Rearming F/A 18?
Robin Cameron
you started with? I want to fly a mission (part one) AA then switch to AG
(Part 2). I know Shift S will rearm but it always rearms with the original
loadout.
Thanks for any help
Robin Cameron
Michael Emrys
rcam...@onlink.net wrote on 6/1/01 9:01 PM:
> Once your in a mission is there anyway to rearm a different loadout than you
> started with?
No. Bummer.
> I want to fly a mission (part one) AA then switch to AG (Part 2).
So do I. What you might try is a sorry compromise that consists of loading
mostly for AA, but with some bombs on too. Once you get into the air, unload
that part of your loadout you can't use in that part of your mission and fly
it. Come home and reload and shuck off everything but the bombs and whatever
you need for that part.
I know, it sucks giant rubber donkey dicks, but it's all I've been able to
come up with until somebody hacks the code.
Michael
Michael Emrys
at rp...@yahoo.co.uk.invalid wrote on 6/4/01 12:23 AM:
> In article <B73DD630.E3EA%em...@olypen.com>, Michael Emrys
> <em...@olypen.com> wrote:
>
>> in article rcameron-010...@nrba1-86.onlink.net, Robin Cameron
>> at
>> rcam...@onlink.net wrote on 6/1/01 9:01 PM:
>>
>>> Once your in a mission is there anyway to rearm a different loadout
>>> than you
>>> started with?
>>
>> No. Bummer.
>
>
> Another reason whyt A10 is so great :)
Righteo. It also gives you the option of rearming in midair, which is handy
if you are short of time or just impatient and don't mind the hit on
realism. You can also program the flights of your wingies and jump from
plane to plane if that suits your fancy.
Michael
Michael Emrys
at rp...@yahoo.co.uk.invalid wrote on 6/5/01 1:02 AM:
> In article <B741167E.E4CB%em...@olypen.com>, Michael Emrys
> <em...@olypen.com> wrote:
>
>> You can also program the flights of your wingies and jump from
>> plane to plane if that suits your fancy.
>
> That is handy if your Hawg gets trashed :-)
Also if you don't want to take advantage of the midair rearming feature and
you want the extra ordnance to complete the mission. So you take one plane
out to do suppression of enemy air defenses and a follow-up plane to plaster
the target. You put the first plane on autopilot and it follows the
waypoints home and lands itself while you plaster the target. Nice, eh?
Michael
Michael Emrys
at rp...@yahoo.co.uk.invalid wrote on 6/6/01 12:55 AM:
> In article <B7425BE1.E55A%em...@olypen.com>, Michael Emrys
> <em...@olypen.com> wrote:
>
>> Also if you don't want to take advantage of the midair rearming feature
>> and
>> you want the extra ordnance to complete the mission. So you take one
>> plane
>> out to do suppression of enemy air defenses and a follow-up plane to
>> plaster
>> the target. You put the first plane on autopilot and it follows the
>> waypoints home and lands itself while you plaster the target. Nice, eh?
>
>
> Absolutely.
>
> It's about the only way I can complete the 'Blockade' mission in Cuba.
That's probably the hardest mission in both sims. I admit that I've never
been successful in that one, but I've never tried using multiple planes
either. I think the best I ever did was get it down to one or two enemy
ships before they sank all of mine. Silly concept anyway (like most of the
missions in Cuba; Cuba occurs in a real fantasyland). Where are the Harpoon
firing P-3s, etc.? After all, Guantanamo is a *naval* base!
Michael
Paul Frankenstein
Michael Emrys <em...@olypen.com> wrote:
* That's probably the hardest mission in both sims. I admit that I've never
* been successful in that one, but I've never tried using multiple planes
* either. I think the best I ever did was get it down to one or two enemy
* ships before they sank all of mine. Silly concept anyway (like most of the
* missions in Cuba; Cuba occurs in a real fantasyland). Where are the Harpoon
* firing P-3s, etc.? After all, Guantanamo is a *naval* base!
Most of the military sims out there exist in a serious
fantasyland. Certainly the Hornet series does...
p
--
paulf |
@ |
panix | Some days you're the bug.
.com | Some days you're the windshield.
Michael Emrys
pa...@hormelproducts.com.invalid wrote on 6/6/01 12:42 PM:
> In article <B743C1BB.E621%em...@olypen.com>,
> Michael Emrys <em...@olypen.com> wrote:
>
> * That's probably the hardest mission in both sims. I admit that I've never
> * been successful in that one, but I've never tried using multiple planes
> * either. I think the best I ever did was get it down to one or two enemy
> * ships before they sank all of mine. Silly concept anyway (like most of the
> * missions in Cuba; Cuba occurs in a real fantasyland). Where are the Harpoon
> * firing P-3s, etc.? After all, Guantanamo is a *naval* base!
>
> Most of the military sims out there exist in a serious
> fantasyland. Certainly the Hornet series does...
Can't argue with that. ;-)
Some are a tad more egregious than others, but clearly game designers have
gotten the message that what the greater part of the buying public wants is
self-aggrandizing fantasies.
Michael
Paul Frankenstein
Michael Emrys <em...@olypen.com> wrote:
* in article 9fm133$o6i$1...@panix3.panix.com, Paul Frankenstein at
* pa...@hormelproducts.com.invalid wrote on 6/6/01 12:42 PM:
*
* > In article <B743C1BB.E621%em...@olypen.com>,
* > Michael Emrys <em...@olypen.com> wrote:
* >
* > * That's probably the hardest mission in both sims. I admit that I've never
* > * been successful in that one, but I've never tried using multiple planes
* > * either. I think the best I ever did was get it down to one or two enemy
* > * ships before they sank all of mine. Silly concept anyway (like most of
* > * the
* > * missions in Cuba; Cuba occurs in a real fantasyland). Where are the
* > * Harpoon
* > * firing P-3s, etc.? After all, Guantanamo is a *naval* base!
* >
* > Most of the military sims out there exist in a serious
* > fantasyland. Certainly the Hornet series does...
*
* Can't argue with that. ;-)
*
* Some are a tad more egregious than others, but clearly game designers have
* gotten the message that what the greater part of the buying public wants is
* self-aggrandizing fantasies.
That, and the fact that a realistic military flight sim set in N.
Korea/Iraq/Libya would be really boring.
Really, really, really boring.
p
--
paulf | Some days you're the bug. |
@ | Some days you're the windshield. |
panix | |
.com | | <http://www.asterius.com/pf/>
Michael Emrys
paulf@pani/munge/x.com wrote on 6/6/01 7:17 PM:
Interspersed occasionally with moments that were terrifying. Really, really
terrifying.
Michael
Paul Frankenstein
Michael Emrys <em...@olypen.com> wrote:
* in article paulf-680439....@news1.panix.com, Paul Frankenstein at
* paulf@pani/munge/x.com wrote on 6/6/01 7:17 PM:
*
* > In article <B74407FF.E64F%em...@olypen.com>,
* > Michael Emrys <em...@olypen.com> wrote:
* >
* > * in article 9fm133$o6i$1...@panix3.panix.com, Paul Frankenstein at
* > * pa...@hormelproducts.com.invalid wrote on 6/6/01 12:42 PM:
* > *
* > * > Most of the military sims out there exist in a serious
* > * > fantasyland. Certainly the Hornet series does...
* > *
* > * Can't argue with that. ;-)
* > *
* > * Some are a tad more egregious than others, but clearly game designers
* > * have
* > * gotten the message that what the greater part of the buying public wants
* > * is
* > * self-aggrandizing fantasies.
* >
* > That, and the fact that a realistic military flight sim set in N.
* > Korea/Iraq/Libya would be really boring.
* >
* > Really, really, really boring.
*
* Interspersed occasionally with moments that were terrifying. Really, really
* terrifying.
Only for the first two days of the campaign. How long do you really
think it would take US forces to establish complete air superiority over
N. Korea, for example? (we already know how long it would take against
Iraq....)
Michael Emrys
paulf@pani/munge/x.com wrote on 6/7/01 5:28 AM:
> In article <B7443A13.E6AB%em...@olypen.com>,
> Michael Emrys <em...@olypen.com> wrote:
>
> * in article paulf-680439....@news1.panix.com, Paul Frankenstein at
> * paulf@pani/munge/x.com wrote on 6/6/01 7:17 PM:
> *
> * > In article <B74407FF.E64F%em...@olypen.com>,
> * > Michael Emrys <em...@olypen.com> wrote:
> * >
> * > * in article 9fm133$o6i$1...@panix3.panix.com, Paul Frankenstein at
> * > * pa...@hormelproducts.com.invalid wrote on 6/6/01 12:42 PM:
> * > *
> * > That, and the fact that a realistic military flight sim set in N.
> * > Korea/Iraq/Libya would be really boring.
> * >
> * > Really, really, really boring.
> *
> * Interspersed occasionally with moments that were terrifying. Really, really
> * terrifying.
>
> Only for the first two days of the campaign. How long do you really
> think it would take US forces to establish complete air superiority over
> N. Korea, for example? (we already know how long it would take against
> Iraq....)
In modern warfare though, it turns out that air supremacy is not the perfect
guarantor of invincibility it was once portrayed as. Ground based defences,
while not as efficient, still retain the ability to give fliers a bad time.
In any event, I've certainly lost far more aircraft in A-10 and Hornet to
ground based fire than to air-to-air.
Michael
Eden Smallwood
>In article <B74407FF.E64F%em...@olypen.com>,
> Michael Emrys <em...@olypen.com> wrote:
>
>* in article 9fm133$o6i$1...@panix3.panix.com, Paul Frankenstein at
>* pa...@hormelproducts.com.invalid wrote on 6/6/01 12:42 PM:
>*
>* > In article <B743C1BB.E621%em...@olypen.com>,
>* > Michael Emrys <em...@olypen.com> wrote:
>* >
>* Some are a tad more egregious than others, but clearly game designers have
>* gotten the message that what the greater part of the buying public wants is
>* self-aggrandizing fantasies.
Oh, cr*p- what we want is a compelling challenge to our abilities,
and if the game is meant to be a simulation...
>That, and the fact that a realistic military flight sim set in N.
>Korea/Iraq/Libya would be really boring.
...then as much faithfulness to reality as possible is also what
we want, *given* that it's a game. Naturally I don't want the realism
of waiting in the cockpit for hours, if that's what you mean.
Some car games, (notably Tokyo Extreme Racer), have taken realism
to an, well, Extreme, and I do appreciate it. For a flight sim, we
do have the unalterable disadvantage that we are looking at a 2d screen,
and the true visual freedom of the real pilot will never be adequately
equalled.
But the real question about realism in F/18 is "How realistic are:
the plane's behaviour?
missile's behavour?
enemy's abilities/behaviours?
AA/AG capabilities/ behaviours?
et cetera
That's what I'd like to know, anyway.
Eden
Harro de Jong
> In modern warfare though, it turns out that air supremacy is not the perfect
> guarantor of invincibility it was once portrayed as. Ground based defences,
> while not as efficient, still retain the ability to give fliers a bad time.
Until the defender runs out of SAMs (Hanoi, end of Vietnam war) or
guidance systems (if your SEAD is good enough)...
--
Harro de Jong
Michael Emrys
at zeppe...@geocities.com wrote on 6/7/01 8:14 PM:
> In article <paulf-680439....@news1.panix.com>, paulf...@panix.com
> wrote:
>
>> That, and the fact that a realistic military flight sim set in N.
>> Korea/Iraq/Libya would be really boring.
>
> ...then as much faithfulness to reality as possible is also what
> we want, *given* that it's a game. Naturally I don't want the realism
> of waiting in the cockpit for hours, if that's what you mean.
>
> Some car games, (notably Tokyo Extreme Racer), have taken realism
> to an, well, Extreme, and I do appreciate it. For a flight sim, we
> do have the unalterable disadvantage that we are looking at a 2d screen,
> and the true visual freedom of the real pilot will never be adequately
> equalled.
>
> But the real question about realism in F/18 is "How realistic are:
>
> the plane's behaviour?
> missile's behavour?
> enemy's abilities/behaviours?
> AA/AG capabilities/ behaviours?
> et cetera
>
> That's what I'd like to know, anyway.
I think I and most of the other regular posters here are in agreement with
you. Although I don't want so much realism that I need my computer setup to
have a relief tube, I really resent it when it is obvious that the missions
have been designed by people who neither know nor care in the slightest what
real missions are like.
As an example, I used to have Interactive Magic's Apache. The designers had
clearly put a lot of work in various aspects of it to bring it to life and
in many ways it was a nice sim. But the missions were appallingly, laughably
puerile and arcadish. They got the enemy force mixes entirely wrong and the
purpose of the missions themselves were with few exceptions unrecognizable
from the actual tasks normally given to attack helos. I ended up mostly just
flying the training missions, which were at least somewhat plausible.
Michael
Michael Emrys
hcde...@wanadoo.nl wrote on 6/7/01 11:06 PM:
In most of the scenarios where air forces have been seriously engaged since
WW II, there was enough AAA to keep attacking aircraft at altitudes where
bombing effectiveness was problematical. That's really all it needs to do.
Witness Kosovo where weeks of bombing only destroyed a miniscule proportion
of the actual Serbian forces present.
And even the best SEAD tends to be temporary. You can, because you must,
include it in every strike package, but it does require the allocation of
resources and in a long or very intense war those could start to become
scarce. And as more and more armed forces switch to optical or other passive
tracking, SEAD will become more difficult.
Michael
Laurence Doering
Michael Emrys <em...@olypen.com> wrote:
>in article 1euobrk.qb...@4dyn159.soest.casema.net, Harro de Jong at
>hcde...@wanadoo.nl wrote on 6/7/01 11:06 PM:
>
>> Michael Emrys <em...@olypen.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In modern warfare though, it turns out that air supremacy is not the perfect
>>> guarantor of invincibility it was once portrayed as. Ground based defences,
>>> while not as efficient, still retain the ability to give fliers a bad time.
>>
>> Until the defender runs out of SAMs (Hanoi, end of Vietnam war) or
>> guidance systems (if your SEAD is good enough)...
>
>In most of the scenarios where air forces have been seriously engaged since
>WW II, there was enough AAA to keep attacking aircraft at altitudes where
>bombing effectiveness was problematical. That's really all it needs to do.
>Witness Kosovo where weeks of bombing only destroyed a miniscule proportion
>of the actual Serbian forces present.
I doubt, though, that NATO could have destroyed substantially more
of the Serbian Army's armored vehicles if they had felt free to fly
low.
The main reason so few vehicles were destroyed was because the
Serbs realized quickly how vulnerable they were to air attack,
and spent most of the bombing campaign hiding their vehicles
off roads and under camouflage.
Because of this, the air campaign was effective in a way --
true, not many armored vehicles were destroyed, but not many
were usable by the Serbian Army either, since using them would
have meant bringing them out in the open. Suppressing the enemy
isn't as satisfying as blowing him up real good, but can be
almost as militarily effective.
>And even the best SEAD tends to be temporary. You can, because you must,
>include it in every strike package, but it does require the allocation of
>resources and in a long or very intense war those could start to become
>scarce.
Along with everything else, including your enemy's resources.
>And as more and more armed forces switch to optical or other passive
>tracking, SEAD will become more difficult.
But air defense will become more difficult too. If you eschew
active radar for passive optical or infrared tracking, you lose
information, and you severely limit the range at which you can
engage enemy aircraft. In the worst case, your air defenses
might be sitting around fuming impotently under an overcast
sky while the enemy tosses GPS-guided bombs at you from on
top of the cloud deck.
ljd
Paul Frankenstein
Eden Smallwood <zeppe...@geocities.com> wrote:
* Oh, cr*p- what we want is a compelling challenge to our abilities,
* and if the game is meant to be a simulation...
*
* >That, and the fact that a realistic military flight sim set in N.
* >Korea/Iraq/Libya would be really boring.
*
* ...then as much faithfulness to reality as possible is also what
* we want, *given* that it's a game. Naturally I don't want the realism
* of waiting in the cockpit for hours, if that's what you mean.
I'm not just talking about waiting in the cockpit for hours (nor am I
talking about outfitting my computer desk with a relief tube). My take
on it is that in modern sims, the resources and the abilities of the
enemy tend to be somewhat exaggerated.
* But the real question about realism in F/18 is "How realistic are:
*
* the plane's behaviour?
Reasonable enough, relative to the other aircraft in the sim. There
are some weird things about the flight model, like gaining altitude
reduces your top speed (and you can actually exceed Mach 1 in a B-52
in the sim, something that I'm fairly sure is not possible in a real
B-52).
* missile's behavour?
No idea. What does appear to be unrealistic is that the N. Koreans (or
Iraqis, depending on if you're flying HK or 3.0, respectively) and the
US seem to have exactly the same missiles with different names.
* enemy's abilities/behaviours?
Vastly exaggerated.
* AA/AG capabilities/ behaviours?
No idea.
* et cetera
Other nits are that
1) the Seoul metropolitan area is much larger than appears on the map,
which may be related to
2) Korea (the peninsula, not the game) feels too small, like it's
actually a 1/2 scale map that the designers used.
p
--
paulf |
@ |
panix | Some days you're the bug.
.com | Some days you're the windshield.
Michael Ash
wrote:
>Reasonable enough, relative to the other aircraft in the sim. There
>are some weird things about the flight model, like gaining altitude
>reduces your top speed (and you can actually exceed Mach 1 in a B-52
>in the sim, something that I'm fairly sure is not possible in a real
>B-52).
I haven't played Hornet in a long time, but as I recall the only reason
you could top Mach 1 in the B-52 was because you could run the power up
to AB6....
--
"From now on, we live in a world where man has walked on the moon.
And it's not a miracle, we just decided to go." -- Jim Lovell
Mike Ash - <http://www.mikeash.com/>, <mailto:ma...@mikeash.com>
Michael Emrys
ma...@mikeash.com wrote on 6/8/01 11:33 AM:
> In article <9fr3i6$ht0$1...@panix1.panix.com>, paulf+si...@panix.com
> wrote:
>
>> Reasonable enough, relative to the other aircraft in the sim. There
>> are some weird things about the flight model, like gaining altitude
>> reduces your top speed (and you can actually exceed Mach 1 in a B-52
>> in the sim, something that I'm fairly sure is not possible in a real
>> B-52).
>
> I haven't played Hornet in a long time, but as I recall the only reason
> you could top Mach 1 in the B-52 was because you could run the power up
> to AB6....
I've never had the impression that GDC (the designers of Hornet) lost much
sleep over making Hornet terribly realistic. I remember one point when a
poster to their BB who was a Marine flyer of the plane posted a list of
things that should be changed to make the sim more realistic. These were
just the items that weren't classified and it was a long list.
Michael
Harro de Jong
> In most of the scenarios where air forces have been seriously engaged since
> WW II, there was enough AAA to keep attacking aircraft at altitudes where
> bombing effectiveness was problematical. That's really all it needs to do.
Surely the becoming more common of PGMs is changing this?
> Witness Kosovo where weeks of bombing only destroyed a miniscule proportion
> of the actual Serbian forces present.
Wasn't that more a matter of politics limiting what the military could
do, demanding eyeball ID of the target, then setting a minimum altitude
because (friendly and civilian) casualties were unacceptable?
> And even the best SEAD tends to be temporary.
True, you can't do much about the guns themselves (although I'd imagine
an airborne variant of the 'artillery tracking radar' would be
effective), but an army usually has a limited number of guidance radars.
Once you destroy those, AA effectiveness falls off sharply, unless
you're using missiles like the AMRAAM which can do most of the guidance
work themselves. But not many armies have those.
--
Harro de Jong
MBStetson
been successful in that one, but I've never tried using multiple planes
either. I think the best I ever did was get it down to one or two enemy
ships before they sank all of mine.
Hmmm...I've always had a ball with this one, and I can't remember who came up
with this solution. You can do the entire mission with ONE hog. Yup, one hog.
What you do is load up on HARMs, the ECM pod, and 1 or 2 MK84s. The key is
speed. There is just enough time to make one pass on the ships before the
Su-27's arrive, and let the F-16's take care of them. Also, the ships are in a
straight line so that makes your job easier. Anyway, quickly get your hog off
the ground, proceed more or less in a straight line across the bay. I usually
like to fire off a few HARM's at the radar sites on the ships at this point.
When you've flown past the ships, turn 180 degrees so you are now facing the
bow of the lead ship. Fire off a HARM at the radar. As you approach the ship,
if the forward guns are still there, disable them with your cannon. (By taking
out their forward guns, you elimiinate their means of disabling/destroying your
freighters, thus breaking the blockade). Do the same for the next ship and the
next ship, and so on. By the time you get to the last ship, drop a Mk-84 on
'em. During the entire pass, speed is your greatest asset, and jinking left and
right to avoid the AA from the damn patrol boats. After hitting the last ship,
quickly land your Hog and rearm, this time with more Mk-84's. Wait until the
Su-27's are dealt with by the F16's or until they leave. Then take off again,
firing more HARM's at the radars, and destroying the ships at your leisure with
Mk-84's. If you approach the patrol boats from the rear, they cannot fire at
you...not very sporting, but that's thir problem.
It's a great mission and loads of fun.
Mark
Michael Emrys
hcde...@wanadoo.nl wrote on 6/9/01 2:36 AM:
> Michael Emrys <em...@olypen.com> wrote:
>
>> In most of the scenarios where air forces have been seriously engaged since
>> WW II, there was enough AAA to keep attacking aircraft at altitudes where
>> bombing effectiveness was problematical. That's really all it needs to do.
>
> Surely the becoming more common of PGMs is changing this?
But in a long war, and especially for tactical use (which is what I had in
mind when I posted as above) the supply of PGMs is really limited. I think
upwards of 80% of the bombs dropped in Desert Storm were dumb bombs. I
haven't seen any figures yet, but I believe the proportion of PGMs in the
Balkan War was only somewhat higher. And I suspect those were mainly used on
strategic targets where there was a strong imperative to avoid collateral
damage.
>> Witness Kosovo where weeks of bombing only destroyed a miniscule proportion
>> of the actual Serbian forces present.
>
> Wasn't that more a matter of politics limiting what the military could
> do, demanding eyeball ID of the target, then setting a minimum altitude
> because (friendly and civilian) casualties were unacceptable?
The way I heard it was that the Serbians were really good at hiding their
vehicles and guns and setting up dummies positions to draw fire. These were
difficult to impossible to ID from 15,000 feet. From what I've heard, the
A-10 pilots were confident they could have spotted more stuff if they had
been allowed to fly lower. Whether that would have worked out in practice I
really can't say. And whether the payoff would have justified the extra risk
is another matter altogether.
I heard the commander of the NATO troops during the war being interviewed on
the radio a week or so ago, and he was very emphatic that he wanted and
asked repeatedly for Apaches to go in low at night to take out the stuff on
the ground.
Michael
Michael Emrys
mbst...@aol.com wrote on 6/9/01 6:38 AM:
> Hmmm...I've always had a ball with this one, and I can't remember who came up
> with this solution. You can do the entire mission with ONE hog. Yup, one hog.
> What you do is load up on HARMs, the ECM pod, and 1 or 2 MK84s.
This is pretty much what I've done.
> The key is speed.
Agreed. The problem is getting up enough speed while maneuvering too.
> There is just enough time to make one pass on the ships before the
> Su-27's arrive...
In A-10 Cuba! there are only MiG-29s, but no matter...
> ...and let the F-16's take care of them. Also, the ships are in a
> straight line so that makes your job easier. Anyway, quickly get your hog off
> the ground, proceed more or less in a straight line across the bay. I usually
> like to fire off a few HARM's at the radar sites on the ships at this point.
What I recall doing (it's been a while so I could be misremebering some of
the details) is turning inland after takeoff so I can build up some speed
while out of gun range, and nipping in to fire off a HARM every now and then
as I pass down the line. As I seem to recall, there just aren't enough HARMs
to take out all the radars. I think the patrol boats have them too.
> When you've flown past the ships, turn 180 degrees so you are now facing the
> bow of the lead ship. Fire off a HARM at the radar. As you approach the ship,
> if the forward guns are still there, disable them with your cannon. (By taking
> out their forward guns, you elimiinate their means of disabling/destroying
> your freighters, thus breaking the blockade).
Hm. Now this may be a new wrinkle. I always thought that you had to actually
sink them, but now that you mention it... What about the PTs?
> If you approach the patrol boats from the rear, they cannot fire at
> you...
Are you sure about that? That would be good to know. I know if you take out
their radar they won't shoot at you. Probably could still shoot at the
freighters, though.
Michael
MBStetson
My mistake. I stand corrected.
>Hm. Now this may be a new wrinkle. I always thought that you had to actually
sink them, but now that you mention it...
If I remember correctly, the mission states that the freighters must get
through. Anyway, if you remove the ship's main guns, they can't destroy the
freighters and they sail right through. It'll only take a few rounds of 20mm to
destroy the forward main guns, and that's all you need to worry about.
>What about the PTs?
They're tough. I usually try to hit them with a HARM, if I've got any left, or
just avoid their fire by jinking up/down and left/right.
>Are you sure about that? That would be good to know. I know if you take out
their radar they won't shoot at you. Probably could still shoot at the
freighters, though.
Yup, if you approach from the rear, they cannot shoot you. At least until you
get in front of them, then you're fair game. The PT's don't attack the
freighters, they're just there to make your task...interesting.
Now I'm gonna have to play it again this weekend. Damn.
:-)
Mark
Harro de Jong
> ISTR a recent issue of Proceedings containing a lengthy discussion of
> Prowlers which mentioned that they are considered scarce and a National
> Asset (or something like that).
That figures, with no replacement for the Prowler EW version, and no
SEAD planes in general (ISTR the F-16 can only be used to deliver
weapons, it doesn't carry a full SEAD suite).
--
Harro de Jong
Michael Emrys
hcde...@wanadoo.nl wrote on 6/10/01 3:25 AM:
I wonder if they will modify some Strike Eagles for that role. Much as it
appalls me to admit it, the Tornado would probably also fit...I guess.
Michael
Harro de Jong
> I wonder if they will modify some Strike Eagles for that role. Much as it
> appalls me to admit it, the Tornado would probably also fit...I guess.
The EA-6 Prowler has 4 seats. IDK if it's possible now to automate
enough functions that a two-man crew can handle an EW suite with the
Prowler's capability (or better).
--
Harro de Jong
Harro de Jong
> But in a long war, and especially for tactical use (which is what I had in
> mind when I posted as above) the supply of PGMs is really limited.
With the cost of the electronics necessary for PGM dropping like a brick
(commercial GPS units can be had for <$500, I believe) it's only a
matter of time before most of the bombs will have some sort of PG.
--
Harro de Jong
Michael Emrys
at hcde...@wanadoo.nl wrote on 6/10/01 11:38 AM:
That's a consideration for sure. I was just thinking in terms of the F-105G,
EF-111, and the F-4(?) Wild Weasels.
What would be the next step up, the B-1B?
Michael
Harro de Jong
>What would be the next step up, the B-1B?
>
That would be something. 24 HARMs in the rotary launchers...
--
Harro de Jong
Michael Emrys
hcde...@wanadoo.nl wrote on 6/10/01 11:46 PM:
> em...@olypen.com (Michael Emrys) wrote:
>
>> What would be the next step up, the B-1B?
>>
>
> That would be something. 24 HARMs in the rotary launchers...
Heh. "We don't just suppress, we SUPPRESS!"
Michael
Ryan Sain
Ryan
----------
In article <90BD5EB71hcde...@195.129.110.73>, hcde...@wanadoo.nl