Southernap

Is this the Stock F-15 or is it an add-on F-15

What do you mean there are no weapons?

Are you saying that not even the basic weapons which come with the game? Or are you haveing problems with one of the weapons packs?

I guess like me, a number of folks here want to recreate Cool Hand and Tigers' better moments from Flight of the Intruder. I'm with others here that aren't thrilled about having to dive bomb in the Intruder, mostly because it can be a nasty bird sometimes to pull out of a dive. I also can't level bomb worth a damn. I appreciate the fact that TK added Iron hand missions in WoV because IIRC they weren't there in the original Strike Fighters. A fullly funtioning DIANE would make WoV the definitive combat sim in my books.

 

Doesn't Razbam's A6 have a more sophisticated targeting system, or is it just some additional visual enhancement? I'm really liking the Razbam Skyraider I just bought and was considering the Intruder, but I probably won't go with it unless it has more sophisticated targeting.

It is actually pretty easy to dive bomb in the A-6 both in the game and in real life. The biggest thing to remember is that you want to start up pretty high about 12k altitude or better and you want to be up at that altitude around 10nm to the target. When you are at 3nm from the target flick out your speed brakes, throttle back to around 80% thrust, and pitch it over at a -45 degree angle dive. The general rule of thumb (at least in the game from what I have observed) is that for every 3k of feet dropped in altitude you will lose one nm (1nm) of range to the target. At around 5k you should pickle off your bombs and begin your pull up just before 4.5k about the ground. Any thing lower and you will be impacting the deck. You should immediatly flick in your speed brakes, throttle up to 100%, and flight straight and level for a couple of minutes before climbing back up to a prefered altitude to keep every peasent with a rifle from sniping at you. Just for a reference during the interwar and world war tow the US Navy and Marine Corps aircrew that flew SBD's, SB2U's, BT-1's, and BFC's routinely practiced dive bombing that would be around the -70 degree mark. No one not even the Japanese or Germans came close to diving like that. They also praticed a drop from around 15k and a pull up from around 5k, with them usually in a straight and level flight around 1k to 500 ft off the deck.

The TK series of sims have avionics limitations that prevent a full service DIANE from being used in the A-6. So even Razbam's A-6 uses some visual trickery to make it look like a function attack suite.

If one really looks at it DIANE in the A-6A wasn't all that it was cracked up to be. The basics of it was this.

In the nose of the airplane there was two separate radars. One radar for search and navigation. Then just below that was a radar strictly for tracking a target. The search radar, APQ-92, would provide the basic guidance to B/N. Once they got close enough the B/N could find the target he would designate it with a cursor and use the tracking radar, APQ-112 to provide final range and bearing to the target. All of this would be fed to to the AYK-10 attack computer (the heart of DIANE). Also feeding data was the ASN-31 inertial navigation system (a basic gyroscope affecting electrical voltages style), the APN-141 radar altimeter, and finally the APN-153 radar Doppler navigation system. The Rad alt would tell DIANE how high the aircraft was, mean while the APN-153 radar Doppler used four radar beams to tell what the drift of the aircraft was. That information feed in along with present position from the ASN-31 again in the AYK-10. The computer would then also take input from what was weapon was selected and then computer the best ballistic arc to impact the target. This would all be presented on the pilot's side in his Vertical Display Indicator (aka VDI). The VDI would basically display a "road in the sky" projection of were the pilot was suppose to steer. It would also represent hills and valley with large black or white spots on the display. The target would be a 1.5in square on the display that the pilot would have to fly to. Once the B/N "armed" the jet and made the pickle hot, the pilot would straighten up and push the trigger to commit all the data inputs into the computer. From that point the computer would do the count down and then fire off the weapons. If the computer failed the fire the weapons then the pilot could still "visually" bomb by looking at the count down line off to the right hand of the display. This count down line would tick off the range and once it crossed the target again the pilot could push the trigger and the bombs would fall off and should be on the proper ballistic arc to hit the target.

The limitations and failings of the initial version of DIANE was this, the AYK-10 bombing computer was in six separate pieces and it was the biggest system to fail first. Its was built by IBM and its hard drive looked like two Folgers coffee cans strapped on top of each other, with magnetic tape wrapped around them. IBM in their finite wisdom fit a pair of spindles about the size of a standard number two pencil at each end, and then fit 6 different magnetic heads to dance on it. There were three heads to write data and three heads to pick off data. The magnetic heads looked very much like something from a lie detector. It usually happened at least once during violent maneuvering the HD could become unhooked from its spindles and one of the in-flight trouble shooting measures as listed in the flight manual was to give it a couple of swift kicks from either the left or right side boot of the B/N.

The other major component to fail routinely was the ASN-31 INS system. The biggest reason was that the gyros were not properly designed to handle the stresses of carrier aviation. They would on an average last about two catapult shots before dumping and not being able to input any data into the system. At which the B/N would have to dead reckon the postion from that point on.

The final two major difficulties with the initial DIANE system was the independent search and track radars. Both of these were built by the Hughes aircraft company and for some reason only known to the designers they were only one (1) frequency band off from each other and to add on to that the track radar's servos (the little things use to drive the radar back and for) were very susceptible to a power surge and would short out jamming the track radar at its last postion and be useless until the antenna array was replaced by maintenance personnel.

When the A-6E arrived on the scene in 1973 it replaced the AYK-10 with an improved bombing computer that used a chip similar to the 8088, some onboard EPROMs, and some onboard RAM in three boxes to do what the six seperate pieces did. The INS system was replaced with a better one that was better suited for a carrier-borne enviroment, and finally the APQ-92 and APQ-112 were combined into one array the APQ-148 (and later the APQ-156 with moving target indicator). However, the A-6E arrived to late to be used over Vietnam and wouldn't get its test until operations over Lebanon, Nicuragua, Grenada, Libya, and Iraq.

...and how should one move them. There's no special key to do so and moving the entire aircraft to keep the bomb locked onto the target until impact would not sound ridiculous, it's also not making sense since you need to a TV display for that, which you actually shouldn't need to drop LGBs on the primary target.

 

Bottom line is...I'm confused about how this is supposed to work now. The previous guidance method (btw, how did it work in WOI before the Aug 2008 patch?) was fine and well in tune with the 'sim lite' approach, but now it's almost useless.

 

(Don't read this as an "OMGWFTBBQ! Teh game'S broken!!!!111!!" rant, though. I just want input from those that might know more about it.)

I noticed this issue a few days a go and during some testing with the MF A-7E in WoE against a rail bridge. I found out that I had to give the Walleye and even the LGB's some time to "lock-on". You will need to fly something close to a straight and level flight profile and watch the crosshairs. After they finish pulsing and the center square becomes as small as possible around your target (as in the case of the Maverick and the Walleye) or as soon as the Pave Spike crosshairs comes across target and steadys up then you will need to release the weapon. I also believe that TK cut the max range one can launch some of the guided air to ground weapons to be more realistic. In that unless you had immediate line of sight of both the weapon and the target the weapon would immediately go dumb and just drop like rock. That almost makes me believe that it is time to start testing and modding to see if we can create datalink pods like what is used for the AGM-130, AGM-62, AGM-84E and some of the other long range glide bombs.

The reason why I ask this is because the US Navy loved the A-1 Skyraider so much they began a turboprop variant which if not for political B.S. may have actually made it to frontline service.

Actually what killed the Skyshark wasn't political B.S. rather the engine they had slated to use with it. That was the Allison T-40 engine program. The Allision T-40 wasn't a very successful turboprop engine and it has some very nasty habits. They were used in the R3Y Tradewind amphibian and series of crashes related to the high failure rate of the engine, including one that killed about hundred midshipmen returning from summer cruises in 1954 or 55. The Navy killed the engine program. The T-40 was also supposed to be used in the XFV-1, XFY-1, XF84H, P5Y Patrol plane, X-18.

It all depends on the year in question and what nation. This is what I know about US Navy Tactics during the Cold War.

In the late 1940's and up till about 1954 one of the missions that the US Navy carrier battle groups that were under 2nd Fleet control practiced was steaming to with in range of the Dutch and Norwegian coast and then launch either an P2V Neptune, AJ Savage, A3D Skywarrior to both theater and strategic targets along the Baltic Coast. While a CVBG did that a similar US CVBG would steam to with in range of the Kola Peninsula and deliver nuclear weapons to the HQ of the Red Banner Fleet.

As strategic thoughts progressed, the Navy's primary mission during a NATO/WARSAW PACT conflict would of shift from the land combat in Central Europe to engaging the Red Banner Fleet in either the Norwegian Sea or North Atlantic and then again steaming to with in range of the Kola Peninsula to attack Soviet Naval Aviation bomber bases there, submarine pens, and various other targets.

When the 60's gave way to the 70's detente there was more and more talk of NATO's Carriers being used to seize the initiative in the suspected battle for Norway. They would also attempt to steam the tide of Soviet Submarines leaving their pens for action in the North Atlantic.

Finally in the early 80's after the Navy wrote a new strategic paper titled "The Maritime Defense" in 1986 in there they talk about the use of Carrier Air Power to help during the defense of Iceland, North Atlantic Convoys, defense of Iceland, and training to operate ashore or in protected Fjords in the Norwegian Sea. The biggest thing is the use of USMC in turning the Baltic operations against the WARSAW PACT. Whether that was from an opposed landing on the Danish or Northern German coast with Marine Air Group flying support of of Southern Norwegian Air bases or using USMC units to conduct penatration into Yugoslavia and strike at Czechslovkia and again a MAG flying out of either Northern Italian or Northern Greek bases.

The issue though is that this isn't a serious sim. Most people play the TK series of games because they are easier to pick up and get right into the flying and destroying targets business. If they wanted to really take on the challenges of take off, LORAN/TACAN/DR navigation, flipping the airplane around to find the target and trying to put five hundred pounds of death on to it; well then Microsoft Game Studios would still be building their Combat Flight Simulation program or looking for something of the scale of complexity that Lock-On or Falcon 4 were. If it was a serious simulation then you would have the ability to accurately model in-flight refueling or the fact that one doesn't get a chance to walk up and just change their weapons while sitting in the hangar. So if the planners had figured you needed to fly from Bitburg to the Inter-German Border near Frankfurt in a F-84F with only one bomb and drop tanks on the rest of the hard points. Well that was the way it was going to be. Even in Real Life the most that a squadron planning staff can look at the air tasking order for the next day and submit the best idea on what the loadouts they would want for the next days flights. Some times those changes get over ruled by higher staff.

You are correct though that in real life one had to accurately pay attention to fuel management in a large number of those early jets and even today there have been a number of times some close calls in tactical combat aircraft have come from aircrew not paying attention to fuel management.

F-15 vs F-14 vs F-4 vs anything else

Give it a rest. First off you are comparing apples to oranges to plums.

Remember this:

The F-4 was designed and built by the Navy to do Fleet defense in all weather with an all missile weapons systems. It wasn't designed to mix it up over the beach. Why? Because the future held that you were either going to be dropping nukes or preventing planes from dropping nukes. IFF and Visual ID'ing a target in the days of radar and missiles was considered obsolete. Just look at the RAF and the RN after the White Paper published by the Ministry of Defense in 1957. Basically it said that the United Kingdom didn't need manned fighters when missiles could do it better and cheaper. So instead of upgrading and improving some good lines, they were left with the Lightening. A capable jet but by the time it was removed from front line service in the mid-80's was severely outclassed by even the targets it would have to attack. The only reason the USAF picked up the F-4 was that they saw a capable jet which could replaced the F-100, F-104, and F-101 in front line service. The USAF were the first to consider putting bombs on the thing and using it in the strike fighter role.

The F-14 actually began all the way back in 1957 with the requirements for a USN Fleet Defense Interceptor. Even as the Navy was seeing the potential of the F4H-1 (F-4A) they also realized that to properly defended a Carrier Battle Group from attack by Soviet Naval Aviation bombers and thier long range cruise missiles. The biggest problem was that the F-4 had a small radar suite and it didn't have the gas to hang out 100+ nautical miles from the Carrier waiting for the oncoming Badgers, Bears, Blinders, Bisons, Beagles. So the USN issued a requirement for a subsonic aircraft that was was able to loiter for 4 plus hours, be designed to carry either the AIM-47 Falcon or the AAM-N-10 Eagle long range radar guided missiles, it also had to be able to carry a radar that could see out 150nm from the aircraft. This requirement lead to Douglas designed an aircraft called the F6D Missiler. Basically this was an airplane that had a three man crew (pilot, co-pilot, RIO) it mounted the APQ-81 airborne radar system a radar under design at the time whose major feature was a five foot across radar dish, and could carry a load of six AAM-N-10 Eagle missiles out to a 200nm from the carrier and loiter there for 3.5 hours. It was subsonic and it was being designed to utilize the TF30-P-2 engine. Finally the aircraft was being designed to link into the Navy Tactical Data System (NTDS), which basically links all the radar information back and for between everyone on the network. This was going to work well with the W2F-1 Hawkeye which Grumman was designing at the time to replace the WF-1 Tracer. The idea was that both of these aircraft working in tandem could successfully engage a SNA bomber regiement and whittle it down for the F-4's,F3H Demons, F8U Crusaders to play clean up or turn it all over to the Talos and Terrier launchers on the escorts.

The furthest the F6D made it was design and testing of the radar suite, money on the Eagle missile (where were basically going to be fire&forget radar guided and capable of flying at Mach 5 out to a range of 100nm from the aircraft). Some cool little drawings and a few blue prints. As costs began to sky rocket in the early 1960s, Ike's administration killed the plane. Some of the requirements were revived in McNamara's TFX project. The long range, loiter time, and the ability to carry the AAM-N-10 Eagle and the TF30 engines. TFX became the F-111A and F-111B for the USAF and USN respectively. F-111B failed to make carrier suite ability testing and it was scratched, in turn it was replaced by a new Grumman Design coming from the lessons learned about the F-111B which became the F-14. As Streak pointed out the early downfall of the F-14A's was the TF30's. However, the F-14A was originally designed to incorperate the F100 engines, these fell through as the deadline for a flying prototype neared. Instead Grumman went with the back up TF30's on the hope that the F100s would materilze in time. They did not and BuAir decided that to re-engineer the F-14 to incorperate the F100s into the airframe and supply system would of costed too much money. The F-14 was already approaching near records at the time for development. A few other items changed as well during the change from F6D to F-14. The Eagle missile were canceled in 1968 and instead Hughes redesigned thier AIM-47 to become the AIM-54 Phoneix which incorperated ideas from both the AIM-47 and the Eagle missile. The AIM-47 was originally slated to arm the YF-12 Mach 3 interceptor. One of the things this missile had going for it was that it was designed to basically achieve a ballistic arc to its target. The Rocket motor threw it up into the stratosphere, where the air is thinner, and then used that to achieve a Mach 6+ speed. Once it neared the target it could recieve a quick update from the launching platform and then dive down on the target to kill the target from either the kenitic energy alone or through the use of it proximity fuzing to detonate a continuous rod style warhead.

With the filing of the Ault Report in 1968 some additional features would be added to the F-14 from the original designed signed off in 1967. A gun system would be added and to help improve long range Visual Identification a camera system would be added as well. The F-14 came in to do the job of going out killing Soviet cruise missile carrying bombers with its AIM-54 Phoneix, it could be guided via data link by the E-2 Hawkeyes and track these targets and kill up to six of them with the AIM-54. If needed it could mix it up with the escorting fighters, but it really wasn't built for that. The USN kills against the SU-22's in 1980 and the MiG-23s in 1989 were through superior training and skill of the aircrews, not just because of the airplane itself.

The F-15 meanwhile was designed to be a heavy weight fighter that was designed to engage at long range on the NATO side of the missile belt then go in and mix it up over Central Europe with the MiG-23's and its precieved primary opponent at the time the MiG-25. It was believed when the MiG-25 was seen by Western Intelligence that it was a heavy weight fighter design to come ripping in at high speeds lay waste to NATO air space and then go ripping out of there. It was also thought that the MiG-25 with it large control surfaces would be able to out turn its Western Opponents. It wasn't until the F-15A had started to hit front line service in the mid 70's and with the capture of Belenko's in 1976 at Tokyo that the actual role of the MiG-25 was realized. That was as a bomber interceptor. It had zero dog-fighting capabilities. By then it was too late to redesign the F-15. However, there were some serious advantages gained by having such a large aircraft. MacAir designed it to be a total lifting body airplane, so it could create lift just with the fueslage itself and not by the wings alone. Also with the large size of the aircraft it could carry a large load of gas and carry a very large radar suite which would give it great loiter time and the ability to see the a large amount of the airspace in front of it. Finally just like the F-14 saw the reintroduction of the gun into Navy tactical aircraft use, so did the F-15 saw with th Ault reports lessons learn see the reintroduction from the get go the gun back into USAF usage.

The other interesting thing about the F-15 was that its design was being built by the "Fighter Mafia" inside the USAF at the time. So there was not a single idea nor thought of hanging air to ground ordanance on it. The F-15 was designed to be a fighter in the same vein as the P-51 and F-86 were before it.

Think about that for a second. The USAF wanted a fighter and the US Navy wanted an Fleet Defence Interceptor. Two different missiles that lead to two different aircraft being accepted into US inventory. So don't get so wrapped around the axel about the differences between the two aircraft. They are two different types of missions assigned to them.

Oh and as to the F-14 carrying air to ground ordanance. That was tested out by Grumman during the initial testing and the software was written to delivery the Mk80 Series bombs and the fighter community inside the Navy nixed that idea. They thought it would detract from training for thier primary mission of interception. So until the early 90's air to ground wasn't even thought of for the F-14. With the retirement of the A-6 and the need for a long range strike platform that air to ground was re-introduced to the platform. Which served it well during the opening stages of the War on Terror.

Fighter Pilots make movies, but attack pilots make history!

That is a case of conflicting weapons packs. Use the Mirage Factory weapons pack or use the Bunyaps weapons pack but not both at the same time. Otherwise theini's call out the wrong LOD's (what the game uses to draw stuff).

I'm doing the same thing with the F/A-18F tanks but not having much luck.

I've added the entry in the weaponsdata.ini and transferred the three tank files into the weapons folder as instructed, but what is it I'm supposed to do with the weapons editor?

 

-Mike

It has been a while since I have messed with the Weapons Editor, but if my fuzzy memory serves me right. You need to look at opening up the weapons editior and then re-save it as the weaponsdata.ini to make your tanks appear.

To open up the weapons editor properly in any operation system beyond Win98 or Windows ME you will need to find the program file for the weapons editor. Right click on it and you should have a dialog box open up near the bottom of the dialog box there is a selection titled "Properties" click on that. Another window should open up and from there you will need to select the tab called "Compatiablity". Right at the top of this tab you will see a click box titled "compatiability mode". By selecting this box and then selecting "Run in Win98 mode" when at the drop down box you should be able to open up the weapons editor. The same works with the gun editior.

EA-18G "Growler"

 

but i have no idea how is the loadout of it

I am up at Whidbey with the only production variant of the EF-18G right now. According to the last death by power point briefing that I sat through for Maintenance personnel the suggested armament loadouts are going to be as follows:

SEAD:

2x AGM-88E AARM on stations 1 and 9

3x ALQ-99 ECM Pods on stations 2,5 (Centerline),8

2x Drop tanks on stations 3 and 7

1x AIM-120C on station 6 (the station under the right hand cheek)

1x ATFLIR on station 4 (on the left hand cheek)

Long Range-SEAD

3x ALQ-99 ECM Pods on 2,5,8

4xDrop tanks on stations 1,3,7,9

1x ATFLIR on station 4

or

2x ALQ-99 ECM Pods on 2,8

5xDrop tanks on 1,3,5,7,9

1x ATFLIR station 4

Possible Iron Hand Variants

1x AGM-88E on Station 1

3xALQ-99 ECM on stations 2,5,8

1x AIM-120C on Station 6

1xATFLIR on Station 4

1x JSOW (Cluster bomb variant) on station 9 or 1xAGM-65 or 1xJDAM

2x Drop tanks on stations 3 and 7

Most of the Iron Hand are ones guesses by even the Command staff at the Tactical Electronic Attack Wing.

The first squadron that is supposed to cruise with them is going to be VAQ-141. So I would take a scheme that VAQ-141 has done in the past and use that as a "what-if" design. The squadron isn't supposed to make the conversion and be ready to deploy until late 2010.

The AIM-9C was developed in the early 60's as a way to provided the all-weather variants of the F8U Crusader a way to engage thier targets while flying at night or in conditions that prevented useage of the IR variant of the AIM-9. This was done so the plane didn't have to be redesigned to try and carry a Sparrow I/II capable radar suite. Overall the missiles were a poor quality and had issues with both the radar recievers inside the missiles and properly tracking a manuvering target. Most of the missile bodies were converted in the mid-80's over to become the AGM-122 SideARM missile system.

To properly use the AIM-9C inside the game you will to treat the missile the same way you would if you were flying a Phantom carrying Sparrows. Achieve a radar lock and then when you think your in range fire the missile off.

Yes. The two drop tank looking things are the ALE-2 pods.

The two pods on the underside of this Firebee drone are AN/ALE-2 pods. This is the best picture that I could find.

Which F-14A file are you talking about? That can be helpful to diganose the problem.

Now, with a real ARM, would that trick from flight of the intruder work? IE an aircraft had a radar lock on you and you let one off in their direction (even though most mig-17s like the one they showed don't have radar?

The scene in question from Flight of the Intruder showed them using a Shrike to kill the ground control intercept (aka GCI) radar site that was guiding the MiG on to Cool Hand's tail. This was because the NVAF trained to Soviet tactics and the Soviets had thier figther pilots trained to only fly under GCI control to interception. It was so bad according to things that I have read thatthe NVAF and Soviets couldn't even fire thier missiles until the GCI operator told them so. Yes if you think you were close enough to a GCI radar you could cut loose with an ARM to kill the eyes which might be guiding the MiGs on to your tail. It has been a few months since I have played WOV/WOE/SFP and I can't remember off hand if there are GCI radar sites coded in to the game for the Red forces.

I was just thinking about this as I was helping a friend packup his house for a move tonight. He is an avid GI Joe action figure collector and has both the old school GI Joe Skystriker and Cobra Rattler. I was just thinking that since we have the F-14 and A-10 floating out there why no one has created a skin for them. Let alone some of the other adventurous GI Joe/ Cobra aircraft. That might add a fun little atmosphere to these games. Again just a thought.

YO JOE!

It has been a while since I monkeyed with an object, but you should take a look at the ini file and see if there is a track radar associated with the launcher and make sure that the radar is "networked" to the launcher. There is a file in the knowledge base on how to network radars to AAA and SAM sites.

The closest that you could come to having a campaign like Red Storm Rising would be "NATO Fighters" series of campagins. They were designed primarly for Wings over Europe and add on some wonderful third party aircraft. If you want to check them out and download them head over to here, NATO Fighters and NATO Fighters part II.

As to the fighting shown over Iceland, I don't think anyone has made a map for that area of the world yet nor have they attempted to create a campaign for it.

The reason that they used the RH-53 Sea Dragon instead of the HH-53 was that the HH-53 was about camouflage. The RH-53 looked externally very similar to the CH-53D and RH-53D variants that the Iranians had in use at the time. So the thought was that if the Helos were happened upon by an F-4 or F-5 of the IIRAF they might just ignore it as one of their own, letting the team escape to make their rescue.

The website that I used to find the pictures of the RH-53's was this one, www.dodmedia.osd.mil or the Defense Visual Information Center.

Yes, I forget offhand because I don't have my copy of the ordnance handling and loading manual in front of me, but if I remember right the AIM-54A's (which cost about 1 million a pop for the US tax payer) weighed in around 1000lbs total before you started to add the avionics coolant fluid for its own radar system. We use to add about gallon of coolant to the missile so it would start to tip the scales at around 1005-1010lbs. Multiply that number by six give you roughly 6030 additional pounds on an airframe that is already weighing in at around 50K to 60k at landing so the stress on the airframe, the tail hook, and the arresting gear engines would of been tremendous if the F-14 tried to land at near its take off weight of 72K fully loaded back on the carrier.

Digging around here is a shot I found of a VF-211 bird with six ATM-54C's or basically six training versions of the AIM-54C.

Not a problem in helping to explain it all Buckle.

The plane would be too heavy to land if it tried to land with all 6 AIM-54's onboard.

If I remember correctly, one of the few loadouts that a Tomcat couldn't land with was a full load of 6 AIM-54s, which was one reason it was very rarely ever carried.

You are correct that the F-14 couldn't land with the full load of AIM-54's back onboard. However the tactic that would call for all 6 AIM-54's being loaded was different then the usually BARCAP or TARCAP. In the late 70's the US Navy realized that the Soviets plan to counter a carrier battle group was to throw a regiement size of bombers (such as the Tu-95, Tu-16, TU-22, TU-22M) against the carrier battle group it was reasoned by the scientific studies that the Soviets did of battles that some missiles would get through to the carrier. These missiles would be mounting a full ton to half a ton of explosives along with whatever rocket fuel was left. That would be enough to achieve a mission kill, if not an out right kill, against the carriers. The mission kill being a destroyed flight deck.

So the US Navy created the tactic called "Chainsaw". Basic idea is this. With the E-2's being able to see out to 200nm from themselves and with the ability to datalink back not only to the carrier but also to the AWG-9 system on the F-14 as well. Everyone is full informed of the air battle. So the A-7's and A-6's squadrons would upload all the buddy stores that were onboard. An A-6 would accompany a pair of F-14's out to a point along the threat axis from where the Soviet bombers would come from. Until all 22-24 F-14's were airbone out to about 200-300nm from the center of the battle group. The A-6's would top off the F-14's till they were all the way out there, one the A-6's gave all they could they would run back top from either an A-7 or another A-6. Then it would run back out to top of those two F-14's. As the bombers approach, the E-2's would be tracking them until they got with in the 75-85% pK (precentage of kill) for the AIM-54's. At which point the F-14's who had been entirely slient at this point would fire up thier own radars systems and after being assigned thier own 6 targets to kill, a soviet bomber regiement was something like 25-30 bombers each capable of carrying 1-3 Anti-shipping missiles, ripple off thier AIM-54's they would then peel off and loiter in an assigned zone where they would meet the tankers and then roll back in to either go for Sidewinder/gun kills or just wait until the SAM shooters of the battle group did their thing. At which point the planes would either head back to the carrier to land, head to friendly terrority to land, or head to what was left of the battle group or friendly land and eject with the hope that the SAR bubbas were able to find them in time.

If the planes would land at the carrier then they would obvisouly be empty, the hope in this tactic was that the would widdle down the bombers of Soviet Naval Aviation down to something that would be managable by the SAM configured escorts.

The plan was that if needed CVW-8 off the USS Nimitz and CVW-14 off the USS Coral Sea would make a hole in the Iranian defenses so that either the RH-53's could get back to Desert One or that the C-130's could get back to Oman. To aid in Visual ID of aircraft an orange and black stripping was added to the A-7's and F-4's of CVW-14's aircraft and some of CVW-8's aircraft. Here is an example on an A-7 of VA-27 off the USS Coral Sea:

This was done since the Iranians had F-4E's they look very similar to the F-4N's that were being flown by VF-21 and VF-154 off the USS Coral Sea. The A-7's at a distance look like some of the other tactical attack aircraft the Iranians had in thier fleet.

Here are some shots of the RH-53D's arriving to the Nimitz and then the morning that they took off for Desert One.