an "export weapon" is something of a partial
>characterization. While it is true that second-tier export was
>contemplated in the design spec, it was also intended to be a low-cost
>alternative in USAF use. The current USAF fact file on the weapon seems
>to suggest that all -9Ps have been withdrawn from operational status
>(though a good number of them may remain in the inventory). The Big
>AA-11 Scare of the early 90s may have had something to do with this.
D'oh! That's for the clarification.
-CJ
Micheal Smith
wrote:
>Nice post, Kyle.
>
>Whilst on the subject of the 'Winder, does anyone find they prefer the 9P to
>"better" missile from the get-go (twice as many in stock as the Mike model)
a/c to deal with in F15. They were what made the Iranian campaign
worth the effort :)
Mike
Robin Lee
Kurt Plummer <ch1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>The BIG PISSER about F-15 is the TOTAL lack of useful weapons -on either
>side- for Post-'21 warfare. I care not whiskers damn for on-ground
>cluster footprints or ballute tails or the difference between a 10 and a
>24 or /what/ #!(%&@* kind of submunition a CBU-58 has compared to a
>CBU-87! The thought of delivering Durandal is particularly nauseating.
In defense of the present design, it appears to me that Jane's F-15 was
largely intended to simulate the F-15E at a particular moment in history
(1991 and the two or three years of development immediately following).
It was not intended to get into the weird and wonderful systems that,
while exciting in concept, are largely unknown at the present time outside
the Eglin OT&E establishment.
I think that there are good reasons for this. Given the present spending
environment it is difficult to say how many of these systems will actually
make it into the inventory *as currently planned*; the tumultuous program
history that attends a lot of these weapons does not give me much
confidence that what we see today is going to enter service in its present
form. The Jane's sim that you want may be a perfect example of "post '21
warfare" as envisioned by this year's edition of "Global Engagement," but
that may have precious little to do with how things work out when we get
there. That may be an interesting sim in its own right, but I suspect
that it is somewhat out of step with the Jane's F-15 franchise. GBU-10s
may be relatively plain-vanilla, but they play an undeniable,
nonspeculative role in the history of the airframe.
So what, you say? Live a little, and forget about spoiling your precious
franchise. Fair enough, let's say that we do build the last two years of
AW&ST into the next iteration of Jane's F-15. I venture that it will be a
hideously unbalanced game, for the simple reason that the "threat" as
implemented in the present simulation state-of-the-art will probably be
unable to keep up. The IADS in Jane's F-15 (simulating various levels of
operational C2) was probably the most sophisticated implementation of a
real air defense net yet seen in a simulation -- yet by real world
standards, it's crude. Flight simulations have not reached the point
where they model enough of the electromagnetic spectrum for the tactics
you discuss to be meaningfully included. Shallowly, you may have more
long-range systems with higher PKs, but without the ability to deal with
them in ways that we expect (oh, say, with an intelligent Weasel
capability that has yet to appear in any sim to date), this will simply be
increasing frustration without adding much realism.
>Oh, did I mention that I -miss- HARM/PDF/MALD? I don't care if their
>'active' in the inventory. AMRAAM was ten years from 'active' when F3
>came out but I defy a simmer to have won the a hard-level Israeli
>campaign without it on his 16A...
??? Falcon 3.0 came out in late 1991, or thereabouts.
CJ Martin
>D'oh! That's for the clarification.
>
>-CJ
Double D'oh!
That should read "Thank's for the clarification"
I need to remember not to post before I've had my morning Mountain Dew...
-CJ
Kurt Plummer
> >'active' in the inventory. AMRAAM was ten years from 'active' when F3
> >came out but I defy a simmer to have won the a hard-level Israeli
> >campaign without it on his 16A...
>
>
> _____
> Robin John Lee <amr...@ix.netcom.com>
> YLS '99 - New Haven, Connecticut, USA
> Vulture's Row/Russian Navy - <http://www.webcom.com/amraam>
Hey Robin,
A nice post, I don't agree with most of it because-
1. Playing 'It was all better in the past so you'd better photocopy it'
is a great way to become a part of the history you idolize.
And besides who cares if I get the threat nation or the weapons systems
dead-on 'right' compared to what happens 2-years-tomorrow? 'Franchise'
aside, I'll have another sim by then. IRL, at the rate things are
going, we'll be handholding a bunch of Kansas Sized midget-threats for
the next 20 years. Boy re-replicating THAT will be 'fun'.
It sounds suspiciously to me more like classified-weapon-program phobias
(don't slut-advertise in Av-Leak then) mixed in with maybe some PC
'don't accuse the Chinese of being Nasty Commie Pinko Bastards when they
just want to reboard the MFN bus' /crap/.
'Historical Significance' (and consequences) of blasting the likes of
Iraq aside, I buy a game to let me do -exciting- things I can't do
for-real. Now 'exciting' varies. I can play Quake until my eyeballs
cross and the sun comes up 24hrs later.
/Or/ I can play F-15E and expect that hours of 'reading up' will result
in an understanding of a weapons system that -works-, not an enemy
AI/technical base which doesn't and so let's me 'get away with it'.
Staring at a 2" diameter /representation/ of a 6" diameter /display/ of
an LGB impact, just doesn't rock my cookies after about the third
return-pass through the flak because wingie can't hit non-missioned
targets and I can't afford an external-cam view to be vicarious over my
kill. With F-15EIII I could use GBU-15 or SLAM (oooh my, not allowed?)
and get the full 'home theater' version of the target destruct without
necessarily being stung by the subsequently ruffled hornets (lack of
decent TFR was a pisser tho!;).
Another replication of dtoss CCIP HUD-splatter? Unrealistic for the
threat, even over Iraq, but airframe 'exciting' in such a low roll-agile
'Yaw ake!! Yaw Rake!!' aircraft. Popup attack is like driving a bus
inverted off a highway onramp and see how many times you land sunny side
up on the other side... It's a 'Speedy' way to die, yessiree!
-Planning- and in-air -Modifying- my strategy against a wiley,
physically competitive, opponent who is actually rolling up friendly
terrain as I think; now /that/ raises some goal-accomplishment lust.
But I need a real live golf bag of some truly nasty shit to hurt him bad
with or I get the dreaded '1 Pilot Takes On The World, Film at 11',
immersion killer.
Of course this also requires an opfor that is worth diddly but it
doesn't have to be a Sun Tzu reincarnated either. Do the Janes Iraqi's
have AA-12 on their MiG-29's? They sure don't fight like they do! How
hard could it be to cheat, or use Mirage 2000. They came within a year
of having Mirage these with (C's with Super 530 but a 2000-5 with MICA
could be 'adjusted for' too...).
Even /Tornado/, with it's 'Orange Free State' analism at least had the
guts to give that state MiG-31's (errr, they didn't work perfectly
either but...;)!
2. I think you're completely wrong about the J-series weapons, the
inertials are Here To Stay.
In what I call the 'Cruise vs. Bone' syndrome,
multimission/service/platform 'compatibility' and both inhouse and
Congressional sniping have assured that we WILL stand off because we
have NO overflight-capable tactical platforms beyond the ever-so-many
117s.
Helping the USAFN 'jointness' is an actually competitive bulk-buy
pricing and the fact that no TPod is required for targeting,
even/especially the expensive JSOW.
Besides Congress (bless their little stone hearts) have already made us
go through the 'Smart Weapons Roadmap' as part of BUR just like
everything else. We weeded out the nice to have TSSAM in favor of a
twice as expensive JSSAM 10 years later and cancelled every decent LO
and Deep Strike warfare platform the USN ever dreamed of having so we
should be 'flush' with cash and even as we're paupers with over-target
penetrability. Wazzat? Boznia you say? Isn't Dorothy taking care of
that?
3. AD/EW/RF spectrum densities.
Balls. I put this in a similar vein to the lack of a decent A/A NCTR
for the APG-70 which I brought up over on RAM awhile back and for which
CJ has yet to give me a believable why-for on. What's so difficult
about 4-6, Mach 5, telephone poles coming at you from four TELAR
'bandplayers' and 1 Grill Pan/Billboard 'conductor'?
TVM SARH aside (mode replication is likely invisible in-game) such are
nothing more or less than a 'clustered SA-6' site! Add a piece of code
that says if you put down the surv, the mini's go to but that if you
HARM a mini the rest keep firing. Simple.
The /lethality/ comes from having a missile capable of HUGE G and
closure like you've never seen before and an EPAR targeting system which
can simul-gauge the whole flight; about 20nm further out than we've come
to expect. Again this doesn't necessarily reflect upon radar physics,
it's just: "Check Lead Aspect, Check Burn-thru range, Check CM negative
impact value of expendables/TEWS on the first two and move the weapon
coordinate" type deal. Keep doing this until impact or miss. Big Deal,
I modded up an SA-10 and SA/N-6 for ATF about a year before F-15E came
out, it wasn't graphically or systems perfect but it sure as put the
Fear Of God into a bunch of folks over at The Wild Bunch.
SALH/LCG weapons like Starstreak and The Svede are also doable, just mod
the symbology to an 'AVR-2' (or whatever the heck they fuzzbuster the
cockpit coaming with in a fast mover these days) format while continuing
to use basic RWR style LOS-bearing 'emitter' game math and pumping up
the ECCM of the weapon to 'impossible to jam' levels.
The game doesn't care what you call the code and the player only goes by
the dressing in the window as it were.
Get a 'Laser' warning means it's time to start jinking like hell. Pilot
Shitting the weapon out of phase in it's endgame trajectory is the ONLY
thing which will prevent a hit, in envelope, and again this is a
teaching aid to the novice with a death dot fixation who thinks he's
just the Sierraest Hotel driver with CCIP.
Of course you /could/ be nice and add an AAR-47/54 type MAWS which could
autopadlock overlay the missile in-bound with some collision vector
symbology to judge the dodge... I honestly don't know if the F-15E has
a MAWS yet in real life or not, but given the head-twist delays of a
monitor screen, the silicon version sure should.
Uhmmmm, then there's the LANTIRN pod-mod which AW&ST says some F-15E's
have already to zot the eyeballs right out of the firing post or it's
operator. Huuhhhh! I violated a treaty! No I Didn't, its-a-game!
I talked about something that hasn't been tested yet! No I didn't!
We've been doing this kind of stuff since Coronet Prince/Have Glance
work back in the 70's if not before... Argghhh.
Now the inertial-actives like the NASAM and Aster, /they/ could be a bit
nasty both in game-effect and in coding. You have to emulate an ability
for a missile to fly a silent midcourse (no RWR 'blips' allowed) and
then 'appear' on the dartboard only at seeker activation or MAWS
detection.
Depending on whether the enemy is into blind-lob or wants a solid APol
kinematic, the latter could come at 10nm or 2. Of course it would be
just TOOOOO sophisticated to let the selective (enemy-expertise setting)
use of blink-linking surv radars control how close the 'random artillery
salvo' of ARH weapons came to the formation (range and slant
lead-bearing overlay), wouldn't it?
And what's so damn complex about putting a Crow Link in like you have
for JSTARS? Hook up with an RC-135 or a ES-3A or an EA-6B, hell even an
F-18F or GHawk if it thrills ya. It's just a plane-icon to the player.
We've been doing that one since Raptor Sword I think it was back in
1993/94. Put satlinked data into the cockpit of a /Lawn Dart/ for
cripes sake! It would provide a /realistic/ (i.e. no real-PDF is okay)
means of transmitting non-locked site data for inflight avoidance
steering, and declutterment of the tiny RWR PPI (use along track
prejudiced, range-footprint-forward symbology like a B-scope radar
display).
4. Weasels R' US.
Well not anymore. The 50d can't suppresion loiter it's own airfield
beacon with a "Wall of Justice", 4x88, loadout. An E could protect
Eglin from Seymore for hours (though it would only have two-aboard).
And I'm not sure it's wise to put all your ARM's in one basket anyway.
If the enemy starts shooting AMRAAM style weapons from all over the
place (no physical link to a targeting radar required if you've got GPS
and a cell phone), then the old style, '1 victim, 1 SAM, 1 Weasel counts
the cost' idea of SARH-SEAD exchange ratios is right out the window and
you better pray that you've got something to chicken-zap the surv-radar
the second it comes on.
This is where decoys come in. Except, OH DEAR, we can't have decoys
because they're too 'complex'.
Mister, the USN launched TALD off of Hornets by punching in a four key
downrange/left/right/altitude profile numeric code on their UFC's.
Strictly a preprogrammed deal. If the Mighty Jane can't at least match
that with the powered USAF MALD then they're pretty useless. As for how
it /works/, in the game-
Is it any different from turning a missile onto 'collideable/targetable'
in ATF/FA? Do that and the enemy sees missiles like airplanes and
responds accordingly. Can't the F-15E engine do similar (warn the
player to keep the G low to avoid launch 'collision' of course)???
Now if you have the ES-3A say 'uhhh guys, there's an unregistered
Giraffe popping up at XX/YYY UTM, (and a new site blinks on some kind of
display) then alls you have to do is 'click' that new-threat, (whether
the game RWR code really -sees it- or not) and have the drone give HUD
commands to come to bearing and get in range.
MALD will do about 120nm so it shouldn't take long. Now (if you want)
select a TFR, Mach-2 at 20K (TARCAP) or Mach .9 at 12 (WEASEL) profile
and drop kick the wooden duck into the 'gator pond.
Maybe it (AI expertise level) fools the enemy into launching, his
missiles, maybe it doesn't but again, you can either 'immitate' the
ES-3A relaying ferret data about a SAM launcher (from telemetry
intercept) or you can say "Okay, as long as you look at the Decoy to
determine his wooden-duckiness, I can PreBrief a HARM up your behind!".
One is 'real' the other is 'canned' but NEITHER requires that the game
AI be terribly intelligent about RF physics. Only that a certain time
interval pass for either the ES-3A to target the (shooting) remote SAM
boxes or a long-parabola ARM to actually smack the cueing emitter. This
is -not- impossible for a sim!
4. If you don't like weapons/offboards that don't suck, how about just
FIXING the damn On-Airplane Avionics?!!
I admit I only had the game for about a week before taking it back so
I'm not up on all the latest patches but I /know for sure/ the LANTIRN
Tpod -sucked-.
The idea that the pod isn't free-search stabilized either by contrast or
inertial OBS-recording seems Just Too Weird.
SAR patch mode 'scanning' is clumsy and slow for overhead SEAD with
Maverick and cluster-Hand (gaaasp, no HARM??;). I know IRL at high
altitude it takes a bit of 'steering' to hold the boreline on-target for
an LGB, simply because of the early optics fuzziness and displaced gyro
'buzz' but at low? What's the use of Boresight Correlation and Maverick
if you can't hold a steady horizon depression?
If nothing else: CHEAT and 'pretend adopt' the USN mod which puts
independent gyro behind a gen-3 flask (pure real world here, I admit I
don't know what would be needed in-game). With that, even an AvLeak
flunky was able to hands-off stable track an oil tank from 16nm out and
10-12K up. AWESOME, even if slant-halved for smaller AD/tank vehicle
targets, because it lets me stack-value Maverick shots without being
compressed by overflight or off boresight limits of their seekers.
Basically, I'm a lone-knight kind of keyboard rider (and you guys didn't
do F/B anyway!! Though even my old copy of F-15EIII -does-??)
If I can't singlehandedly slew to an aimpoint and have it STAY THERE
(dammit!:( then half the F-15E's 'weapons system sophistication' is
useless for anything but planned-SAR building attack (ho-hum another
slum...). Why ride a camel at the Preakness if I can't at least mount a
decent telescope to shoot the competition with my sniper rifle?
I would personally also like to, ahem, 'suggest' that you put in some
kind of ATR so I could 'freeze' a frame and have the computer highlight
anylikely manmade objects. I must say I don't know the status of this
'for real' but I think it was recoupled late in the USAF program and the
Navy has the digicapture function.
Basically because the lo-lo pixellation of F-15E (on my D3D 333mhz) is
/horrid/. Such isn't 'camouflage', it's a mistake. Especially when I
find myself running over AAA sites /firing/ from only 500' up (like that
wouldn't make a helluva thermal bloom); spotting them by Mk.1 before
LANTIRN because the IR isn't seeing bright-contrasts. Ooops, I forget,
that's a REAL world physic, can't have that...
Then there's the APG-70 and the oft-fabled NCTR. F-15's /did/ have that
in DS. In fact it was supposedly one of the reasons why they got all
the 'fun stuff', up North while the lowly F-14 with 'only' a 50nm
missile and 35nm TCS to back it up with got to bore sky-rings around the
boat. And Iran has a new Air Force, didya hear?
I'm told CJ Martin -worked on- the /real/ radar system at Hughes so
what's the excuse? Too sophisticated? BAH!
You click on a target, in TWS, hit the magic throttle button and the
sim-engine does an aspect check. If the plane is within 20-30-40
degrees (I care not) of up the hot end or down the sucky sucky, then you
change the * to a little 'M29A' (or M25 or S27 or F16 or M2K or MF1)
using permanent | | captain's bars to highlight the DTWS trackfile
assignment (or whatever, as long as I get a good, _NON 'BLEEP'!_,
EID!!).
Duuuh, the RF dynamics of counting turbine doppler or whatever the H
'Musket' does are ABSOLUTELY UNIMPORTANT. Because the /Computer is God/
and already knows what to call the threat, you only need to challenge
the player to yank and bank correctly until he can ask his simu-deity an
answerable question.
Think about it: Simple mission-fail ROE (in the briefing text, it
doesn't even /have to/ be code enforced) "XXtoYY Bullseye, you must not
shoot BVR-first without a dual AWACS/NCTR clearance". The enemy can fly
like their other car is a Mac Truck at the merge (they have to, not to
tiger-thrash a laden F-15E) as long as they doe-see-doe they're BVR
tac-turns on the way in enough to 'complicate' the NCTR viewing
angles...
F-18E -will- have this feature (along with J-Weapons). Is Janes trying
to say they don't care what DI does because they have a 'Defense
Industry Reputation' of being better? Christ, the Super Bug is so ugly
even I shudder to look at it and yet there is STILL not a -decent- F-15E
sim out there to 'compete'. I sigh, I cry, I play F-4.
5. No AIM-9X/JHMCS. Almost forgot this one but I betcha the pilots
won't! You -honestly- trying to tell me the AF stick community won't
come looking for blood if we don't /at least/ put an agile missile on
all our aging decrepit platforms? BWAAHHHAAHHAHAHHAHA!!:)
6. No Python 4/DASH
Another too-real-for-simulation problem? Well, I suppose you know my
response here: Janes do a masterful job of evoluting a worthless piece
of rotor-beanie fighter-food, but leave the 'jetnoise sequel' utterly
untouched because nobody goes out and buys 'Longbow 2' in sufficiently
thundersome herds. Gee Hawss, ya wunder why??
If Janes won't do a substantial upgrade to this product then they don't
deserve my spending dollar.
If they DO do one, then the IAF and it's P4 on lighter, fighter, Eagles
is an easy way to go for some substantial thrill-a-minute improvement
and an idea which would finally support decent Arena play as well.
An F-15 may 'only' do 16.5dps but it will do it all day with gas and go
to spare and carrys the firepower to back it! Keep your energy game
'high' and your missile shots frequent and you'll wax that nasty
Frito-Falcon crew (crunch all you want MPS, will make more!) all over
the board.
7. Desert Storm F-16 and F3. Ooops, my bad, you are absolutely right.
I'm sorry, it was late at night and I must have been grey mattering
'F-16A15' up with the actual game date somehow. If it has an Iraqi
theatre you'd think I might be 'suspicious' of the timeline...;)
I'll close with the irony of your 'little known outside the Eglin OT&E
establishment' statement. There was a time when it was a Sales Coup to
one-up the opposition and the jaded public both with a new fin or a bit
of chrome on your tired old chassis. Janes ain't Chevy to be Sure but
with all the upcoming MPS and DID and DI and other mod-plane sims coming
out next year she ain't 'irreplaceable' either...
With Many Thanks for Your Extended Reading- Kurt Plummer
George Vangelas
that I have heard since WTI. Thanks for the lesson.
Kurt Plummer wrote in message <3665B3...@earthlink.net>...
CombatWombat
get in close, theres nothing left to do.
arga wrote in message <01be1e66$4dbf4230$55050a0a@pc-franka>...
>
>
>Micheal Smith <sm...@ican.net> wrote in article
><36654ae3...@news.ican.net>...
>the rest. I have had literally zero luck with 120's and all parameters
>were well into the green. I have about 50% chance with 9M's (but with a
>little self control and waiting for a better shot I could probably improve
>that). It's not just me either, my escorts and wingman also have the most
>difficulty w/ the F5's. Is it just that the F5 can turn so quick? I know
>a little about military aircraft but very little about the capabilities of
>the F5 or the F20 (what ever happened to that anyway?)
>
>Frank
Robey
>F5's are small nimble planes with capable chaff/flare packages. Once they
>get in close, theres nothing left to do.
Bummer...for those F-15 Drivers...however they make very nice targets
for F-16 pilots.
In the early 80's the Aggressors stopped doing setups from a 6000 to
9000 foot "perch" against F-16s. The "perch" being approximately 45
degrees off the tail and back 6000-9000 feet, slightly higher and just
a couple knots faster than the good guy. When both guys have a tally
and are ready..."Fight's On...Cleared to Maneuver..."
Basically the Vipers would perform a max G "bat turn" (ever see how
those furry little guys change direction so fast) putting the lift
vector on the F-5 and the Gomers were extremely surprised to find a
windscreen full of F-16 coming their way. In the vernacular, "it
watered their eyes." Flying against the Aggressors was so much fun,
cause those guys were so very good. You could never get enough rides
against them, you always wanted more (even in an unarmed Rhino).
Never having flown the MudHen...I'd suggest not "getting into the
phone booth" against an F-5.
Robey
arga
Robin Lee
Interesting points, though you'll have to forgive me if I truncate your
post rather extensively in the interests of keeping things to a manageable
length. On the whole I don't disagree with your design ambitions, but I
do believe that your criticism of this particular product is rather
misguided.
In article <3665B3...@earthlink.net>,
Kurt Plummer <ch1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>1. Playing 'It was all better in the past so you'd better photocopy it'
>is a great way to become a part of the history you idolize.
This would be a pertinent comment if I were suggesting that the F-15
Fighter Weapons School adopt Jane's F-15 as their core curriculum.
However, in this particular context, I simply do not see how producing or
playing a sim that focuses on a particular historical conflict in any way
makes me a relic of the past. I did not suggest that the past was
"better" nor did I suggest that all future sims pattern themselves on the
same historical period. I merely pointed out that Jane's F-15 was
designed to cover a specific period in history -- a different period from
the one that you have in mind. I regard it as a bit unfair to criticize a
sim on that basis alone; after all, one would not complain that a WW2 sim
did not include clashes of the Korean War.
>It sounds suspiciously to me more like classified-weapon-program phobias
>(don't slut-advertise in Av-Leak then) mixed in with maybe some PC
>'don't accuse the Chinese of being Nasty Commie Pinko Bastards when they
>just want to reboard the MFN bus' /crap/.
Not from where I sit (remember that these are the same people who happily
published the Morison KH-11 photos). There may be sensitivity around
particular topics due to fear of jeopardizing future relationships, but
that's just good business sense.
Now, the military may have reservations about this kind of thing, and
Jane's may tread lightly for their benefit, especially when obtaining
that cooperation. In this matter I agree completely. I like technical
accuracy in my sims, but that's not so important to me that I want people
getting into hot water over security issues because of it. If including
NCTR means that the people that Jane's interviewed for this game attract
the ire of their superiors, I can do without it. My hobby takes a back
seat to people's careers.
I'm an open-source kind of person, and I agree that sometimes secrecy in
an open society leads to bizarre results. I don't always agree with it.
But that's reality, right, wrong, or stupid -- and this, after all, is
just computer gaming. Sorry -- end of sermon. Not really directed at
you, per se.
>2. I think you're completely wrong about the J-series weapons, the
>inertials are Here To Stay.
Sorry, let me clarify my statement. I too believe that JSOW & company
will eventually come into service in some form; the big questions are in
the details. Although these systems are fairly well along, specifications
(let along performance data) can change at pretty late dates. Platform
clearance can come at pretty late dates. Weapons conversion can come at
pretty late dates. All of this is subject to change. As long as this is
true, I can completely understand Jane's hesitation to guess until the
things actually come into service, particularly since a decision was made
to limit the historical scope of the sim anyway.
>Besides Congress (bless their little stone hearts) have already made us
>go through the 'Smart Weapons Roadmap' as part of BUR just like
>everything else. We weeded out the nice to have TSSAM in favor of a
>twice as expensive JSSAM 10 years later and cancelled every decent LO
>and Deep Strike warfare platform the USN ever dreamed of having so we
>should be 'flush' with cash and even as we're paupers with over-target
>penetrability.
I think you have a vastly overoptimistic view of the congressional
inclination to deliver rational and consistent funding decisions over a
period of years. Today's "must have" can easily become next session's
"nice to have" -- it's not like appropriations is beholden to these
program offices, after all. Perhaps I'm a little cynical, but after
watching them seesaw around remanufactured F-14Ds, that ASPJ
embarrassment, and on and on and on, I've come to believe that nothing is
a given in the next budget cycle...the best laid plans of the procurement
hierarchy notwithstanding.
Again, I do believe that JDAM etc. will see daylight, and probably soon
(once you get this far in T&E they're probably going to buy at least some
of them). I think they look like fantastic systems, and as you said, we
don't really have a choice when it comes to stand-off. But I'm a lot less
sanguine that the plans will work out unscathed.
[big snip of a number of good suggestions]
Good stuff; wish it was modeled; confident that at least some of this will
come in the next iteration. But evolution takes time, and I think it's a
little unreasonable to expect that all of this would have been included in
F-15 v1.0. Two additional points:
1. A number of your proposals sound to me like PK tweaks combined with
simple relabeling of game entities. That sounds easy enough, but I
question whether this is largely a cosmetic change driven by fashionable
technolust (<g> sorry). If this is the case, I'd prefer that those
resources be devoted to more gameplay-specific tweaks, such as programming
rudimentary engagement drills into AAA/MANPADS, and so on. I'll take a
slight increase in AI over a completely new equipment set any day of the
week.
2. In those cases where you're recommending upgraded enemy systems
lethality (in the broad sense), you'd better think about a concurrent
upgrade on the player side to keep balance. SAMs that can kill without
spiking the player? Better come up with a better visual scan system than
presently exists in sims -- using wingman calls, whatever. I like Neil
Mouneimne's idea of a few months ago of implementing "The Contract" in
sims. About time that aircrew issues came to the fore.
<snip Weasel stuff>
>This is where decoys come in. Except, OH DEAR, we can't have decoys
>because they're too 'complex'.
>
>Mister, the USN launched TALD off of Hornets by punching in a four key
>downrange/left/right/altitude profile numeric code on their UFC's.
>Strictly a preprogrammed deal. If the Mighty Jane can't at least match
>that with the powered USAF MALD then they're pretty useless.
Agreed, but the USN didn't have to bother with simulating the rest of the
theater at the same time...
You're preaching to the choir on the Weasel issue; I think it's important
and needs to get into modern sims if they really want to move to the next
level. But the reality is that the state-of-the-art is at crawling and
you're talking about pole-vaulting. Yes, you can fake it with prebriefs
and setting up the enemy to treat the decoys like real airplanes. But we
both know that a worthwhile treatment of Weasel tactics needs to go beyond
the-decoy-works-every-time. We're going to need genuine IADS AI on
multiple levels for this to be worthwhile. Give it some time.
>4. If you don't like weapons/offboards that don't suck, how about just
>FIXING the damn On-Airplane Avionics?!!
These are patch issues; at least some of them have been addressed, I
believe.
>Basically, I'm a lone-knight kind of keyboard rider (and you guys didn't
>do F/B anyway!! Though even my old copy of F-15EIII -does-??)
Ugh, this is an old can of worms. If you do a dejanews search on this
there is extensive discussion of why. The short version is that this is
v1.0, whereas F-15SEIII was a much more mature product by then. It just
ain't ready yet...you can take or leave that statement, but there it is.
>You click on a target, in TWS, hit the magic throttle button and the
>sim-engine does an aspect check. If the plane is within 20-30-40
>degrees (I care not) of up the hot end or down the sucky sucky, then you
>change the * to a little 'M29A' (or M25 or S27 or F16 or M2K or MF1)
>using permanent | | captain's bars to highlight the DTWS trackfile
>assignment (or whatever, as long as I get a good, _NON 'BLEEP'!_,
>EID!!).
With the present perfectly functioning IFF, this makes very little
gameplay difference. Nice to have, to be sure, but quite frankly it
sounds a little gimmicky to me. And besides, there are those other
considerations.
>5. No AIM-9X/JHMCS. Almost forgot this one but I betcha the pilots
>won't! You -honestly- trying to tell me the AF stick community won't
>come looking for blood if we don't /at least/ put an agile missile on
>all our aging decrepit platforms? BWAAHHHAAHHAHAHHAHA!!:)
The AF stick community is too busy howling about the fact that their REAL
jets don't have AIM-9X/HMS to worry about Jane's' slight. :)
>If Janes won't do a substantial upgrade to this product then they don't
>deserve my spending dollar.
<snip>
>I'll close with the irony of your 'little known outside the Eglin OT&E
>establishment' statement. There was a time when it was a Sales Coup to
>one-up the opposition and the jaded public both with a new fin or a bit
>of chrome on your tired old chassis. Janes ain't Chevy to be Sure but
>with all the upcoming MPS and DID and DI and other mod-plane sims coming
>out next year she ain't 'irreplaceable' either...
You see, here's where I don't understand you. Jane's does a sim of an
airplane that I'm guessing you have a fondness for. It includes more
technical detail than any other sim of this airplane to date -- not
perfect detail, lots of design compromises, so on, so forth, but still, a
standard-setter in this imperfect little hobby of ours. But because it
portrays an F-15E ca. 1995 rather than an F-15E ca. 2002, because there
still are features that could be added, because Jane's F-15 v1.0 is not
the perfect incarnation of an F-15E sim as You Envision It, you return the
thing within a week. Now returning it in itself I can understand; lots of
people don't like F-15. But it seems so apparent that you of all people,
the born systems-maven, would be the one to appreciate the direction that
Jane's is moving in. I would have pegged you as one of those who would
have taken v1.0 apart and put it back together and delivered your detailed
analysis to this group for action on v2.0.
Instead you're sitting here pounding out hundreds of lines about how
Jane's has dumped an abomination on the sim community. I can see that
coming from people who hate jet sims, people who hate 640x480 sims, people
who hate canned campaigns, people who can't stand button-pushing. It just
strikes me as bizarre that somebody whose philosophy I believe is largely
consonant with that of Jane's Skunk Works would feel so negatively about
this product. It seems...willfully contrary, for want of a better phrase.
I don't think Jane's F-15 is perfect. I don't think many of us do, not
even the guys who worked on it. But I'm willing to invest my dollars
and (more importantly) my time in the thing, in order to see it evolve.
I think it's unproductive to drown puppies simply because they aren't big
dogs yet; in the end you wind up with no big dogs and a lot of unwelcome
attention from the SPCA. (Not that I would know, of course...er...)
Anyway, I've said my piece. I do hope that we see the sim you envision
one day; we don't differ much on the substantive points. I also hope that
at some point you see fit to give that sim a chance. You're missing out
on something unique if you don't.
-R. "enter big stupid purple dinosaur, singing joyfully" Lee
Kurt Plummer
>
> F5's are small nimble planes with capable chaff/flare packages. Once they
> get in close, theres nothing left to do.
> >
> >
Hey Frank,
F-5E:
Mach .09 @ 15K 14dps ITR and 7.8dps STR
Drop the value to Mach .5 and both get even worse, the instantaneous
value being only about 11.4dps. This is gonna happen fairly quick too
as the thrustloading on a Tiger II is only about .8 under 'combat'
optimal conditions. The CG is too far forward to allow any kind of
aggressive maneuver with a centerline tank and without it, the F-5 ain't
goin' very fur. The Iranian Tiger's don't even have the TShark nose and
LERX mods to help increase H-AOA stability and though the base roll rate
is Very Nice, even it's initial tire-squeal after setting the turn is
restricted by a 7G limiter.
I've never seen a Tiger with more than two ALE-39/40 series dispenser
blocks (Compared to the F-15E which has /eight/ 47's). I understand
that Northrop tested both a podded and conformal ALQ-171 towards the end
of the program but nobody bought them. The Iranians /have/ modded the
wingtip rails to accept Magic II and perhaps Archer (underslung mount,
bulkier overall). However, they are still to my knowledge using the
APQ-159 and the LCOSS for sighting which means you should be able to
lock them up almost 20 miles beyond what they can even /search-see/ you
at. The standard Sand-Lizard camo should suck raw buttermilk at height,
both for visual and IR signatures. The E-Gunship is not as nice on high
as Mod Eagle IMO, but is competitive on the deck and a helluva lot
better overall than the Iranian SWA style.
Especially compared to the 'real' killers in the Iranian inventory (when
they are flightworthy) it should NOT be especially hard to dispatch an
F-5E IRL, no matter who's flying it or what you're killing it with...
F-15C:
I'm going to use the 'with FAST' definition which says you should be
getting about .90 dry and 1.15 wet T/Wr at 'combat' (half internal and
weapons) weights. This seems similar to what the much more powerful
PW-229's should be giving a dirtier Mudhen.
Wingloading is gonna suck at takeoff (or with A/G stores) but again at
'combat' values, should be within 4-8lbs/sq' of the F-5's 68. If you
take ANY threat past the merge with crap-under-CFT and you're an idiot,
if Janes punishes you for making a correct Jettison-or-My-Life choice,
they are.
ITR in a /clean/ F-15 (at the highpoint of it's engine-life) was
supposedly about 16.5dps, again at Mach .9 and 15K. Sustained was
rather lower, around 11.8dps but as the speed winds down, those big
wings start to -really- camber air and the rate goes back up to 17 or
so. Roll is slower and the tail is going to inertia-wander as it does
with all big-ass twins under G but the basic turn rate should compensate
and obviously beats the F-5; across the board with a thrust trust to get
where it happens best or at least the H out of Dodge.
Basically: unless you're in late-Turkey or one of the Russian
wunder-jetten you DON'T get slow with an Eagle, just ask the IAF...
Now the E is not apt to be as 'pretty' with the air to mud CFT, LANTIRN
and heavyweight structure but it will have non-asthmatic engines and
this should help more than a little.
The only time the Albino Eagles really got into trouble (at least in
AIMVAL/ACEVAL which was the highwater mark of both my knowledge and IMO
the Aggressor-5's A/A lethality) was when-
1. They got into descending scissors fights and let the Aggressor get
outside their SRM cones with that fantastic roll rate and 'altitude to
spare'.
2. Or when they came into a fight too-eager on burner and the
Aggresssor jocks used one of the Concept seeker-pipes to waste their
asses from afar.
3. Or when they did their perennial split-ess, ramp-down onto a
'helpless' sections of Tigers only to find them breaking in to pull the
Eagles across a second, spread or trailed, rearguard. Novice trick.
With the APG-70 raid resolution modes and interleave bar TWS patterns
tied to AIM-120 vector scan 'dogfight' assignment; this should NOT
happen unless you truly CF the merge in eagerness to get a fang in.
Again I ask Janes- "Where's the Beef?" or are you making tofu burgers
again?
KP
Ref: _Modern Fighter Combat_, Mike Spick, ARCO C1987
Yeah, it's only civilian and I want to get that out before some
real-jock comes climbing up my intestines looking for worms...
CJ Martin
[snip]
>I've never seen a Tiger with more than two ALE-39/40 series dispenser
>blocks (Compared to the F-15E which has /eight/ 47's). I understand
>that Northrop tested both a podded and conformal ALQ-171 towards the end
>of the program but nobody bought them.
Our "Iranian" F-5E's have the ALE-39 with two buckets (60 rounds of chaff or
flares total).
>Especially compared to the 'real' killers in the Iranian inventory (when
>they are flightworthy) it should NOT be especially hard to dispatch an
>F-5E IRL, no matter who's flying it or what you're killing it with...
That depends.
[snip]
>With the APG-70 raid resolution modes and interleave bar TWS patterns
>tied to AIM-120 vector scan 'dogfight' assignment; this should NOT
>happen unless you truly CF the merge in eagerness to get a fang in.
>Again I ask Janes- "Where's the Beef?" or are you making tofu burgers
>again?
I'm not sure what this comment is supposed to mean, however, let me point out
a few things:
1. TWS is not always the best radar mode to use against small RCS, highly
manuverable fighters. Each track file is updated only ever two seconds or so
(which is why the scan volume is so limited, BTW). We model this exactly.
2. The F-5 has a pretty low RCS, which will make it a lot harder to break out
of clutter unless you have a decent look-up agle or there is high rate of
closure (both would be best, obviously). We model this as well.
3. The skill level the AI is set to will dramically affect their tactics
against you. The highest level of AI will work pretty hard to get you fixated
on one guy while the other try to get around your radar coverage and wax you.
4. Related to 3 above, the "Iranian" F-5's have a RWR system, and they know
how to use it to there advantage.
5. If there are any nearby GCI sites, they will attempt to vector the bad guys
on to you themselves.
Hope this helps.
-CJ
CJ Martin
>That is the most comprehensive work on state of the art (and soon to be... )
>that I have heard since WTI. Thanks for the lesson.
Too bad it's not very accurate.
It's easy to impress people by spouting off acro's and whatnot.
-CJ
CJ Martin
>A nice post, I don't agree with most of it because-
In your case, a long winded, acro laced post clearly designed to showcase your
self importence by combining a smattering of facts with a bunch of
speculation.
>1. Playing 'It was all better in the past so you'd better photocopy it'
>is a great way to become a part of the history you idolize.
Desert Storm is FACT, not fiction. I'm sorry if you ar unhappy with our
representation of it, but I am quite confident when I say the air campaign
from that conflict has never ever been modeled as faithfully as we did. I
have literally thousands of pages of reference material, most of it actual
USAF data.
>And besides who cares if I get the threat nation or the weapons systems
>dead-on 'right' compared to what happens 2-years-tomorrow? 'Franchise'
>aside, I'll have another sim by then. IRL, at the rate things are
>going, we'll be handholding a bunch of Kansas Sized midget-threats for
>the next 20 years. Boy re-replicating THAT will be 'fun'.
Well, that's the challenge to us game designers, isn't it?
>It sounds suspiciously to me more like classified-weapon-program phobias
>(don't slut-advertise in Av-Leak then) mixed in with maybe some PC
>'don't accuse the Chinese of being Nasty Commie Pinko Bastards when they
>just want to reboard the MFN bus' /crap/.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Political correctness is not somethin
I'm known for at all.
>'Historical Significance' (and consequences) of blasting the likes of
>Iraq aside, I buy a game to let me do -exciting- things I can't do
>for-real. Now 'exciting' varies. I can play Quake until my eyeballs
>cross and the sun comes up 24hrs later.
Obviously, in your case (based upon this and previous posts by yourself), that
"-exciting-" part means "give me my magic weapons, make them work the way I
think they should,and make it realistic".
>/Or/ I can play F-15E and expect that hours of 'reading up' will result
>in an understanding of a weapons system that -works-, not an enemy
>AI/technical base which doesn't and so let's me 'get away with it'.
>
>Staring at a 2" diameter /representation/ of a 6" diameter /display/ of
>an LGB impact, just doesn't rock my cookies after about the third
>return-pass through the flak because wingie can't hit non-missioned
>targets and I can't afford an external-cam view to be vicarious over my
>kill. With F-15EIII I could use GBU-15 or SLAM (oooh my, not allowed?)
>and get the full 'home theater' version of the target destruct without
>necessarily being stung by the subsequently ruffled hornets (lack of
>decent TFR was a pisser tho!;).
Well, sorry about the MPD size in the game; that was a technical limitation we
are looking at overcoming in the next product. Of course, that will resulting
in too much resolution for the player, but I think it will be worth it.
>Another replication of dtoss CCIP HUD-splatter? Unrealistic for the
>threat, even over Iraq, but airframe 'exciting' in such a low roll-agile
>'Yaw ake!! Yaw Rake!!' aircraft. Popup attack is like driving a bus
>inverted off a highway onramp and see how many times you land sunny side
>up on the other side... It's a 'Speedy' way to die, yessiree!
Let me guess, you are complaining about the flight model here. I guess those
real life F-15E pilots that think it's pretty good in the game are living in a
different reality than you are. A less "-exciting-" reality, I suppose.
>-Planning- and in-air -Modifying- my strategy against a wiley,
>physically competitive, opponent who is actually rolling up friendly
>terrain as I think; now /that/ raises some goal-accomplishment lust.
>But I need a real live golf bag of some truly nasty shit to hurt him bad
>with or I get the dreaded '1 Pilot Takes On The World, Film at 11',
>immersion killer.
>
>Of course this also requires an opfor that is worth diddly but it
>doesn't have to be a Sun Tzu reincarnated either. Do the Janes Iraqi's
>have AA-12 on their MiG-29's? They sure don't fight like they do! How
>hard could it be to cheat, or use Mirage 2000. They came within a year
>of having Mirage these with (C's with Super 530 but a 2000-5 with MICA
>could be 'adjusted for' too...).
Did the Iraqi Mig-29's have AA-12's in Desert Storm? Not according to my
references. Oops, wrong reality...
>Even /Tornado/, with it's 'Orange Free State' analism at least had the
>guts to give that state MiG-31's (errr, they didn't work perfectly
>either but...;)!
>
>2. I think you're completely wrong about the J-series weapons, the
>inertials are Here To Stay.
LOL! The whole GPS/INS weapon debate is something I probably know a bit more
about that you do, but I will defer to your "wisdom" on the basis of my
previous security clearance. Suffice to say that GPS is not a magic system,
and it is fairly easy to fool...
>In what I call the 'Cruise vs. Bone' syndrome,
>multimission/service/platform 'compatibility' and both inhouse and
>Congressional sniping have assured that we WILL stand off because we
>have NO overflight-capable tactical platforms beyond the ever-so-many
>117s.
>
>Helping the USAFN 'jointness' is an actually competitive bulk-buy
>pricing and the fact that no TPod is required for targeting,
>even/especially the expensive JSOW.
Time to sprikle in some facts, to lure the readers back into your reality, I
suppose.
>Besides Congress (bless their little stone hearts) have already made us
>go through the 'Smart Weapons Roadmap' as part of BUR just like
>everything else. We weeded out the nice to have TSSAM in favor of a
>twice as expensive JSSAM 10 years later and cancelled every decent LO
>and Deep Strike warfare platform the USN ever dreamed of having so we
>should be 'flush' with cash and even as we're paupers with over-target
>penetrability. Wazzat? Boznia you say? Isn't Dorothy taking care of
>that?
>
>3. AD/EW/RF spectrum densities.
>Balls. I put this in a similar vein to the lack of a decent A/A NCTR
>for the APG-70 which I brought up over on RAM awhile back and for which
>CJ has yet to give me a believable why-for on. What's so difficult
>about 4-6, Mach 5, telephone poles coming at you from four TELAR
>'bandplayers' and 1 Grill Pan/Billboard 'conductor'?
I've answered this, as has Andy, several times in the past. Either you missed
it, or you refuse to believe me. Whatever. The S/N ratio over on RAM is far to
high for me to spend any time there.
In a nutshell, at the time of F-15's design, there was very little public
domain NCTR information avalable. Having worked on actual radars under a
security clearance, I had to make DAMN sure that I had public references for
the everything in the avionics design of Jane's F-15.
And you know what? I have friends that are currently active duty pilots in the
USN, USMC, and USAF. I don't feel particularly complelled to give away
everything in their bag of tricks in the name of entertainment. If you don't
like that, don't buy anything I work on. But don't pontificate to me about
missing secret radar modes that you only have a thimbleful of knowledge about.
That's enough. I'm done with you. I have no desire to turn this into a wall of
text pissing contest. Life is too short. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
-CJ
Micheal Smith
wrote:
>I know a little about military aircraft but very little about the capabilities of
>the F5 or the F20 (what ever happened to that anyway?)
attributes of the F5 with the power from an F404...drool! I heard
nasty rumours that the DOD killed the export program because the
Tigershark was too good. Don't want potential enemies flying better
a/c than you :)
MIke
Roy McMillion
I have know Idea what you guys are talking about and I'm glad. Radar? CCIP
HUD-splatter? Man oh man. Give me a P-51 and six .50s
Put guns on target. Pull trigger.
Now that's flying!
Roy.
arga
CJ Martin <cma...@origin.ea.com> wrote in article
<snip>
> 1. TWS is not always the best radar mode to use against small RCS, highly
> manuverable fighters. Each track file is updated only ever two seconds or
so
> (which is why the scan volume is so limited, BTW). We model this exactly.
>
you are right in that I have been over-using TWS mode, but I thought the
120's used there own radar during terminal flight anyway.
> 2. The F-5 has a pretty low RCS, which will make it a lot harder to break
out
> of clutter unless you have a decent look-up agle or there is high rate of
> closure (both would be best, obviously). We model this as well.
>
> 3. The skill level the AI is set to will dramically affect their tactics
> against you. The highest level of AI will work pretty hard to get you
fixated
> on one guy while the other try to get around your radar coverage and wax
you.
>
> 4. Related to 3 above, the "Iranian" F-5's have a RWR system, and they
know
> how to use it to there advantage.
>
I can't stand to shut my radar off when I know they are out there. I'm an
SA addict.
> 5. If there are any nearby GCI sites, they will attempt to vector the bad
guys
> on to you themselves.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> -CJ
>
Wow. I always assumed that the F5 that would sneak in from behind was
"hardwired" that way via the scripted missions. I'm really impressed to
hear it's a product of the dynamic fighter/GCI AI.
Don't take this as a flame but it sounds like you did 75% of the
programming needed for a dynamic campaign (resource allocation/dynamic
AI/GCI network). I hope this work can be put to good use future products.
(hint,hint)
Thanks for responding,
Frank
PS thank you everyone else that responded. Lots of good info.
CJ Martin
>you are right in that I have been over-using TWS mode, but I thought the
>120's used there own radar during terminal flight anyway.
Only in the final stage of flight. I think we have the missile go active when
it is around 10nm from the target; of course, the missile has to then acquire
the target on it's own. If it fails to get a lock, it will start searching and
lock on to the first target it sees. No IFF on that sucker, so be careful
shooting it around friendlies.
>Wow. I always assumed that the F5 that would sneak in from behind was
>"hardwired" that way via the scripted missions. I'm really impressed to
>hear it's a product of the dynamic fighter/GCI AI.
Nope, that's the AI at work. That's Elf's code. :-)
>Don't take this as a flame but it sounds like you did 75% of the
>programming needed for a dynamic campaign (resource allocation/dynamic
>AI/GCI network). I hope this work can be put to good use future products.
>(hint,hint)
Yes and no. True, we have a lot of the parts; but there are a lot more parts
to add and then there is the whole tuning phase to work through.
Who knows what the future will bring?
>Thanks for responding,
>Frank
>
>PS thank you everyone else that responded. Lots of good info.
-CJ
Scott Elson
a lot simpler.
We give the planes missions to fly but that doesn't mean they can't be
pulled off to do something else. Also we won't just pick the closest
fighters to engage a target. With CAPs for example the bandits must
be within the engagement range they were given in their mission. In this
way they won't be pulled of the area they are trying to protect by a feint.
Instead we'll keep looking for other aircraft we can use instead.
People play games different ways and if you don't make your behaviors
adaptive they'll have less fun since they aren't going down the "rail" you
want them to.
I think it's safe to say that we wrote the code with the future in mind
(but that's all I'm going to say :-) ).
Elf
arga wrote:
> > 5. If there are any nearby GCI sites, they will attempt to vector the bad
> guys
> > on to you themselves.
> >
> > Hope this helps.
> >
> > -CJ
> >
> Wow. I always assumed that the F5 that would sneak in from behind was
> "hardwired" that way via the scripted missions. I'm really impressed to
> hear it's a product of the dynamic fighter/GCI AI.
>
> Don't take this as a flame but it sounds like you did 75% of the
> programming needed for a dynamic campaign (resource allocation/dynamic
> AI/GCI network). I hope this work can be put to good use future products.
> (hint,hint)
>
dan...@my-dejanews.com
have to guess about the available weapons load. And the enemy. No pathetic
third world banditos. Downright demonic forces from the pit of hell. And
they smoked Luckies. Lung cancer? Better that than an instantaneous 20mm
Lung-ectomy. I agree with Cale Yarborough: When I grow up, I wanna be a
WWII fighter pilot.
dancho
In article <746h78$4...@news.dns.microsoft.com>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Sean Long
Robey <rf...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:36662302...@news.concentric.net...
>Never having flown the MudHen...I'd suggest not "getting into the
>phone booth" against an F-5.
Having done so (against a guy with about 6000 F-5 hours) during my last stay
in Bahrain, I don't suggest getting into the phone booth with an F-5 either.
Under ideal circumstances, we can turn better than the F-5. However the F-5
has a neato stealth mode. It disappears anytime it turns it's nose or tail
to you. In one fight, almost every time I went 2-circle with the F-5's I
would completely lose sight of them and would have to essentially start the
fight all over again, beginning with a visual lookout exercise. Twice, I
started out "engaged", and even though I was looking straight at the F-5, he
poofed out when he switched from me to my flight lead. I couldn't see him
until the fight had progressed another 90 degrees, far too long in a BFM
fight.
This experience led me to start flying with our high-contrast visors anytime
I fly BFM/ACM against anything but another F-15, regardless of the retna
burns.
Sean Long
WB: -eagl-
Kurt Plummer
> >blocks (Compared to the F-15E which has /eight/ 47's). I understand
> >that Northrop tested both a podded and conformal ALQ-171 towards the end
> >of the program but nobody bought them.
>
> flares total).
>
> >they are flightworthy) it should NOT be especially hard to dispatch an
> >F-5E IRL, no matter who's flying it or what you're killing it with...
>
>
> [snip]
>
> >With the APG-70 raid resolution modes and interleave bar TWS patterns
> >tied to AIM-120 vector scan 'dogfight' assignment; this should NOT
> >happen unless you truly CF the merge in eagerness to get a fang in.
> >Again I ask Janes- "Where's the Beef?" or are you making tofu burgers
> >again?
>
> a few things:
>
> manuverable fighters. Each track file is updated only ever two seconds or so
> (which is why the scan volume is so limited, BTW). We model this exactly.
>
> of clutter unless you have a decent look-up agle or there is high rate of
> closure (both would be best, obviously). We model this as well.
>
> 3. The skill level the AI is set to will dramically affect their tactics
> against you. The highest level of AI will work pretty hard to get you fixated
> on one guy while the other try to get around your radar coverage and wax you.
>
> 4. Related to 3 above, the "Iranian" F-5's have a RWR system, and they know
> how to use it to there advantage.
>
> on to you themselves.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> -CJ
Hello Mr. Martin,
Maybe I was a bit rabid.
I used HDTWS and a LOT of nose pointing and when the targets went
'south' (or east or west;) I was frequently going back to LRS/STT
switchouts until I could reestablish their new elevation slants or
recenter the azimuth. WVR I also ALWAYS extended a ways before coming
back to try and reacquire the support wingmen if they weren't already
under fire from mine.
Nice bit of stuff there but if you could lag off a section or wingman
earlier, in trail, /then/ split the leaders; I could suffer real
problems trying to chase them out only to be caught from the flanks as
the trailers accelerated up...
However, to my knowledge the J-iranians /never/ separated beyond visual
support intervals through to the radar merge and indeed, formations
seemed awfully 'welded' to a waypoint line in general transit. No
weaves or TAC turns, nothing.
They did split well around 10-15nm but by then I had at least one salvo
in-air and numbers were seldom so bad as to not give me the advantage
with even a .30 SSPk pre-WVR attrition. This might NOT have been a
factor had the remaining aircraft had truly HOBA capable weapons but
they didn't and any large lateral dispersions typically favored -me- on
the turnback to support. As long as you don't do it too soon or bleed
too slow...
I /was/ unhappy that there was no apparent emulation of the AMRAAM
uplink to improve mid-outer FPol (say 14-17nm) ECCM and trajectory
steering but still never had that much problem killing them at the 8-10
midrange and 60 carts is NOT a heckuva lot when you're popping 10 at a
time to push the gate far enough off to elude recapture on the AIM-120
seeker (assuming the game is that sophisticated)...
An RWR is 'nice' (the AIMVAL birds didn't have one and had to use calls
from the ACMI center for launch warning) but is so ubiquitous across the
board these days that I don't think it's presence should count for much
unless you start to emulate fancy waveforms which a what? ALR-46/69?
type system might 'miss in the noise'...
I found AWACS to be /confusing/ (all those menus to cycle without HOTAS
dedicated callups on my machine) more than useful but in anycase, if
don't bunt your antenna bore 'occasionally' you -deserve- to get
sideswiped...
Many Thanks- Kurt Plummer
Andrew See
>Bummer...for those F-15 Drivers...however they make very nice targets
>for F-16 pilots.
How the hell did the navy F14's handle the F16N's at Top Gun? Energy
fight v Angles fight?
>In the early 80's the Aggressors stopped doing setups from a 6000 to
>9000 foot "perch" against F-16s. The "perch" being approximately 45
>degrees off the tail and back 6000-9000 feet, slightly higher and just
>a couple knots faster than the good guy. When both guys have a tally
>and are ready..."Fight's On...Cleared to Maneuver..."
>
>Basically the Vipers would perform a max G "bat turn" (ever see how
>those furry little guys change direction so fast) putting the lift
>vector on the F-5 and the Gomers were extremely surprised to find a
>windscreen full of F-16 coming their way. In the vernacular, "it
They should get some MiG-29's for the Aggreesors, then you'd get a run
for your money in an F16 :)
>Never having flown the MudHen...I'd suggest not "getting into the
>phone booth" against an F-5.
I understand that the F20 retained the high agility of the F5, but
with a much higher T/W ratio (F16 class). Sounds like a good candidate
for an aggressor.
I read recently in rec.aviation.military that the A4 skyhawks they
used at Top Gun were basically stripped down of any excess weight, and
then had "souped up" engines in them, such that they had amazing
accel, climb and agility. Sounds like quite a ride.
CJ Martin
>Hello Mr. Martin,
>
>Maybe I was a bit rabid.
Likewise on my part as well. This head cold is kicking my ass, and yesturday
was particuliarly rough.
Although I am pretty proud of the radar modeling in Jane's F-15, there are
always things that can be improved, or, as additional public source data
becomes avalable, even added.
We set up the radar model to be easily expandable, and that's exactly what we
will do in the next product. While I won't promise everyone will be happy
(there is only so much you can do on a PC, after all), I think the vast
majority of folks will be.
-CJ
Robey
>Interesting points, though you'll have to forgive me if I truncate your
>post rather extensively...
I'm sorta off topic, well really off topic.
>Now, the military may have reservations about this kind of thing,
Which is the gist of my post...
> I like technical
>accuracy in my sims, but that's not so important to me that I want people
>getting into hot water over security issues because of it. If including
>NCTR
I can remember 12 years ago, when fighting F-15s from Eglin (they were
supporting my RTU class) we asked them about those last four letters
(I still am reluctant to utter them). Anyway, their IPs got really
uptight that we had even heard (you know what). The discussions turned
from friendly to distant professionalism. Certainly we failed the
"need to know," test.
Obviously circumstances are different now, but I wonder when this
became "open" information. <Rhetorically>
Robey
I
Robey
>The only time the Albino Eagles really got into trouble (at least in
>AIMVAL/ACEVAL which was the highwater mark of both my knowledge and IMO
>the Aggressor-5's A/A lethality) was when- [snip high points]
Cool, you worked on the AIMVAL/ACEVAL...if I recall wasn't the
consensus (except for F-15 guys) that the ACEVAL winner was the T-38?
At least that's what I remember reading, in both classified and open
sources. Again that was around 20 years ago.
The conclusion was a small, maneuverable, two-place jet won the
majority of engagements.
Robey
John
One good reason to use the 9P and the AIM 7 is so I can close my eyes and
pretend I'm in a F4 Phantom <G>..
Albert Liu
Oh, my, CJ... what's this going to be?! I almost went into spasms when
I read this... I know it ain't an A-10 cause the Austin boys are working
on that... and this thing's going to have a radar, with more features
than JF-15's. My, oh my... can I suggest carrier ops? :) Satellite
imagery or semi-photorealistic terrain? :D
This reminds me... last night a movie was on about a modern day (early
80's) carrier that somehow hit a wierd time warp storm and ended up in
1942, a few days before Pearl Harbor... they had to decide whether or
not to intercept the incoming Japanese fleet and change history. Good
but old movie... lots of shots of F-14's and A-6's and what not. And
moderately technically accurate from what I could tell... brings my
passion for the F-14 back alive again. I wanna down Zeros with my Tom!
-Al
Robey
>One good reason to use the 9P and the AIM 7 is so I can close my eyes and
>pretend I'm in a F4 Phantom <G>..
Great reason!
Robey
CJ Smut Martin
[snip]
>Obviously circumstances are different now, but I wonder when this
>became "open" information. <Rhetorically>
>
>Robey
Well, it hasn't really, not specifically. However, more and more theories on
how such a system *could* work have come out, which makes it somewhat easier
to talk about.
*I* am still not comfortable talking about it myself...:-) Old habits die
hard.
-CJ
Sean Long
>I can remember 12 years ago, when fighting F-15s from Eglin (they were
>supporting my RTU class) we asked them about those last four letters
>(I still am reluctant to utter them). Anyway, their IPs got really
>uptight that we had even heard (you know what). The discussions turned
>from friendly to distant professionalism. Certainly we failed the
>"need to know," test.
Yea... Stuff like that continues today. Stories like an F-15E pilot
speculating in the bar about how some of our systems could be used to do
blah blah blah, the F-15C guy leaves the room, the SP's come and grab the
F-15E guy out, and the next day the F-15E pilot won't talk about the
previous week anymore.
Of course, some (deleted) released some of our newest (F-15E) toys in an
unclassified document by accident... Once ya say sh*t in front of yer
mother, you can't take it back.
Sean Long
WB: -eagl-
Eric J. Joiner, Jr.
>Sean Long
>WB: -eagl-
Whats frustrating from a game development point of view is that
whats "classified" depends on the service. I know in my own
experience that certain aspects of an A2A missiles performance were
strictly guarded by the USAF when I visited them, but visiting
a USMC squadron, no big deal. Same weapon, different airplane
and different service.
Eric
Fourth Horseman
<sean...@PLEASE.no_SPaM.micron.net> wrote:
> Yea... Stuff like that continues today. Stories like an F-15E pilot
> speculating in the bar about how some of our systems could be used to do
> blah blah blah, the F-15C guy leaves the room, the SP's come and grab the
> F-15E guy out, and the next day the F-15E pilot won't talk about the
> previous week anymore.
Obviously I'm not hanging out in the right bars. :(
> Of course, some (deleted) released some of our newest (F-15E) toys in an
> unclassified document by accident... Once ya say sh*t in front of yer
> mother, you can't take it back.
I'm so jealous of you guys I can hardly stand it. I want to see all the
new toys, too!!! :(
- Fourth Horseman -
hors...@block.xmission.com [ICQ:12059074]
http://www.xmission.com/~horseman
[Remove 'block.' from my address to send me email!]
Russell Stewart
SPAM.micron.net says...
>
> Of course, some (deleted) released some of our newest (F-15E) toys in an
> unclassified document by accident... Once ya say sh*t in front of yer
> mother, you can't take it back.
Well, yeah, but she can just be "disappeared".
(Just kidding!)
--
Russell Stewart | E-Mail: diamond (at) unm (dot) edu
Undergraduate | WWW: http://www.swcp.com/~diamond
UNM Physics Department | States don't have rights. People have rights.