Flying Missions.....The Reality of it in My Eyes......

[+Dave 2,322]

How many of you think the missions in the 3rd Wire campaigns are the same thing over and over again? I used to think so but the more I think about it, the more I think they are right on the money. Real world military pilots please chime in on my deductions. Here are my examples;

 

Example #1: Recon Pilot.

 

Your job is to fly over a target and take pictures. That’s it. The only thing I see to spice it up (so to speak) is whether it’s a milk run, or you are going into a hornets’ nest of air defenses. (of course aircraft maintenance issues, weather etc do come into play) but the bottom line if you are on a 25 to 50 mission rotation, you are pretty much going to be a picture taker. i.e. same job. Make sense?

 

Example #2: Strike/Bomber Pilot

 

Your job is to move mud. That is your sole function in life is to put bombs on target. No air to air missions, you only go there in self defense, F-105 pilots are the prime examples of it. Again, mission target and how well it’s defended makes the difference on whether it’s just another day at the office. Bottom line, you are carrying bombs to drop, every mission, sometimes on the same target more than once.

 

Example #3: Fighter Pilot (In the pure sense)

 

Your job is to provide top cover for a strike, bait the enemy into some air to air combat, or keep an area of airspace “bad guy” free. No mud moving thrown in at all. Your job is to shoot the enemy out of the sky. Here is where it is interesting; of the 3 this one has to be the most repetitive. Some pilots go mission after mission and never see an enemy plane. I read somewhere once where some pilots when entire tours and never saw a Mig in Vietnam. Where does a mission get spiced up? When they start shooting SAM’s and AAA at you, then I promise you that will keep you on your toes.

 

Ok my point, almost every fighter, recon, strike/bomber pilot I have ever talked to has said that they spent more time boring holes in the sky than anything else. Yes they flew combat missions, but some of which nothing happened to really write home about.

 

How does relate to the 3rd Wire series? Well I added the RF-101C to an Israeli campaign to be their eyes, and 10 missions into it, it's been the same thing…more or less. 5 so far have been nose bleeders and the other 5, BORING. So this is some food for thought when you are looking for reality in a campaign. There are of course exceptions to every rule but this is more in general terms.

[Silverbolt 104]

That's why i 98% of time did my own mission using new objects and new and different objectives(eh, i don't like to strike a oil pump all times thinking it's an Command Building) or bomb runaways all times(yeah, we need some new crates!!)

[Viper6 3]

Right on point! And your examples are why I Prefer Mud Moving because you know that the target will be defended to some degree

 

so no boring stuff once you get near the target and sometimes just trying to GET to the target is a nightmare!

Edited October 13, 2008 by Viper6

[WDH 0]

Love too see secondary missions to give the series alot different angles to look at.For example,If there's a refueling area to able to loiter for CAP to return to an area where there's calls for help and letting "Red Crown" finally getting help to those who request it.Anyone with enough Flight members,fuel,ordnance and etc.Should be able to return to DMZ if meeting this requirements!

Add more SEAD!

[Viper6 3]

as i have learned you can set the types off missions your TFS will do I always set mine to 90% Strike and 90% SEAD

and set all the other types to 0%

Edited October 13, 2008 by Viper6

[+ST0RM 145]

Try flying a jet for 8+ hours that doesnt even have guns or bombs! And my Mintola is the sole camera for our "recce" missions.

 

You've pretty well summed it up Dave. For the fast movers, missions sucked unless you dropped something or did a Show of Force. And they cant even hit pause to take pee.

 

Jeff

Edited October 13, 2008 by ST0RM

[+Dave 2,322]

Yeah I forgot to mention the tanker aspect.....really boring holes in the sky.

[Lt. James Cater 62]

For me at least, going North usually led to some "Fascinating" times.

 

Certain targets were never boring since their location and the defenses around them. Want a truly hairy experience? Fly over downtown Hanoi in the middle of the day at say, 15,000ft. Believe me, your primary function will be the LAST thing on your mind. Staying alive all of a sudden becomes the routine. I know that i've been on escort missions up North where my flight ended up in such a defensive stance due to SAMs and AAA that the planes we were escorting were basically on their own.

 

Missions down in Packs One and Two were always cherished since those were easy counters. You know the "Provide CAP" bug? I treated those as armed recce or strike sorties to the lower packs. Yep, anything that gives you a freebie has got to be loved. The only MIG kill i ever got in a Thud was on a mission down in Pack 2.

[+Dels 649]

I agree. The sim is very realistic in showing the actual diversity (or lack) of missions that actually take place in real combat. From a trash hauling perspective, we flew almost identical missions into the same airfields day in, day out. The only thing that changed was the weather (and maybe if someone decided to take a pot shot at you). Every now and again we'd do something 'unusual' ie. go to a different airfield or something like that, but that was rare.

 

The bottom line is that real combat it extremely repetative and not heart pounding excitement every time the wheels are in the wells.

 

As for the game, the main issue people might have is that generally we play games to excape our own reality, so repetative missions might seem dull. But if we consider some of the great flight sims of all time (Strike Commander, Janes USNF/ATF etc.) they are all full of very similar missions. What the SF/WO* series lacks is the apparent human interface that those sims had. But I guess, in the end, it's what you make of it.

 

Disclaimer: This is my own opinion and I understand if others don't aggree.

 

Dels

Edited October 13, 2008 by Dels

[GwynO 16]

For me at least, going North usually led to some "Fascinating" times.

 

Certain targets were never boring since their location and the defenses around them. Want a truly hairy experience? Fly over downtown Hanoi in the middle of the day at say, 15,000ft. Believe me, your primary function will be the LAST thing on your mind. Staying alive all of a sudden becomes the routine. I know that i've been on escort missions up North where my flight ended up in such a defensive stance due to SAMs and AAA that the planes we were escorting were basically on their own.

 

Missions down in Packs One and Two were always cherished since those were easy counters. You know the "Provide CAP" bug? I treated those as armed recce or strike sorties to the lower packs. Yep, anything that gives you a freebie has got to be loved. The only MIG kill i ever got in a Thud was on a mission down in Pack 2.

 

Your stories really intrigue me Lt. Cater, but one thing I am confused, are you talking about real time service or purely in the sim?

[+Dave 2,322]

Your stories really intrigue me Lt. Cater, but one thing I am confused, are you talking about real time service or purely in the sim?

 

He is talking about the game. Unless he is one of these guys. Which would be hella cool.

 

http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/7002/mig_kill.html

[GwynO 16]

He is talking about the game. Unless he is one of these guys. Which would be hella cool.

 

http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/7002/mig_kill.html

 

Hella cool indeed! The Thud is one of my favourite mud movers in these games, it almost feels "safe" to fly in low and get the hell out of there but can't say I have ever bagged a mig! They turn tighter than a Lady boy. Can't imagine the elation those guys felt on climbing out of the pit after those engagements.

Edited October 13, 2008 by Mab Glyndwr

[+Dave 2,322]

Hella cool indeed! The Thud is one of my favourite mud movers in these games, it almost feels "safe" to fly in low and get the hell out of there but can't say I have ever bagged a mig! They turn tighter than a Lady boy. Can't imagine the elation those guys felt on climbing out of the pit after those engagements.

 

About a 1/2 of all F-105 production ended up shot down in Vietnam. I have extensive video, documentaries etc. It used to be one of my cornerstone topics when I taught the USAF in Vietnam to new recruits. They flew a mission they were never trained for (at first). It got so bad there were puling tanker pilots to become replacement pilots. I have interviewed several Thud drivers, elated wasn't the word they used, not even close.

 

Over 20,000 combat missions were flown by Thunderchiefs in Vietnam. A total of over 350 Thunderchiefs (Ds and Fs) were lost in combat, most of them to North Vietnamese anti-aircraft fire. This was over half of all Thunderchiefs built. 126 F-105s were lost in 1966 alone, 103 of them to AAA. At one point in 1965-1968, it was calculated that a F-105 pilot stood only a 75 percent chance of surviving 100 missions over North Vietnam. Although the total number of losses was rather high, the actual loss rate was not that bad considering the total number of missions that were flown.

[GwynO 16]

About a 1/2 of all F-105 production ended up shot down in Vietnam. I have extensive video, documentaries etc. It used to be one of my cornerstone topics when I taught the USAF in Vietnam to new recruits. They flew a mission they were never trained for (at first). It got so bad there were puling tanker pilots to become replacement pilots. I have interviewed several Thud drivers, elated wasn't the word they used, not even close.

 

That is terrible, I take it that production ceased before the end of the war if so many where shot down compared to the 75% survival rate? Do I understand your post as, that you taught the USAF on Vietnam (from a historical point of view), or do you mean to say you actually taught in Vietnam? Either way I am very interested on this particular conflict despite being born after it ended, it seemed only over the horizon to our generation through school and films and so on.

 

It is sobering to realise just how big the scale of that conflict was compared to what we have now. I guess our guys and girls in blue have it dare I say, easy in relative terms (which is a good thing of course and not to take away from the risks they take, just in relative terms)

[+Dave 2,322]

That is terrible, I take it that production ceased before the end of the war if so many where shot down compared to the 75% survival rate? Do I understand your post as, that you taught the USAF on Vietnam (from a historical point of view), or do you mean to say you actually taught in Vietnam? Either way I am very interested on this particular conflict despite being born after it ended, it seemed only over the horizon to our generation through school and films and so on.

 

It is sobering to realise just how big the scale of that conflict was compared to what we have now. I guess our guys and girls in blue have it dare I say, easy in relative terms (which is a good thing of course and not to take away from the risks they take, just in relative terms)

 

I taught about Vietnam. I am only 36.

 

No I do not think we have it easy. No branch of service does. Dying is dying, and there is nothing easy about it.

[commander 0]

I could teach some of it, if you want a biased, american glorifying, air only, view of the topic.

[+Jug 99]

How many of you think the missions in the 3rd Wire campaigns are the same thing over and over again? I used to think so but the more I think about it, the more I think they are right on the money. Real world military pilots please chime in on my deductions. Here are my examples;

 

Example #1: Recon Pilot.

 

Your job is to fly over a target and take pictures. That’s it. The only thing I see to spice it up (so to speak) is whether it’s a milk run, or you are going into a hornets’ nest of air defenses. (of course aircraft maintenance issues, weather etc do come into play) but the bottom line if you are on a 25 to 50 mission rotation, you are pretty much going to be a picture taker. i.e. same job. Make sense?

 

Example #2: Strike/Bomber Pilot

 

Your job is to move mud. That is your sole function in life is to put bombs on target. No air to air missions, you only go there in self defense, F-105 pilots are the prime examples of it. Again, mission target and how well it’s defended makes the difference on whether it’s just another day at the office. Bottom line, you are carrying bombs to drop, every mission, sometimes on the same target more than once.

 

Example #3: Fighter Pilot (In the pure sense)

 

Your job is to provide top cover for a strike, bait the enemy into some air to air combat, or keep an area of airspace “bad guy” free. No mud moving thrown in at all. Your job is to shoot the enemy out of the sky. Here is where it is interesting; of the 3 this one has to be the most repetitive. Some pilots go mission after mission and never see an enemy plane. I read somewhere once where some pilots when entire tours and never saw a Mig in Vietnam. Where does a mission get spiced up? When they start shooting SAM’s and AAA at you, then I promise you that will keep you on your toes.

 

Ok my point, almost every fighter, recon, strike/bomber pilot I have ever talked to has said that they spent more time boring holes in the sky than anything else. Yes they flew combat missions, but some of which nothing happened to really write home about.

 

How does relate to the 3rd Wire series? Well I added the RF-101C to an Israeli campaign to be their eyes, and 10 missions into it, it's been the same thing…more or less. 5 so far have been nose bleeders and the other 5, BORING. So this is some food for thought when you are looking for reality in a campaign. There are of course exceptions to every rule but this is more in general terms.

Generally, a combat mission is a complex thing. Hopping into the jet and burning out to take the enemy head on is what makes flying flight sims fun. In reality, most of your flight day/week is composed of study, planning, coordination and review. Many make light of military intelligence, but a good intell guy is your best friend in the combat area. The standard litany of "where are the air defenses, how good are they, how good is the equipment, what is their stores level, how does our ingress and egress route avoid known threats, what are the possible threats, and on and on. All of this plotted to your map and studied until you know it without looking at the map. That is just the analysis of your particular threat environment. On to support activity, good guys in the area, communications, emergency procedures and on and on. Of course, Murphy's law, it will all go to hell in a handbasket, so what can I plan ahead of time when it does. It is hard work and worth every minute. It is amazing how many times I have forgotten to enjoy the view from 80K because of dealing with mission details from the time I strap the jet on until I shut the motor down in the chocks upon return.

 

Specifically, I will address #1 Recon. Recon is divided into two missions strategic and tactical. Strategic recon is keeping an eye on the other guy to see what he is up to or to validate what he is saying in the political arena. It is a world unto itself and missions involve avoiding detection and threat avoidance. If the other guy knew you are looking, his activities will be different than what might be going on without that knowledge. The fun part of flight simulators is confronting the enemy. If you get in that position in strategic recon, you have defeated your purpose. Long, boring and uneventful missions are the desired outcome in reality, but not much fun in a flight sim.

 

Tactical recce is divided into pre-strike and post-strike missions. Pre-strike is usually some time before a strike package is unleashed on a target to get as close as possible a look at the target prior to finalizing the loadouts on the strike package and mission assignments within the package. We've all been on sim missions where the loadout did not deal with the threats encountered. Makes for a frustrating and dangerous mission. Pre-strike recce is very important and sometimes it is as close as hours before the strike package (a strike package is the mix of countermeasure, bomber, and MiGCap aircraft, what they are targeted against, and what their mission timing is) is committed. Pre-strike recce missions are usually not near as exciting as post-strike. The bad guys don't know you are coming.

 

Post-strike is equally important because it is a BDA (battle damage assessment) of the work of the strike package. In theater, additional strike packages are staging up and target objectives are prioritized in the theater ATO (air tasking order). Usually there is a very good reason why the first target is hit first and if obliteration is the objective, a BDA recce sorties is required to ensure the target is no longer effective. If not a staging strike package will be diverted from their primary mission to finish what the first strike package was tasked to do. That means the timing for the BDA sortie is at the worst time for the recce aircrew. Everybody, and I mean everybody in the target area is really pissed off. Every gun, rocket, RPG, missile, and rock in the area is up and aimed at you. One of my best friends was a RF-4 GIB and showed me some photos taken to the side of his Phantom in a hot post strike mission over Hanoi and the enemy ground fire tracers looked like rain (I mean the southern toad choaker type of rain). Very unfriendly and a mission not generally sought after.

 

OK, how can we simulate that in, for instance, WoV? Yankee Air Pirates (YAP) has some real fun recce missions to fly, but for those mission makers here, I would recommend that you consider air defenses as fixed or mobile and place them as such. Planning maps should show fixed positions and effective radius and ingress and eqress waypoints should avoid them. Mobile defenses are the threat to deal with as they occur. Deployment should be in gaps in the fixed asset coverage. They should come up fast and shoot fast. The bad guys have good communications too. Best chance to catch them napping is the first one on target. Everybody else due in on the target area should be ready for everything the bad guys have. Campaigns should have re-directed strike packages. New waypoints and new targets to deal with enroute. All of this points to my main criticism of missions here. If you're not the first one across the target, every bad guy should be awake and shooting at you. If you come back around and take on a AAA site, he should be alive and shooting at you. If you crunch him, then successive flights should not have to deal with him including post strike recce. MiGs should be more common and ready to engage post-strike recce. Post strike recce is all about escape and evasion and success should affect theater objectives. If you don't get home there are serious effects on the theater ATO and if you do get home, mission effectiveness should go way up.

 

Anyway, those are some of my thoughts. If I have any others, I'll come back to this thread.

Edited October 14, 2008 by Jug

[johnrey 0]

Hella cool indeed! The Thud is one of my favourite mud movers in these games, it almost feels "safe" to fly in low and get the hell out of there but can't say I have ever bagged a mig! They turn tighter than a Lady boy. Can't imagine the elation those guys felt on climbing out of the pit after those engagements.

You can bag a MiG, you just have to fly F****** far after the mission is complete or sometimes your mission area is just near to your operation zone , aim at the enemy, fire your guns........AND ALL HELL BREAKS LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSE!!!

[+Dave 2,322]

Great post Jug.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Awsim poast Jug.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

I often try to draw attention to the air warfare environment which has never been modelled in any of The Sims. I think TK chops off air warfare visual effects at about 20km max, a basic "dogfight" bubble distance for jetsims, less for WW2 -- Maddox cuts off grafix maybe 5 to 10 km. Even a non contested recon mission would be helped if the player could see other air war effects hundreds of miles away such as quoted here. This assumes a sim not overly player centric.

 

:

:

...I looked back at Hanoi 35 miles to the east. It was a windless day, and the black smoke formed a perfect pillar reaching above 35,000 feet. By now our fuel was running low. We were forced to head for home. We did not have enough fuel to reach Takhli, so I planned a recovery at Ubon if we could not get fuel from the airborne tankers. Looking back toward Hanoi, I could still see the smoke column over 150 miles away....

:

:

The Hanoi Pol Strike, Colonel James H. Kasler

~> http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicle...dec/kasler.html

[+Typhoid 231]

excellent post, Jug.

 

From an air defense and offensive air ops planning aspect - hours and hours (days) of tedious mission planning followed by a few hours of airborne tedium (there I was at 25k ft, straight and level humming along with a scope and computer screen......)

 

followed once in awhile by a few very intense moments.

 

and very, very meticulous mission planning, debrief, and the next mission planning.

[Lt. James Cater 62]

Your stories really intrigue me Lt. Cater, but one thing I am confused, are you talking about real time service or purely in the sim?

 

Purely in the sim. I've always gotten a bit carried away in whatever i'm doing. The more immersed i get in an enviornment, the better my performance. In real life, my military experience was as an M60a3 crewman in various Guard and Reserve units.

[ezlead 42]

Right on the money,Jug!

 

I can only speak for Vietnam era.

I flew "Combat Support" (EA-6a-jamming enemy aircraft,SAM,AAAand Comm.) when we went up North.(Most the time). Linebacker I ops for my time "In Country".

Yes, the strike force would have to hit the same target over and over because they would rebuild them as fast as we would blow them up.

 

I never got bored,because of the unbelievable air defenses of North Vietnam. There was always something going on. SAM's,AAA and/or Migs in the area.

The 'Mud Movers' always got shot at by someone. Even the Fighter Jocks had to haul bombs occassionally. (F-8's and F-4's).

The powers to be tried to keep the schedule on a rotation basis,so that you did not have to fly everyday.

I had a friend in Ops at VMA-533 and he let me and my right seat(CWO-4 ,trained in almost every aspect of aircraft(BN,ECMO,RIOand RSO) beg a few missions(Combat) from them down South.

It was no picnic. The summer of '72 had 'bad guys' all over the place.

 

The Sims give you a 'What IF' scenario,which is what you want for a sim. Lot's of action.

 

I fly campaigns most of the time. The only thing missing is the fighter cover when you are 'Mud Moving'

You should be able to call 'Red Crown or whoever' and get instant response for fighter cover.

You might have to wait a few minutes,but the response should be there.

 

I have a friend who flew F-84's in Korea. He saw one Mig the whole year he was there.

It went roaring across about 500 yards in front of him. About 2 seconds later 2 Sabers went roaring across hot on his tail. His biggest threat was ground fire.

 

Great topic,Dave!!!

[+kreelin 2]

... The only thing missing is the fighter cover when you are 'Mud Moving'

You should be able to call 'Red Crown or whoever' and get instant response for fighter cover.

You might have to wait a few minutes,but the response should be there....

 

 

+1