F-105 air superiority fighter variant.

[MigBuster 2,861]

 

They did the same thing for about 90% of the mission - fly straight and level, riding stall speed. They occasionally moved a bit to make it trickier to shoot them, but not too much, and only one of them ever actually shot at me.

 

It's starting to look like this is an early year thing. But most 17s that I see do just this. It's kinda messed up.

 

 

I dont see this behaviour at all in a virtually stock SF2 (Feb 2010)- they spend about 95% of the time banking tightly and tighter in the horizontal. Even the Il-28s try to follow me these days - and in a large engagement you really have be careful in the stock A-4 or F-100D where its not always easy to keep speed up - and a MiG-19 on your tail is not much fun.

 

 

Out of the past 4 campaigns I can conclude that they only go a bit straighter when they are landing, tailing a wingman or running away.

When they hit bingo fuel they get out of there as fast as possible - have had MiG-17s low on fuel that break when I get a certain distance at very low level at any speed and make pretty hard targets - tried approaching it much slower and it came round at me head on firing.

 

That being said the A-4 campaign was still fairly straight forward if you check your 6 a lot - the AI still needs to be a lot more lethal than it is.

 

I used to rack up scores like the above all the time many years ago!

[Gr.Viper 131]

Even the Il-28s try to follow me these days

Once I lost a wingman on F-15A to a MiG-27. The mud mover simply put a burst of GSh-6-30 up the titanium alloy rear. Now that must've hurt.

 

The idea of adding TV to F-105 is scary I mean, what good can it do for that arrowhead airframe

[UnknownPilot 33]

Hmm.... come to think of it, the most 'dangerous' AI is in later stuff. And not just because of missile advances (though largely so), but also because they are more aggressive.

 

I just remembered that the EP2.0 had something about a MiG-17 FM update. I wonder if that's similar to the F-16 FM update, in that it hurt the AI....? I did make a copy of the original MiG directories. I might have to try swapping them tonight if I have time and think about it, and see if that makes any difference.

 

 

As for the T-V on the Thud.... well, as long as it's not aggressive, and especially if you combine it with butterly-style flaps, like the Ki-84 had, then it could help to push the thing around a loop or turn via brute force without cranking AoA too much too fast. But mostly it would be a neat tech trick.

[Gr.Viper 131]

If Thud's brakes could be modded to divert part of the exhaust forward... and the wings were able to rotate 360°, thus including forward sweep mode... and the pilot had more glass than metal around... Hmm.

[Darrin 3]

I don't even remember that term being used until the F-15 era so I think not. I suppose it might have have made a respectable missile-armed interceptor in the late 1950's early 1960's in which case I'd rate it higher than the 'Deuce' but below the 'Six'. And in case anyone thinks I'm knocking the Thud, I love it! But, horses for courses.

 

When I started out in Strikefighters I played around with the Thunderchief's thrust values to try get it to eclipse the Phantom for max. altitude (like the Project High Jump attempts) and ended up putting nearly 40,000lbs of thrust into it!

do you remember how far and how fast quite interested. Darrin height and speed?

[Spinners 15,968]

do you remember how far and how fast quite interested. Darrin height and speed?

 

 

I can't remember the speed (that wasn't the idea) but I'm pretty sure it got to 30,000m (that was the whole idea). I do seem to remember some engine fires too!

 

Why not have a go? Make a copy and spread some thunder around the upper atmostsphere! It might bring down some of that volcanic ash that is seperating my daughter (stuck in LA) from her mother and me here in Wales.

[UnknownPilot 33]

This has been stuck in my head for a while now, so I'm just gonna break down and reply to it. hehe

 

 

A bad workman always blames his tools...

 

Perhaps.... but you do need to always use the right tool for the job. The tool itself really DOES play a vital part.

 

 

And in regards to the musician version of that phrase (that it is a poor musican who blames his instrument), isn't it interesting that all the best musicians have exquisite instruments, incredibly well made and often very expensive. (Satch may well be able to play better music on a fisher-price guitar than many other guitar players out there, but to truly work his magic, he needs instrumentation that allows him to flex, he needs his racks and amps)

[+Gocad 26]

 

Perhaps.... but you do need to always use the right tool for the job. The tool itself really DOES play a vital part.

 

When it comes to tools of war (vehicles, weapons, etc.) you won't have much of a choice really, you got to live with what you got in your arsenal. And you can pretty much count on that most of your equipment hasn't been designed for the kind of conflict you're about to enter...

Edited April 16, 2010 by Gocad

[Gr.Viper 131]

Also it's made by the lowest bidder

[UnknownPilot 33]

Which just back up the point that the AIM-9B sucks.

[Gr.Viper 131]

Well, use Falcon then NVAF pilots made do with rockets.

Edited April 16, 2010 by Gr.Viper

[UnknownPilot 33]

Heh, might as well open the canopy and throw rocks at them.

 

 

(not a complaint about modeling, just going back to an earlier aside where people were suggesting that the 9B was good in some way. )

[+Gocad 26]

I never said that it was good, but it's still not useless.

Edited April 16, 2010 by Gocad

[+Dave 2,318]

What's wrong with thowing rocks at them? I have had to resort to it several times.

[Lt. James Cater 62]

Just to add my bit of 9B slagging.

 

I found one of my old notebooks and it had the record of a 59 kill French Hun driver. Only 12 were via 9B. As a matter of fact, of the first 20 victories only 2 went down with the missle.

 

It doesn't matter if the missle is good at high altitude since seemingly 98% of the encounters are at low level. You can work the envelope all you want but chances are good that it will miss. If the early campaigns in WOE had high altitude intercepts the 9B might be useful. As things are it is basically dead weight.

[Spinners 15,968]

"Drop me a line and reel me in. No, wait! You stay there and I'll jump right in your keep net".

 

"A bad workman always blames his tools" is an ancient British proverb but, in more modern times, has become a mild comic rebuke to someone who throws up 'bad tools' as an excuse and just generates a bit of banter in the workplace. I expected a few bites but you guys have excelled yourselves! Well done!

[+Dave 2,318]

"Drop me a line and reel me in. No, wait! You stay there and I'll jump right in your keep net".

 

"A bad workman always blames his tools" is an ancient British proverb but, in more modern times, has become a mild comic rebuke to someone who throws up 'bad tools' as an excuse and just generates a bit of banter in the workplace. I expected a few bites but you guys have excelled yourselves! Well done!

 

Well what about rocks?

[Gr.Viper 131]

I think at jet speeds simply throwing rocks won't do. Now a sling is a different matter...

[+streakeagle 864]

Throw the right kind of rock into an air intake, then tell me throwing rocks won't do :)

[Gr.Viper 131]

That F-11 that shot itself down.. it was one 20mm dumb round in the air intake that mostly did it, wasn't it?

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Cater::

It doesn't matter if the missle is good at high altitude since seemingly 98% of the encounters are at low level. You can work the envelope all you want but chances are good that it will miss. If the early campaigns in WOE had high altitude intercepts the 9B might be useful. As things are it is basically dead weight.

It matters when the war is fought at high altitude, like Formosa 1958. But this was a small experiment and I assume the missiles were maintained exceptionally well by a few NAVY guys who wanted to do this project. For those who missed it earlier, word search the article linked below for " arrival of the snakes "

 

China and Taiwan since 1945; Part 1~> http://s188567700.online.de/CMS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=151&Itemid=47

 

 

If I recall, one of the problems, among many, later in Vietnam was lack of training for firing inside missile paramaters. Once this was corrected results improved -- somewhat -- but it took near the whole war to get around to doing this -- if I recall correctly!! Most units did not maintain their missiles properly, but those that did got better missile kills. The need for near clean room maintenence in the tropics was another problem with early missiles.

 

With our The Sims always focused on low level high gee combat, our idea of "dogfight" is not the same as high altitude fighter vs fighter combat. Up there its probably more like very slow chess manuevering at moderate high speeds. At 40k feet, the fast swept wing fighter -- neither missile launcher nor target -- can pull as much gee and gee is what caused so much problem at low levels -- well also poor seeker performance at lower altitudes and IR or radar distractions.

 

AIM-9B was near 10 years old by Vietnam. I've always wondered about how slow missile upgrades were. The superjets got upgraded what, every year or 2, and fully replaced by new types maybe every 5 years (~1960). Missiles, maybe get upgraded once a decade back then, and fully replaced after what, a half century hehe?

[UnknownPilot 33]

Well.... ya gotta go where the bad guys are, don'cha?

 

If your tasked with fighter sweep, or TARCAP for a strike package down low, and the enemy fighters are down there, then you don't have much choice BUT to go down after them.

 

And when you are riding in a high powered brick, the enemy will use it's greatest strength against you, it's ability to turn. This means that you have to do what you can to follow them and get the kill. On the one hand, the point was made that, if the 9B was designed for, and worked well at, high altitudes, that doesn't do crap when the fighting is down low (IRL or in-game). On the other hand, this came from a discussion about the in-game performance - and even if we can split the hair and say that the real missile performed better than people think it did, that's great, but doesn't mean squat here. We can't deal with issues of maintenance in-game any more than we can drag the Frescoes up high so we can shoot them.

 

So let's take it from another angle then, in a typical SF2:V mission scenario, just how effective can you make the 9B, and(!!)..... at what price? How much fuel and effort will it take, and how much easier would it be just to use a gun?

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Pilot::

So let's take it from another angle then, in a typical SF2:V mission scenario...

Bingo!

 

I'm doing weird, as typical The-Sims go. F-105 might replace (original) F-101A as SAC high altitude penetration fighter, at least until F-110 arrives -- or F-105 is upgraded by adding a back seat, radar, and Sparrows, at a cost of some range. I'd like to make this a campaign variable -- when you start the campaign, you don't know the future, you don't know if SAC later gets two seat F-105, or F-110, or maybe both.

 

SAC wants total air dominance which requires winning the high altitude sky over the Soviet Union, and staying there. If needed, then SAC can go "low" like P-51s and P-47s in Germany, and where AIM-9B won't be as useful, but the Soviet defenses (manufacturing, resources) will have been weakened by the high altitude campaign. I'm using 8th AAF and RAF Bomber Command vs Luftwaffe as a base model to start thinking with. Like in WW2, the first step is establishing permanent high altitude air dominance.

[Vampyre 24]

I've managed a 75% kill rate with the AIM-9B. Usually I would get a 100% hit rate too. I did not modify the missile in any way. All you have to do is fly to within guns range (I'd say .3 to .5 miles) and wait until your target is flying straight for a bit. Put your gunsight pipper just above your target, wait until you have a good tone (if you don't already) and loose a winder at him. It works great for those times when you run out of 20mm. Basically, use it like a rocket and don't give the target a chance to manuver before your ordnance arrives. It's the only way to be sure.

[Lt. James Cater 62]

Rule of thumb for using the 9B...

 

Close in, get good tone on straight and level sitting duck target aircraft, let fly, expect miss.

 

Whenever i had the chance to stalk and shoot at high altitude i've had many successes unless the target breaks hard, down below it is a different story. Just earlier today i was reviewing some earlier DiD campaigns and remembered a 24 kill French Mirage ace. Only 2 kills were with the 9B. You can believe i was pulling off textbook envelope attacks as well

 

Compared to the Falcon or Firestreak, the 9B comes distant a third in the early WOE campaigns.

Edited April 18, 2010 by Lt. James Cater