gbnavy61

Well, since I've really only dabbled in campaign mode in WOI, I'd have to say the F-4E. Flown several A-A missions always coming away with at least one kill. Flown a few A-G sorties, but I'm not a huge fan of the Rhino for moving mud. However, I was able to dead stick an F-4 into a nice landing after running her out of gas dogfighting a Hunter. Although, in single missions, I've been having a blast lately with the mighty Intruder. I took my A-6E over Egypt just yesterday and completely pasted this runway w/ my Mk 82s. Then, since I still had 6 left, I dropped them all in a cluster of parked MiG-21s. I think 1 MiG was left out of about a dozen. Got a Navy Cross for the effort.

You should call up the AWACS and get a vector out of that weather.

There's basically 4 A-A radar modes - Search, Track While Scan (TWS), Acquisition, and Boresight. Generally, when you use the radar you'll step the modes down in that order as you close with the bandits. Search - gives you the longest range, allows you to see the "big picture" and is limited to something like 30 degrees either side of the nose and about 10 degrees above and below the nose. Selecting and locking a contact activates Acquisition mode. TWS - This mode allows you to start tracking a single target, giving you info on that specific target, while still presenting the contact echoes from Search mode. Acquisition - Once you've selected a contact, this mode engages automatically when you try to lock that contact. Now the info that is displayed changes. Your radar doesn't care about anything else except that one contact. A wide vertical line appears over the contact's position that gives angle off the nose (L or R from centerline) and range info to the contact (based on what range you have selected, the target blip will appear at a proportional location - for example, if your range is set to 50nm, when the target blip is halfway down the scope it will be at 25nm). A thin horizontal line will appear on the vertical line and will give weapon's max range (so, when the target is above this line, it will be out of range, at or below = in range). There may be a min range tick, but I don't remember for certain. In any case, when you have gone inside your weapon's min range with a radar lock, you will get a big X across the scope indicating you can't fire because your weapon will not have time to arm, etc. before reaching the target. A little dot also appears on the scope which gives the target's position relative to the nose (i.e. when the dot is near the bottom of the scope, you have your nose above the target, center of the scope = nose on the target). Two circles also appear on the scope. The larger, outer circle has a break in it and, based on the clock position of the break, tells you if you are opening, maintaining, or closing distance with your target. 12 o'clock is maintaining distance, clockwise from there is closing, counterclockwise is opening. The inner circle gives you the limits of the seeker head for the missile you are using, I believe. The moral of the story there is to put the little dot as close to the middle of the circle as possible when shooting. Boresight - Limited to 10nm range, this mode is best used in close-range combat (also why this mode may be referred to as ACM or Dogfight mode). Basically, the antenna is pointed forward scanning a thin horizontal slice (3 degrees L and R) but a larger vertical slice. As soon as a contact comes within the envelope of the scan, the radar kicks to Acquisition mode. Some general radar takeaways: - Depending on your settings, you can't always tell if you've locked a bandit or a friendly, so be sure you're not about to ruin your buddy's day. - The longer the range setting, the bigger chunk of sky you're scanning. For example, scanning 30 degrees L/R at 10nm range covers roughly 5nm wide, whereas at 20nm you cover 10nm. Same for the vertical chunk. - Chaff, ground clutter, and in WOI beaming, can break a lock by your radar. Be prepared to recaquire. If possible, engage a BVR target co-altitude or slightly below to avoid a look-down situation where ground clutter (radar returns from the ground) can interfere. - Flying around with your radar on makes you more visible, so use it judiciously. As the others have said, the basic answer to your question is: radar on, search, select contact with brackets, lock, when in range - shoot, make bandit go away.

ALF - He has the experience. Plus, we can finally get rid of all the cats - tasty cats.

That's a nice looking Goshawk. But, it should say TW-2 on the side instead of USS Forrestal.

Thanks gents.

Do you need to have the visual targeting off of hard for these to work properly?

I am wondering how EO guided missiles (like AGM-65s) and LGBs are used in the confines of the game. I have all my gameplay settings to 'Hard' and find that when I take the aforementioned weapons on a mission, they are pretty much useless because I can't seem to lock onto a target to fire them. I recall reading somewhere a while back that the game engine allows you to take guided bombs and AGMs without pods and you can still hit the primary target. If you take a pod, you can hit multiple targets. What I'm wondering is, because of the 'Hard' settings, is this preventing me from using these weapons at all? (Flying WOI using the May 08 MFWP and a bunch of addon jets.)

Check your first post, for starters.

I understand what you're saying. My little blurb there comes from something I read (in a book) that said the Tomcat was more accurate because the RIO's display was larger and allowed him better resolution than a Strike Eagle WSO to pick out targets. Not that a bomb being put into a specific window would make much of a difference, but the fact that a high level of accuracy was available wasn't a shortcoming. Also, I read in the same book, at least one event where a Tomcat was able to hit a target that likely couldn't have been identified from another platform. Literally, the ground controllers were describing a building's exterior details (like number of windows) to help the Tomcats find the specific building to hit amid the others. Regardless, I definitely see that as a ground-pounder, one wouldn't care who delivers the bombs or how, he'd just want them on target in a timely manner. I also think that you're right - for a 2000lb bomb versus building, it doesn't matter what window it goes into, the building loses. *** I had to watch The Great Santini for a class once. It had about 4 milliseconds of F-4 footage in it. From what I remember those were the better parts of the movie. The story was somewhat engrossing, but I felt let down in the end. It was just kind of a weird movie. Then again, I haven't watched it in a while.

I see that little has changed in the last few days. Russia is still carving up and enveloping what's left of Georgia.

Ditto to the above two. What's your deal, Streak?

My feeling is that there won't be peace until Russia has what it wants. Or, by some remote chance, Western Europe grows a pair and tells Russia to stop.

I think it's about time for Grumman to crank out the next Cat.

That freakin' rocks! Look out, Red Baron.

First, while I know the AIM-54 was an expensive missile, I got the impression that not using them was in the long run more expensive than firing them off. So, that arguement in and of itself, doesn't seem to hold up very well. As to the increased likelihood of a blue on blue kill, I'm not sure how the Phoenix increased that risk. One also has to consider how politics played into Desert Storm. Perhaps you weren't aware, but the USAF was managing the overall air-to-air mission tasking. I don't think it's too far a stretch to think that F-15's got the lion's share of the kills becase they were the only ones providing CAPs in the likely engagement areas. In total, the Navy only got 2 air-to-air kills during Desert Storm, both by F/A-18s, on a single mission. Apart from that, have you heard of the term "MiG repellant?" That is what the AWG-9 was to Iraqi aircraft during Desert Storm. They had learned the hard way throughout the 1980's what a Tomcat could do if you didn't just run away from it. So, I guess we also have to thank Iran for spoiling the Tomcat's chances for kills. But, in spite of the Israelis successes and the F-15's combat record, it doesn't seem like the Iraqi pilots were loathe to engage them. Perhaps they learned that later, though. For OEF and OIF, the Tomcat was by no means "benched." During OEF, due to the long flights into Afghanistan and lack of Air Force bases in close proximity, the Tomcat was practically the only tactical jet flying up there for a good while. Not only could it bomb accurately, but it could bomb more accurately than F-15Es - which is why for delicate targets in populated areas, FACs called for Tomcats. The analogy I've heard is: the Strike Eagle could put a bomb into a building; the Tomcat could put a bomb in the 3rd floor window, second from the left. --- I'm sure I don't have to say this, but given the choice, I'd go Super Tomcat all day, every day.

Walsh - "No, Mr. President. You want your palm turned outward. And you're hitting much too high." Actually, it just looks like he's reading notes off his hand. Like cheating for a high school math test.

From what I've heard, the re-engined Tomcats surprised the Eagle drivers greatly when they first came on the scene. The F-15 guys had the F-14A figured out, but got their asses waxed by the A+/Bs. I'm also reminded of another story I read. Some F-14A's were down in Florida and had a mock engagement with some F-15's out of Tyndall, I think. I believe it was a 4v4 setup. They not only smoked the Eagles in WVR combat, but got simulated Phoenix kills on all the Eagles before the Eagles even knew they were there. Like the Shah said, the Eagle might have been the 'Air Superiority' fighter, but the Tomcat was the 'Air Supremacy' fighter.

The Iranians kicked major ass with the F-14 against Iraq - which had help from just about every major nation at the time, including the US (which helped Iraq learn some Tomcat secrets), but particularly the USSR and France. Ironically, the only country offering support to Iran back then was Israel. The Iranians who were the "Shah's pilots" were very well trained. They got all their knowledge and skill straight from Grumman and the Navy. The pilots and RIOs trained after the Iranian revolution (after the US stopped the training program) were the less experienced ones, with more political indoctrination than military. However, once the war began, the Shah's pilots that hadn't fled the country to avoid persecution, torture and imprisonment, were all let out of jail to fight the Iraqis. They not only tangled with Iraqi pilots trained by the Soviets and French, but occasionally came up against them in combat - particularly the Russian and East German pilots flying Foxbats. The Iranians thought the Tomcat was a great dogfighter, though it was hampered by those lousy TF-30's. They had a good number of Sidewinder kills to go along with the Sparrow, Phoenix, and even the odd guns kill. The reason the Iranians went with the Tomcat instead of the Eagle was because the Tomcat was the total weapons system. The Eagle was a good dogfighter, to be sure, but it lacked the radar, TCS, and long-range punch of the Phoenix. Additionally, the Tomcat's variable geometry allowed for lower approach speeds and therefore didn't require the same long runways as the Eagle. The Eagle had a radar nowhere near the AWG-9's capabilities and had to rely on the Sparrow for BVR kills - limited by the fact that it's a semi-active radar missile.

The only reason the F-15 is still serving is because the F-22 costs an ungodly amount of money. The USAF can't afford to do a one-for-one replacement. Eagle Eater, Baby!

Hadn't thought of it like that.

Yeah, unless you're getting us some Tanker assets to gas up on the way in and out.

Yeah, I can't recall a specific instance, but I'm sure I've had at least one flight that has left me saying, "If that other SOB wasn't in the second seat, I might not be here to think about it right now." Makes you reflect. Good story.

Thanks.

What do you mean by "we were out of Europe by the 50's?" We're still there. Aviano, Italy and Ramstein, Germany to name two off the top of my head. Anyhoo, the problem is that Russia holds too much of the leverage right now. They don't have to take anyone too seriously, because they know the will or means to back it up isn't there. It'd take a lot of international cooperation with implications of force to back the Russians down right now. Edit: I'll shut up for a while, because I find I'm repeating myself.