Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Audgisil

Why the second rate aircraft?

Recommended Posts

I recall an old story, when they first designed the F117 stealth fighter a camouflage scheme scheme was proposed that looked very much like that - alternating patches of neutral greys. And the Pentagon brass were appalled. They wanted the plane to look like something Darth Vader might fly! Paint it charcoal black! And that's why F117 looked the way it did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our airforce has just purchased new primary training a/c, and when it came time to choose a paint scheme they actually did a bit of study about what colour would be best in terms of visibility so other pilots had the best chance of avoiding idiot n00bs tooling around lost in the air. Ironically it turns out that black is THE best colour for an a/c to be if your primary aim is to make it visible to all and sundry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Our airforce has just purchased new primary training a/c, and when it came time to choose a paint scheme they actually did a bit of study about what colour would be best in terms of visibility so other pilots had the best chance of avoiding idiot n00bs tooling around lost in the air. Ironically it turns out that black is THE best colour for an a/c to be if your primary aim is to make it visible to all and sundry.

I think the Pentagon underling in charge of the paint selection was Vladam, Vlad, Vladimir Putin or something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No they are not.

but if they crash on map they make a huge hole in the ground. You do not want that happening anywhere near your troops. and yes I have had it happen, also an F 15. There is no missing it when it occurs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who is the culprit?:confused:

Since F-15s fly higher than the maximum altitude of the on-map AA elements we are getting, I'm assuming we are also getting an abstracted chance of either off-map longer range SAM systems hitting CAS assets (possibly via a SAM threat setting for the map similar to Electronic warfare), or an abstracted chance of air-to-air duels between the CAS assets of each side if they are both present. Pretty cool either way. :)

Edit: There is also the possibility that we can buy long-range AA assets as off-map units. That would be REALLY cool and make for some tough choices on spending during quick battles! Do I buy another Abrams or does my opponent have a squadron of SU-25s?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since F-15s fly higher than the maximum altitude of the on-map AA elements we are getting, I'm assuming we are also getting an abstracted chance of either off-map longer range SAM systems hitting CAS assets (possibly via a SAM threat setting for the map similar to Electronic warfare), or an abstracted chance of air-to-air duels between the CAS assets of each side if they are both present. Pretty cool either way. :)

Edit: There is also the possibility that we can buy long-range AA assets as off-map units. That would be REALLY cool and make for some tough choices on spending during quick battles! Do I buy another Abrams or does my opponent have a squadron of SU-25s?

yeah. But then I probably want a pair of F-16/F-35 for SEAD... Tis could be a 'be careful what you wish for' situation?!....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I recall an old story, when they first designed the F117 stealth fighter a camouflage scheme scheme was proposed that looked very much like that - alternating patches of neutral greys. And the Pentagon brass were appalled. They wanted the plane to look like something Darth Vader might fly! Paint it charcoal black! And that's why F117 looked the way it did.

It is best to let the enemy know who hit them!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/American_Flag_F-117_Nighthawks.jpg

http://intercepts.defensenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/080306-F-1234A-801.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One supposes F-22 would have its hands full performing fighter interceptor and deep strike missions. Using it for CAS bombing runs would be rather like WWII Germany using ME262 as a bomber instead of an interceptor.

 

Funny that you say that. Hitler requested the ME262 be capable of carrying bombs after all. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny that you say that. Hitler requested the ME262 be capable of carrying bombs after all. ;)

 

Which may not have been quite as crazy as it has usually made out to have been. Consider: By mid-'44 the Allies had virtual aerial supremacy over Western Europe. Any conventional bombers trying to hit ground targets were likely to get shredded. So the obvious solution would be to use an aircraft with higher performance than the planes sent to intercept them. The problem was that the technology had not matured and neither had the necessary tactics that would have met with success. Consequence: One big flop.

 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've been talking about US aircraft in the game. Russian aircraft types go up to SU-34 Fullback. Not too shabby, a far cry from the old Syrian MIG-21s in CMSF!  :)

Edited by MikeyD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've been talking about US aircraft in the game. Russian aircraft types go up to SU-34 Fullback. Not too shabby, a far cry from the old Syrian MIG-21s in CMSF!  :)

 

One thing I don't understand very well about modern combat is why, low observability aside, we even need planes as advanced as F-22 rather than just more advanced weapons and equipment on older platforms.  If there was hypothetically a new air-to-air missile with a range of 100 miles and advanced tracking and maneuvering ability, wouldn't it be just as useful launched from a MIG-21 as from a PAK FA or F-22 or any other next gen plane?  Heck, just add a computer and turn the MIG-21 into a drone to keep the humans out of danger as well.  

 

Israel recently launched an attack, using F-15s equipped with advanced ECM and standoff air-to-ground missiles, on multiple Syrian targets deep into the area around Damascus, the most heavily guarded by AA defenses, and didn't lose a single plane.  Syria even took some shots but got no hits.  The F-15 is not by any means a low observable aircraft but carrying modern ECM equipment can make it very difficult to hit even by relatively advanced missile systems such as Buk, which was one of the systems fired against the Israeli planes.  I guess to me the plane is just a fast, high flying delivery platform for advanced weapons but doesn't necessarily have to be that advanced itself anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still though, its best to have as much on the pylons as possible.

Su-34 can carry alot of ordnance on its 12 pylons. An aircraft with 12 KH-29T or KH-38MLE is nothing to be sniffed at, especially by a bunch of Abrams.

I wonder if aircraft type mitigates the effectiveness of SAFIRE or if its just arbitrary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I don't understand very well about modern combat is why, low observability aside, we even need planes as advanced as F-22 rather than just more advanced weapons and equipment on older platforms.  If there was hypothetically a new air-to-air missile with a range of 100 miles and advanced tracking and maneuvering ability, wouldn't it be just as useful launched from a MIG-21 as from a PAK FA or F-22 or any other next gen plane?  Heck, just add a computer and turn the MIG-21 into a drone to keep the humans out of danger as well.  

 

Israel recently launched an attack, using F-15s equipped with advanced ECM and standoff air-to-ground missiles, on multiple Syrian targets deep into the area around Damascus, the most heavily guarded by AA defenses, and didn't lose a single plane.  Syria even took some shots but got no hits.  The F-15 is not by any means a low observable aircraft but carrying modern ECM equipment can make it very difficult to hit even by relatively advanced missile systems such as Buk, which was one of the systems fired against the Israeli planes.  I guess to me the plane is just a fast, high flying delivery platform for advanced weapons but doesn't necessarily have to be that advanced itself anymore.

you can't really compare the f-22 to -15 since there's a generation gap between them...

 

something like super-cruise.... means it gets you somewhere fast; it expands your missile's engagement envelope while collapsing the bad guy's; it gives you more energy at the merge of a dogfight.

 

so for example a "100 mile range" missile launched from a -22 will most likely be different vs launched from a -15, as the former will fly much further due to the platform's speed. after launch the -22 can turn around and run away from the bad guy's missile much faster as well. i remember there was a 100:1 dact result and there could be truth in that besides usaf propoganda.

 

also low vis is very important, the f-15/16/18 series have real difficulty facing sa-10 and above which are about to spread to various countries. they can still deal with them, but it requres a big systematic effort so it really ties up resources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NATO would not commit to ground operations with out full air dominance. So it could be another battle of britan scenario, where the war is won or lost in the air....like sea lion called off because the Brits won the Battle of Britain. To truely game this aspect, Command modern air naval operations is what you want to play. To be honest, the air war is so important, I don't even see US led NATO troops even firing a shot until the air war is won or lost.

So in the the context of cm Black Sea, you could argue that NATO has won the air war and has total dominance in the air, now the ground troops go in.

 

You always have to make a few assumption for a nonhistorical game scenario to work (and even for historical ones as well sometimes). In the case of CM: Black Sea I can imagine something like a Nato rapid reaction or tripwire force going in even if conditions are not optimal.

 

100 per cent realististic? Maybe not. Plausible enough for the game to work. I think so. We make the same "balance" judgments in historical scenarios by not giving the Allies ungodly amounts of arty, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if you have air superiority there is still a chance the other air force shows over the battlefield from time to time, like the Luftwaffe in 1944-45 (admittedly less often in the west) or the Arabs 1956-82.

Also the Ukraine is pretty big (not to mention Russia), so showing up locally is still possible even if Nato controls the skies most of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldnt assume that for Black Sea NATO will have consistent air superiority. I think it will sway as the campaign goes along.

 

That is certainly a reasonable assumption, but please remeber that CMBS can be used to simulate different scenarios and campaigns (not just NATO vs Russia). Would Russia have an air superiority if they were to fight Ukraine one-on-one? ...most likely... Then again, what about a case where Russians go in covertly and avoid using their air power (which is exactly what has happened in August of this year)? It would be really nice to play out all these options in CMBS...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...