It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

my crazy mod idea for A10, what do you think?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Better yet they should develop an arms tanker that can perform mid air rearmament







[edit on 27-6-2006 by warpboost]




posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   
I do think the A 10 is the best plane ever made for its purpose. I think it is just about the best thing the man on the ground could see in the air. For anti armor that is. With all the external weapon struts that it has it can also carry a awfull lot of extral ordance.
I dont think the amo drum mounted externally is necessarly the best up grade. I do however think that an electronic up grade would make some sence. That could be done with out to much extra weight and increse its targeting capabilities many fold.
I truely hope they bring back the A 10 to the regular military.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by warpboost
Better yet they should develop an arms tanker that can perform mid air rearmament

You may joke but actually the Israeli's are toying with exactly this idea.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 10:33 AM
link   
The thing is is how much is more gun really gonna do? A-10s are excellent tankbusters as is. And as it was said before the current ammo drum in the A-10 is monstrous. Sadly things like AGM-65s and HARMs have negated the necessity for strafing runs (not completely but they've taken a chunk out of the usefulness and desirability to do so), things that the A-10 is capable of carrying and in large numbers. I simply can't see a way to make the benefits of adding a larger ammo drum to an aircraft that is (IMHO and unfortunately) slowly going the way of the Tomcat.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 08:11 PM
link   
I was told by a pilot at an airshow years ago that the A-10 could carry the 20mm gunpod in place of bombs. I dont see a reason why this could not be done, but I dont think the 20mm gun pod is in service anymore...
I would like to see an a-10 with eight 20 mm gun pods, lol



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Justin_barton3,

>>
on a side note. on a standard a-10 mission what weapons do they carry?
>>

It does vary a bit depending on theater and in-dump stocks of ordnance as much as mission but a fairly constant standard would be

Station 1 or 11
Sidewinder DRA (X2 AIM-9M) opposite ALQ-131 ECM pod (ALQ-184 in the States).
Station 2 and 10
X2 LAU-68 or 131, seven round, 70mm, FFAR pod. The latter with exposed forward tubes and the ability to load wraparound vs. springout finned rockets.
Station 3 and 9
X2 LAU-117 with AGM-65B or D Mavericks (G/K is also possible), either homogenously or in a mix of enhanced CCD-TV and IIR.
Station 4 and 8
X2 Mk.82 AIR (BSU-49 Air Inflateable Retarder kit) or Radar (LD conical fin) 500lb bombs. Radar fuzed weapons are noteable because they have a rounded thimble shaped extension in the fuze well and a standard tail group.
Station 5 and 7
X2 Mk.82 AIR (BSU-49 Air Inflateable Retarder kit) or Radar (LD conical fin) 500lb bombs. Radar fuzed weapons are noteable because they have a rounded thimble shaped extension in the fuze well and a standard tail group.
Station 6
Centerline. Empty. Though there have been a few shots showing a squared off container mounted here with slanted fore and aft edges which could be either MAWS/MLDS pod or a datalink for the LITENING/ROVER combination.

If LITENING is available, it will supplant the starboard wing AGM-65 rail on station 3. When LITENING is carried, it is possible to put GBU-12 on the inboard wing stations 4 and 8. When the Comet Pod (Chemring streaming IRCM powder according to some sources) is carried, it appears to be a standin replacement for the mid-outboard (2 & 10) LAU-68 rocket pods with an aerocover. In cases where extreme altitude is a problem as well as back in the States where training does not require them, it is not uncommon to inactivate certain stations (6, 2, 10, 5 and 7) by removing the pylons. Cluster munitions would replace the Mk.82 in a high density anti-armor mission and by 2008 or so, the new A-10C with the DSMS should be 'capable' of employing both JDAM and WCMD as fully programmable, independently guided, rounds. LAU-88 (trirail Maverick launcher) is also /theoretically/ possible in the anti armor mission but the drag and reliability issues of this system make it increasingly unlikely to see use. The A-10 has no combat rated tanks so even though loiter is limited without 'transit fuel', it is rare to see them with the 600 gallon F-111 tanks except during deployment staging where one (6, centerline) or two (4 & 8) are carried.


KPl.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by justin_barton3
on a side note. on a standard a-10 mission what weapons do they carry?

justin


(1) GAU-8 Avenger gatlin gun
(4) AGM-65 Mavrick Missiles
(2 or 4) Aim-9 Sidewinder for self defense
Rockeye cluster bombs
Zuni 2.5 rockets


Those are the basics!

Tim



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 05:26 AM
link   
My favorite configuration on LoMAC has 6 AGM-65 K Mavericks and 6 MK-20 cluster bombs.

Take out the ZSU tripple-A units from a ways away, then kill the convoy with the cluster bombs and finish them off with the cannon. Or, have your wingman engage the air defenses and then just focus on the convoy and use the mavericks to take out that tank that just won't seem to die no matter what you do to it.

I've found that useful for anti-armor missions - but if your target is buildings - an MK-48 2000 lb bomb does VERY nicely.

I've found rockets to be an extention of the GAU-8 ... I've not found a scenario that I preffer to use them in.

Of course - this is based off of simulation - and real-life is somewhat different. I preffer to run interception missions with the F-15C, anyway. But killing tanks and SAMs with one of the toughest, roughest aircraft around is just plain fun....... unless that is a REAL missile flying at you - then it's probably a little different.



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Aim64C,

>>
My favorite configuration on LoMAC has 6 AGM-65 K Mavericks and 6 MK-20 cluster bombs.
>>

LoMAC made a mistake if this is a factual loadout.

Unless you are mounting LAU-117 on stations other than 3 & 9, you simply cannot carry that many heavy warhead Mavericks. It should also be noted that the Mk.20 Rockeye has -long- been out of USAF use because it has some bad habits in terms of dispense envelope, fusing and residual Mk118 bomblets.

A more realistic load for trucks would be a variation of the 'fruit' CBU's in the CBU-52/58/71 range. Or the CBU-87 CEM. To my knowledge, only the Navy continues to make some use of Mk.7 based dispensers in the CBU-49/59 range with APAM of some kind.

>>
Take out the ZSU tripple-A units from a ways away, then kill the convoy with the cluster bombs and finish them off with the cannon. Or, have your wingman engage the air defenses and then just focus on the convoy and use the mavericks to take out that tank that just won't seem to die no matter what you do to it.
>>

Zip guns are no threat if they are attached to the convoy but when we did some of the testing out at Bicycle Lake and again Ft. Riley in Kansas, it was quickly discovered (using M163 and Redeye standins) that the best way to kill the A-10 was to _have a map_ and enough geographic feature insight to see likely IPs and FAC routings therefrom so that you could hit the Hog section as they passed over a SAMBUSH/Flaktrap type position well away from the target A/A. This being readily achievable with the number of helicopter sorties and planned VE the Russians had available because it didn't require the massed numbers to sneak across the FLOT with a belly full of man portables or even light AAA type shooters as it did in the 'pure' assault mode (70-100 Hips and Hinds).

Russian doctrine being _famous_ for infiltration tactics since WWII.

This assumed of course that there was an overarching medium/high level S2A threat in the SA-6/8 class to prevent medium level transits to the battle area which there certainly was a sufficiency of along the CentFront.

In any case, the big problem with hitting CS/CSS and F2F type targets (the ones most likely to be found in unregulated convoys with tight vs. extended spacing vulnerable to CBU attack) is that the A-10 was too damn slow to get across the FEBA to do proper _BAI_ like the F-16 or even A-7 could. This was one of the BIG mistakes in the A-X flyoff because pilots were essentially rating the airframe for handling and vision and survivability (Neither Maverick nor GAU nor laser marking were active on the Hog at that point) and in static and breakout conditioned 'pure' CAS. So they were given established battlefield target matrixes that were too conveniently sited and too poorly defended.

HERE the problem is that the Soviets were /utterly ruthless/ in 'feeding success and starving failure'. They knew they had societal non-competitive pool generating sloppy conscripts feeding a very large force structure. So they were expecting to throw the majority of them straight into the wringer in the hopes of doing nothing more than force us to defend so many axes of advance that their elite Guards units could pass through the leaks between discontiguous unit shoulders.

In such a casepoint, you could expect any -successful- breakout/salient to have 10X the number of tasked (divisional or higher) S2A units as well as FA battlefield air superiority sorties. And indirect fires with smoke and frag pounding any and all possible TACP locations and ATGW teams (including helos, one of the reasons we needed to replace the 2-3km TOW with the 6km Hellfire).

To handle this, you are going to be (hopefully) working with a mix of your own fires under JAAT to stub the toe on threat rate of advance in a condition for which you will be lucky to get more than 1-2 passes TOTAL before you either have to back off RIGHT NOW as the MiG's come over head. Or the enemy are in amongst your own and deconfliction becomes a big problem.

With such desperate constraints imposed by 'forward defense' and the bloodyminded German attitudes about losing cities, you are looking to make the same kinds of high-value kills (S2A, C2 and overwatch/forward SPH and T-64/80 teams) in the treelines or reverse-sloped /behind/ the battlefield formations). Because these are static and clustered. While a chevron of tanks cannot be head-and-tailed by single kills and are likely running full out with engine generators or mortar triggered smoke as well.

Don't take Clancy's or Hackett's word about how great we were until you read _OMG_ or _Air Land Battle_ for clarification. The Russian panache was in making the Big Play happen as 'exploratory' feints all along the battlefield and then _exploiting_ the best choice with a surge of highly aggressive breakout maneuver to gain specific point objectives.

And that kind of grand-view schtick takes an operational style all it's own which LoMAC unfortunately doesn't capture with it's microbattles very well.

>>
I've found that useful for anti-armor missions - but if your target is buildings - an MK-48 2000 lb bomb does VERY nicely.
>>

There is no doubt we would have broken out the LAU-88s for anti armor but even here you have to realize that the inboard rail is more or less useless because of clearance problems (rocket motor effects IIRR) on the landing gear sponson. And the Maverick itself was an iffy weapon. The B though better as TV than the initial A's we tested in SEA, was still subject to hazing and light angles to the extent that by the time you got lockon, often you were well inside the 4,000ft point for which the Gun was a better option. While the D, initially tested in '79-'82 period, didn't reach the Blue Dragons until late '86 or so and had it's own problems. In Europe especially, neither missile was worth crap if the target:hulk densities got too high or if lofted to make range and went up into a low cloud layer which was de'rigeur for the theater.

So you basically have a 2-3nm ranged standoff weapon performing as a



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   
OTOH, the only time you would be using Mk.84s is if have nothing left and/or need to drop bridge spans in friendly territory to burn advance routes on an out of control threat lane to your rear areas. The A-10 simply doesn't have the climb-rate oomph to carry 2,000lb ordnance to a delivery height which makes sense for staying above the explosion bubble in hostile territory (Don't think we had Mk.84 AIR in the A-10 community, they were all F-111 and F-16 reserved...).

Furthermore, with the Maverick stations more or less permanently railed, you can only load to the inner two wing pylons which, to meet your previously stated standard for CAS loadouts would almost certainly have to be TER'd up as well. Unshipping racks and replugging pylons for 30" vice 14" carriage in the middle of a CAS day is not the way you win a numerically inferior ground war. It's all about the sortie count baby. Turn and Turn again.

>>
I've found rockets to be an extention of the GAU-8 ... I've not found a scenario that I preffer to use them in.
>>

That's because the FFAR, as represented, are not achieving the full range of effects they would with multidart or MPSM warheads with IFFC on a long (hi) slant. Nor are they guided. Having said that, the GAU does not serve adequately as a marking system (too much dust, not enough rising-pyre persistence for windage and offset) which is effectively what a WP 70mm does in the OA-10 mission when the inbound aircraft don't have a marked-target sensing capability to exploit the LITENING.

Even this being a 'more pylons than brains' luxury now because the target sets are so small (dispersed infantry and the odd vehicle) and the prevalence of secure modems so high in the friendly forces that you are better off transmitting coordinates directly using an IDM/PRISM type system of automated handoffs straight to a HUD marker.

>>
Of course - this is based off of simulation - and real-life is somewhat different. I preffer to run interception missions with the F-15C, anyway. But killing tanks and SAMs with one of the toughest, roughest aircraft around is just plain fun....... unless that is a REAL missile flying at you - then it's probably a little different. [/quote
>>

The problem here is not that of flying the jet. Though I'm sure they've dumbed down even that to an extent. The problem is integrating with all the other active (fires and C2) combined arms elements on the battlefield using nothing but voice radios and the odd laser marking to get in, get a maximum amount of ordnance off the jet in a minimum window and get back to a road base type 'mobile FOL' (the MOBs and prewar designated FOLs having long since been overrun or saturated with enemy air, SOF, artillery and surface to surface missiles).

Only to turn around and do it again in a jet with probably 2-3 principle systems failures that there simply isn't time or parts to fix. CAS in a high intensity operational paradigm is one of those missions which is actually won on the combat turn end of the sortie evolution as much as the pointy one because while it is crucial to get /some/ of the threat on each sortie, it is your ability to swing to new mission areas as much as target sets which makes you more useful than say attack helicopter aviation in the Army.

To achieve this, given the likely threat, you are going to be firing a LOT of ammo at LONG range (remember, pre-LASTE the GAU was effectively an 'iron site' weapon) and dropping just a few bombs before coming off the target with next to nothing left and hopefully no threat air running up your backtrail. Out-drop-back-turn. Repeat. For as many as 10-15 missions per day. You may mix in some longer duration air mobile/air assault support missions (we were also planning on doing a lot of cross-FLOT sneaky bleep) but what you are really doing is trying to play Little Dutch Boy _just long enough_ that the very pacing of mechanized warfare gets each spearhead shrunk down and strung out to the point where microforces of allied tanks and SPH can hammer the remainder using NATO shock and maneuver training and technical superiorities in specifically studied killing grounds.

Such is NOTHING like what either the ODS (fixed fighting position) or current, 'anti terror' operations (NTISR as a manned Predator) are about. Unfortunately, LoMAC tries to represent it's scenarios as such and they have so much detail in the physics and plane/terrain models that there just isn't enough processor or RAM time left to run a fullup maneuver warfare campaign model as well.


KPl.


*The LANTIRN had it's own problems. The Boresight Correlator didn't work at first. The pod stabs were /all over the place/ (even assuming they would have 'talked to' the INS they eventually installed on the A-10 which was different from that on the F-16B testbed they were using at Edwards at the time). And the ATR technology which was critical to identifying point targets in a mixed battlefield condition was so ahead of the processor and detector SOA that it had to be 'decoupled' from the freight train which was USAF night-interdiction-coming-thru as fastmover air.

Such problems, taken together, effectively made the LANTIRN worthless to the A-10 which doesn't have the smash to sling LGB any distance from lolo and which couldn't use Maverick much better than it already was without a lot more heads down time in a single-seat cockpit environment which (having _no autopilot or terrain avoidance_) was more or less a CFIT waiting to happen in Europe's terrain and fairly-foul/quite-nasty/utterly-unspeakable conditioned flying met.

Day, Night or 'All Weather' is a two seat affair and the idiots in charge refused to pay for the N/AW as a stalking hunter (with cheaper FLIR and LLTV plus a modified weather radar) because that would have meant acknowledging that the A-10 was a throwaway schlact (literally 'slaughter') system for daylight/CAVU only.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 10:03 AM
link   
I realize that the loadouts of many of the aircraft are limited in LoMAC - more on the U.S. side than the Russian (the game was developed by Russians). Also, a lot of it is limited due to classifications. The developers wanted to create as accurate of a game as possible. From everything I've seen of it - it's much more involved than any other combat sim I've ever played. Radars are simulated, seeker heads are simulated...... but the damned AI never realizes the importance of using anti-radar missiles to eliminate targetting and/or search radars BEFORE moving in to destroy the launchers with other munitions. I learned to reserve the 'wild weasle' part of a mission for myself and let my buddies go out and do their 'miracle bombing' of hitting a tank with a cluster bomb that disperses perpendicular to the convoy. A+ on accuracy - F on ingenuity....

I also noticed that the game has some bizzare loadout limits. I've seen A-10s loaded to absolute ridiculousness with MK-82s - yet no such loadout even comes close in the game.

As for many of the tactics - I have a very basic idea of what you're talking about - probably similar to what I encountered with 'Gila' shoulder-fired missiles during the campaign. Those damned things were annoying. Not to mention the Strella-10s placed in a valley, waiting for me to pop up over the hill and catch a missile in the teeth - and the Strella-10s are much harder to evade than the Strella-1s. I forget what missile they fire - but there's a difference in it that really counts.

As for the situational reality of the game - it still leaves a lot to be desired. You can request vectors from your AWACS aircraft by pressing a certain order of keys, you request permission to land (reffered to as 'inbound' - you're given a set of directions - such as fly vector 080 for 02 at 8000 - and you must repeat the request and/or have the approach angles memorized) - request permission to taxi/takeoff....... stuff like that. But you can't coordinate with other flights. They are supposed to do their job as according to the mission briefing. Although in building missions - I have found that the AI tends to go and do its own thing..... It's also a laborous issue to locate and destroy/evade SAM sites - because your wingmen will wast chaff and flares when hit up with search radars - even though they are out of range of the launchers and tracking radars.... then, if you do stray to close - they jetisson their weapons really quickly - which pretty much scrubs your mission since you usually need the extra payloads they have to destroy everything.

The missiles that claim to have nuclear warheads actually don't.............. which came as a disapointment when I had a B-52 armed with about 24 10 kiloton cruise missiles....... and my B-1 armed with a ridiculous amount of JSOW sub-munition dispensers was an MK-84 with wings..... (no 'sub muntion' about it).

Oh well - the aerial combat is pretty fun. Still haven't figured out how to get the proclaimed 50 Km range out of the Aim-120 - even when in zone five afterburn heading for an enemy doing the same..... 24 Km is the best I can get.... Of course... there again - limitation of the game - your wingmen always seem to know which enemy you have targetted, and fire a missile at that one - rather than his wingman - who then proceeds to fire a salvo of missiles at me, causing my poor virtual pilot to blackout as I jink and disperse countermeasures like a mad-man - as missiles have a strange way of rarely missing their mark (unless my guys fire them).

Another problem is your Anti-Radar flight taking out buildings in a nearby town, rather than the radar site that ends up taking you down, going "what's that still doing there?"



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Aim64C,

>>
I realize that the loadouts of many of the aircraft are limited in LoMAC - more on the U.S. side than the Russian (the game was developed by Russians).
>>

No. If you did a realistic load, the most you would see on an A-10 would be 4 AGM-65B/D (LAU-88) and 4-6 Mk.82HD. If you are using heavyweight systems in the Maverick-G/K range, you are even more restricted to just the two LAU-117 rails. While wall to wall Maverick is theoretically possible, the gun and it's reputation were seen as an 'all doing' necessity and so they never advanced the case for more Maverick pylon activations.

>>
Also, a lot of it is limited due to classifications. The developers wanted to create as accurate of a game as possible. From everything I've seen of it - it's much more involved than any other combat sim I've ever played. Radars are simulated, seeker heads are simulated...... but the damned AI never realizes the importance of using anti-radar missiles to eliminate targetting and/or search radars BEFORE moving in to destroy the launchers with other munitions.
>>

The only way to win a conventional SEAD war against a double digit threat is to use decoys and cruise missiles in combination with deceptive strike train routing, EA and rapid ELINT plus a LOT of prebrief ARM. Things are getting better now that the AGM-88D is essentially a powered IAM with a rumored datalink but for the period LoMAC is mimicking, the combined arms approach is the only way forward and it is _very_ sortie intensive.

You are looking to get threats to dummy load or sacrifice decoys under the threat of ARMs inbound from maximum range and then roll them up with iron off a preestablished EOB using strikers coming in under the horizon. Something that typically isn't valid if the AI is driving because their reactions are going to be waypoint action/event coded rather than truly 'expert system' flexible at all times over enemy airspace.

>>
I learned to reserve the 'wild weasel' part of a mission for myself and let my buddies go out and do their 'miracle bombing' of hitting a tank with a cluster bomb that disperses perpendicular to the convoy. A+ on accuracy - F on ingenuity....
>>

Depending on the terrain and target spacing, this is not as bad an idea as you may think.

First off, you /always/ extablish a tangential cutline that creates some crossing angle so that you don't donut around or to either side of a linear target matrix but rather 'string' across it (obviously CBU bomblets enhance this effect). You also don't want to be a bullet soak at typical A-10 speeds for the majority of the column and given the A-10's lack of sustained G and speed capability, the cluster effect is going to bring with it compensation for ultra low altitude approach (often under 50ft) and terrain restrictions on final runin axis as well.

Assuming the desire is to head and tail the column so that you can gun it up afterwards, if you are looking at a roadway with significant shoulder or open terrain to either side, the CBUs dispense pattern may give you not only the best compensation for target error. But also act as an instant minefield to cap the artery altogether (at which point things like Artillery and ATGW become 90% more effective because you are not compensating for an MTI and trailing vehicles will tend to bunch).

>>
I also noticed that the game has some bizzare loadout limits. I've seen A-10s loaded to absolute ridiculousness with MK-82s - yet no such loadout even comes close in the game.
>>

Back in the _mid 70's_, the A-10 flew with a lot of loads during the initial Edwards Seek Eagle clearance work which have never been seen since. GBU-8 HOBOS opposed with GBU-10 LGB will _never_ happen for instance because the GBU-8 was retired by 1978 and the GBU-10 is a high altitude weapon. Similarly, outside the F-111 community, active-AF MER (X6 multiple ejector rack) use was largely over by 1980, they didn't even have the racks forward at Bentwaters.

You could (and did) still see TER (X3) loadouts, usually as X2 slant or flats with cluster munitions or AIRs but lacking power in the largely gutless TF34's and again, for ALL of the 1980's without a smart HUDWAC (CDIP or DToss), the A-10 couldn't loft weapons and couldn't fly high enough, long enough, to be more than a target with more parent loaded bomb counts. In ODS, it was SOP, especially on the longer trips up north, to basically 'find anything that could be HUD tape justified' and drop ALL ballistic ordnance on it to clean the airframe up because the A-10 does not perform well above about 10,000ft and they had loiter issues to consider as well. At low level, you have /some/ power margin but you also gain a lot more trashfire and terrain modifiers to your flightpath (on the old engines it was common to run with part brakes and 100% power in the combat area, snapping them closed to recover 'instant smash', while creating a lot of fatigue issues with the TF34).

>>
As for many of the tactics - I have a very basic idea of what you're talking about - probably similar to what I encountered with 'Gila' shoulder-fired missiles during the campaign. Those damned things were annoying. Not to mention the Strella-10s placed in a valley, waiting for me to pop up over the hill and catch a missile in the teeth - and the Strella-10s are much harder to evade than the Strella-1s. I forget what missile they fire - but there's a difference in it that really counts.
>>

The key to minimizing threat is to work terrain aggressively so that you can deny LOS. To give you an idea how tricky this could sometimes be, out at Ft. Irwin they discovered that if they came in around 20ft, lead tanks couldn't use zipgun defense in-van because the Zoos would either lockup the lead vehicles or (in optical mode) take off the antennas on their roofs before the could discourage the GAU shooters. In this, also helps a _great deal_ to be /very familiar/ with your ops area so that while the armorers turn the plane on the hotpad, and after you pass back the whizz bottle, you can do a little 'instant mission planning' in the cockpit with your maps to work out a
best approach route that stayed away from ALL 'unknown' terrain or builtup features not occupied or at least under watch by friendly forces.

Both of these things are harder to do with digital terrain modeled simulators because while they may have a fair amount of 'standup effect' (3D) vegetation and the like at the highest detail settings, they also still tend to use tiles and repeated texture patterns which, at very low level, come out 'pre blurred' and thus ruin the depth of field visual details necessary to get real terrain contour chase going at the lowest levels.

Beyond that, your best friend is a Tactical Air Control Party or FAC who can give you threat evaluations and (if mobile enough to keep up) stage attacks on multiple axes as targets come into advantaged engagement conditions (a tank moving between a gap in two treelines on a road is effectively 'undefended' for an instant but only if the controller can see the /approaches/ to that gap in time to start your runin).

He also has the call on arty and supporting fires as from attack aviation Army stuff. This is where FFAR (and high rez optics and boom pitots plus computerized ballistics calc) start to really matter because while rockets don't have the base ballistic accuracy of the gun, they can saturate a LARGE area with grenadelets on a preemptive basis. So that even if you _don't know_ there is a MANPADS threat in overwatch on a hilltop or rooftop, you can send a couple rockets downrange to preemptively suppress with.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 10:19 AM
link   
I can't overemphasize enough: Military's teach their warriors to shoot. Wars teach them to survive as killers. And that means working within the JAAT concept (clumsy as it was) as much as you can and ONLY staying in the fight as long as surprise and weight of fires is on your side sufficient to create shock. Tactics get you /into/ the target area. Shock of fires and blocking force gets you out. At least half of which is going to be 'predictive' as sanitization aids (he could be there, so I will fire it up as if he is).

Beyond this, you can only rely on decent leadership to give particularly the WARPAC threat just enough rope to hang themselves with as they _did not_ have vehicle based S2A densities to the levels often portrayed in books and DOD documents, they just couldn't afford it and what units they did have had to be conserved for the OMGs to use after the breakout. i.e. Let them think they are close to achieving something, and then close the gap with fires before closing up discontiguous unit shoulders.

>>
As for the situational reality of the game - it still leaves a lot to be desired. You can request vectors from your AWACS aircraft by pressing a certain order of keys, you request permission to land (reffered to as 'inbound' - you're given a set of directions - such as fly vector 080 for 02 at 8000 - and you must repeat the request and/or have the approach angles memorized) - request permission to taxi/takeoff....... stuff like that.
>>

The only way to get remote SA is with a speech command headset in every box and an intelligent radio control system that gives you a two button hotmike and, dual or triple (Section, Tasking Agency, Ground) channel presets so that you can transition from local ATC to route to combat area comms with a minimal hassle. Setting frequencies is no big deal provided you do so outside of the battle area but once your in the thick of it, you only have time to hit ONE button.

It also really helps if you have a 3-1 basis of _learned competencies_ in tactical directive/informative speech so that just 2-3 terms gives you status and activity level for all players. Lastly, I would truly like to see emulated a 'knee pad' system whereby you can record things based on what is coming over a streaming broadcast feed with just the click of ONE button. It's not quite ATHS/IDM but it is persistent and particularly if you are running 4 or 9 line CAS articles you absolutely have to have specific info that is snap-viewable without having to change screens to a 'Flight Plan' or equivalent sub page. Until they manage this, you cannot realistically execute control of a dynamic CAS fight, you just can't keep your head gimbaled and your machine out of the weeds while keeping aware of what your offboard sources are trying to tell you sufficient to employ the aircraft as a weapons system.

Mind you, I would also like to see a virtual (depth of field over the nose with the HUD 'out there at infinity' over the battlefield) rather than a 'flat panel' presentation of the world. To go with this, should be locked-vs.-look into turn instinctive head movement selection and an SA globe of padlock scanning and 'memorized' (refreshable) target memories. All of this is _critical_ when you are emulating the A-10 mission because you don't have remote sensors to cue your position or the threats and you are often so low that there is only the smallest reaction window to clear terrain with.

Unfortunately, with their obsession on getting the switchology of monster stick/throttle combinations 100% detail-correct, most simulator companies lose out on the /feel/ of low level contour chase flight and the FOV/head slew controls in particular which are needed to make it work.

>>
But you can't coordinate with other flights. They are supposed to do their job as according to the mission briefing. Although in building missions - I have found that the AI tends to go and do its own thing..... It's also a laborous issue to locate and destroy/evade SAM sites - because your wingmen will wast chaff and flares when hit up with search radars - even though they are out of range of the launchers and tracking radars.... then, if you do stray to close - they jetisson their weapons really quickly - which pretty much scrubs your mission since you usually need the extra payloads they have to destroy everything.
>>

Having played Falcon 3 and 4 I can tell you that an intelligent waypoint system can largely void the need for this, simply through a waypoint action conditions and formation control system which 'dumbs them up' into transit mode (point A to B) by tucking them into Route formation until you release them with a designated mission variable (SEAD, A2A etc.) active for that waypoint. Alternately, IF you can do smart-comms, you should be able to call out target-missions based on what the FAC is handing you and simply add on to your 9-line brief as a detailed minifrag for your wingman. If you can name number on the hillcrest you want strafed (what maps are for) or the ridgeline you want to play pop-and-tease across, it's fairly ease to describe a hook or similar play down the valley on the other side. At which time, the AI wingman simply flies to the execution point and loiters while you set up your run and a single-click hammer him onto his deception or suppression tasking while you come in, opposed axis. CAS is about geography as much as the target sets within it. And given a choice (positive air superiority) A-10 pilots are _very_ careful about commiting to a given target approach until they are absolutely certain of how the play is going to run.

>>
The missiles that claim to have nuclear warheads actually don't.............. which came as a disapointment when I had a B-52 armed with about 24 10 kiloton cruise missiles....... and my B-1 armed with a ridiculous amount of JSOW sub-munition dispensers was an MK-84 with wings..... (no 'sub muntion' about it).
>>

There shouldn't be any such thing. B-52H are limited to a 12 missile configuration by SALT II IIRR. Warhead yields run in the 230-270KT range on the W-80. If you want tactical sunlight you would be using fighter lofted B-61, not ALCM. The latter are not reactive enough and -far- too powerful to employ in a live battle with friendlies within _20 Miles_ of contact and would certainly blow the strategic threshold for the rest of the theater as well. The JSOW problem is common enough, cluster weapons, even if they emulate the dispense footprint as a graphical element (which eats massive quantities of graphic card synch time), still tend to use circular proximity damage radials around a single 'impact' CEP rather than elliptical ones which calculate direct and frag damage from a zone of them. In this, the blast damage radii is greater than for conventional weapons but the functional effect is less, particularly for hard targets. Of course, last I heard they had dropped AGM-154 integration with the Bone as well, block-E be hanged.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 10:20 AM
link   
>>
Oh well - the aerial combat is pretty fun. Still haven't figured out how to get the proclaimed 50 Km range out of the Aim-120 - even when in zone five afterburn heading for an enemy doing the same..... 24 Km is the best I can get.... Of course... there again - limitation of the game - your wingmen always seem to know which enemy you have targetted, and fire a missile at that one - rather than his wingman - who then proceeds to fire a salvo of missiles at me, causing my poor virtual pilot to blackout as I jink and disperse countermeasures like a mad-man - as missiles have a strange way of rarely missing their mark (unless my guys fire them).
>>

This is typical, it also applies to Il-2 and its various followons and is simply Russian Egos using factory spec'd performance for their own airframes and 'real world' (payload and airspeed synergies) to _exacting standards_ for the Western/Nazi systems to the point where you have to be foolish to want to play anything but the Russian side. It's been noted in nearly every simsite online and there are, unfortunately, few flight model upgrades to fix the problem. The fact of the matter is that while Russian platforms have some very good absolute performance levels, they often are single-point specific rather than smoothly blended across a range of flight envelop curves. Add to this the need to compensate for AI ineptitudes and no matter which side you play you are going to suffer a little bit of superman effect.

As far as the AIM-120, this is relatively accurate for the A and early B but should not apply to any model with clipped fins. A lot will also depend on the V-standard of the APG-63 supporting the shot and specifically how many rounds the radar will support in HDTWS as it is possible to layer shots to improve SSPK, even on numbers-limited threats. Once you get that squared away, the key is to deny their long range GCI and work their noses to bring a hidden shooter in under their cone. The No-10/11 are pathetic systems with IC antennas and fixed velocity gating that have to be practically /handed/ a track to be successful in the BVR arena. Zhuk is less so but is based on a U.S. system we know full well how to exploit.

All of which emphasizes a different kind of section comms and tactical ability from CAS with greater reliance on detached support and tricks like Grinder and Chainsaw + Skating to bring flights over/around a threat with shots that just keep rolling them back while a primary section (especially if IDM equipped) provides tactical picture and closure to keep the threat's attention focussed.

>>
Another problem is your Anti-Radar flight taking out buildings in a nearby town, rather than the radar site that ends up taking you down, going "what's that still doing there?"
>>

SEAD is not really 'one mission' but a set of them. You have your SOJAM and Decoy shooters (if the Navy is along to play) and your Range Known precision ARMists (again Navy before the IDM mod to the Blk.50d) and then you usually have a GBU-12 or CBU equipped 'iron on the antenna' team whose sole purpose is to run right down their throats and vulch the site on the premise of putting an LGB where the RC-135 or overhead has said the signal is coming from. JSOW and AGM-130 being reserved for select, high-lethality systems. Obviously a lot of this is going to depend on how many of your people have GPS and IDM to take precision targeting coordinates from a standoff agency because it's unlikely that the Russians are going to stay in one place for long and so their EOB may not match what your premission frag said it should. If you are working a densely populated threat matrix, you will also need to have independent sorties or CM all over their early warning and sector cuers so that they can't fast-light as or after you've passed overhead. When it works, the result of good SEAD is that of keeping the enemy so off balance (sites shifting) that they cannot defend their assigned targets (AB's and SOC/IOC assets) because they are continually displacing so that you can work your way through the cracks, usually lolo and almost entirely at night for the first week or so.

In addition to mission splits, if LoMAC wanted to do American SEAD /the way it should be done/ they would need to include a lot more sophisticated target and route planning and a 'top ten' list of SAM site location as well as type prioritizations for targeting on a timed basis of over-fence coverage. Effectively letting the player 'program' his pilot AI to respond as an expert system biased to the current mission.

SEAD is very fluid and without reactive ability to deal with threats /as they come to bear/ on specific windowed targets and lanes, you can't do the mission well enough to suppress even single digit SAM systems at the density to which the Russians can field them on their own turf. Double digit systems almost demand VLO or CM working with conventional attack to spike individual sites on a demand basis of standoff targeting and MTI backtrace (continual overhead presence). Frankly, I would want late 90s to modern day system sophistication in a _layered_ (so many Block V HARM, so many Blk.VI, so many MALD/ITALD etc.) stocks and platform mission capabilities networked to tackle the Caucusus/Ukraine region. What the LoMAC folks are instead emulating is closer to late-80s/early-90s warfighter (what we brought to ODS) and that's just not good enough to go so deep into the Russian's backyards with. You want to get all up in the Russians shorts and you need to suppress the majority of the 3 surrounding TVDs and ALL of Russian strategic air, just for a start. That's continental level campaigning and given the limited theater size, there is just not enough synergy going on to preattrite THEIR supporting capabilities before they can jack up the ante on a per-engagement level of trades.

Never fight The Bear as a duelist. He'll swamp you in numbers and laugh at the casualties. Always go for the synergetic kills which force him to operate in a more exposed or predictable fashion so that you can kill or immobilize his massed forces.

Add to this 'every pilot a Sniper, every SAM an S-300' (R-77 where there shouldn't be any etc. etc.) and you really start to see an underlying agenda to prove a point that is hollow as to force construct context. The Russians having not flown more than about 60-80hrs a year _on their best pilots_ in /years/. At the cost of their newbies and novices having their time taken away almost to nothing.


KPl.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join