|
A-4H
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 13:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 08:39 |
|
|
RESULTSpre:A-4H ========= Nesher ====== F-4E == So, I'll start with the
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
SelenicMartian posted:This campaign has a bit of a historical gimmick. Egypt deploys a brand new Soviet SAM system. Forgive me if you'd rather want to keep this SAM a surprise, but it wouldn't happen to be SA-6 Gecko, would it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
Soup Inspector posted:Forgive me if you'd rather want to keep this SAM a surprise, but it wouldn't happen to be SA-6 Gecko, would it? Ironically, when I went to record a SEAD mission on a Nesher, not one of the four sites in the area fired at me. - Look, that idiot is flying a Nesher! - Oh... let's not shoot him down. His day is bad enough.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
SelenicMartian posted:You mixed up the number and the G-word. But you got the number right. Oh, whoops. Blame it on me getting it confused with another SAM that's featured in Israeli affairs. As for your Nesher, well... I'm sure we'll get many opportunities to get acquainted with the pointy end of a missile.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
The Casualty posted:I was initially excited to see the Nesher, but I didn't realize it wasn't all that advanced. I'd rather see the A-4H because A-4s are fun and this one has some interesting toys. No, you're doing LP voting wrong. You're SUPPOSED to pick the terrible option to make the LPer suffer! Though I hope the F-4 episode shows off the Quad Vulcan loadout for maximum Dakka.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 11:56
|
|
|
Veloxyll posted:No, you're doing LP voting wrong. You're SUPPOSED to pick the terrible option to make the LPer suffer! Normally you're right, when the consequences of a vote are only one update long. But I'd rather not watch several videos of a one-dimensional, crappy Mirage version that's a generation behind, or yet another Phantom.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Sub-Season 12A. Yom Kippur War - A Manly Chin (F-4E Kurnass) quote:Dear Mum, The loadout is nothing fancy, and we're missing half of the stuff, because the US won't give it to us. Oddly, the Israeli F-4E carries the USN Sidewinders. Perhaps Shafrir-2 is liquid-cooled.  The B-reel #1  In which the enemies line up to die I tried to skip forward to the upgrade, but the campaign ended due to Egypt taking Tel Aviv. I got a special fail screen saying, that Israel ceases to exist, which I failed to take a shot of, as I wasn't ready for a different ending text. Then I picked the only squadron, that starts the war on upgraded Phantoms, and...  Shrikes? That's the only extra they have at this point? Right, I'm heading to single mission mode.  MUCH better. The B-reel #2  In which nothing on the ground is safe P.S. chktshadeclaw posted:I realize it's just a side-note, but the Tu-4 didn't actually have random holes drilled in it. The Soviet engineers reverse-engineered it from three or four captured B-29s, so even if one had holes, they could have checked it against the others.  Oh, well, I remembered running into this yarn a few times.P.P.S. Cooked Auto posted:Speaking of gunpods on an F-4, here's one with 15 of them. SelenicMartian fucked around with this message at 05:49 on Mar 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
What's wrong with the Mirage III anyway? A plane that pretty can't be bad. Funny the Wikipedia page for it doesn't include any information on combat performance for such a venerable and widely sold aircraft. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 08:35 on Mar 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 08:10
|
|
|
COVERED IN GUUUUNNNNSSSSSS Rat, look at these guns. These are the kind of guns they used to put planes on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 09:04
|
|
|
I realize it's just a side-note, but the Tu-4 didn't actually have random holes drilled in it. The Soviet engineers reverse-engineered it from three or four captured B-29s, so even if one had holes, they could have checked it against the others.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
You know it's very strange watching you react to SAMs in this. As all my simulator flying experience comes from the OFP/ARMA series, hearing a radar lock warning, looking around for a few seconds, and saying 'let's ignore that for now' while continuing to fly in a completely straight line is incredibly bizzare to me. Do the SAMs ever become a threat, or is the game just somewhat generous given that you're flying aircraft all the time, or are SAMs genuinely not very good?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:
Yes, yes, and not yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
Madurai posted:Yes, yes, and not yet. Well that's somewhat reassuring at least. Christ I didn't realise that early missiles were that terrible, I always used to think that the jokes about early missile and jet interceptors were exaggerated but I would not want to be flying one of those against an enemy with guns.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well that's somewhat reassuring at least. Christ I didn't realise that early missiles were that terrible, I always used to think that the jokes about early missile and jet interceptors were exaggerated but I would not want to be flying one of those against an enemy with guns. Some leeway must be allowed for the fact that most of the early missiles, both air- and surface-launched, were meant to engage heavy bombers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
The Sa-2 worked fine for its design requirement: shooting down US strategic bombers. The US didn't know about them and their planes were sitting ducks. The U-2 spyplane was shot down by a single Sa-2. Sure the Soviets fired 16 missiles at it just to make sure but the first one hit. It's when they get deployed 10 years down the line shooting at fighters with radar warning systems and countermeasures that they're inadequate. It's not a bad system, it's just an outdated system.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:The Sa-2 worked fine for its design requirement: shooting down US strategic bombers. The US didn't know about them and their planes were sitting ducks. The U-2 spyplane was shot down by a single Sa-2. Sure the Soviets fired 16 missiles at it just to make sure but the first one hit. I did notice that the missiles seem to work just fine against bombers, so I get the point of early SAMs. My main quibble is making purely missile armed interceptors with what is manifestly a very poor level of guidance technology. And I guess people trying to deploy SAMs against things they just don't work on but I guess you work with what you've got.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
Sub-Season 12B. Yom Kippur War - A Red-Hot Poker Up My rear end (Nesher)quote:Dear Mum, I suppose, Nesher can carry things.  The B-reel  In which not much happens, but at least we're done with this plane  Do not despair. The first Skyhawk recordings already have more action in a shorter time frame.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 06:11
|
|
|
Fun fact about the Nesher: If it seems like a Mirage III with all but the most basic avionics removed, that's because it is. The Israelis wanted a cheaper one and never have to fly in bad weather. Dassault marketed it as the "Mirage 5" even though it's a downgrade from the Mirage III in every respect except fuel capacity. edit: FFFFFFFF not removing this post
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 12:07
|
|
|
Cant wait to get to the skyhawk, why is it so small
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 14:07
|
|
|
I'm trying to imagine flying Neshers against the Royal Navy task force in the Falklands, and the results do not seem like fun.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
punakone posted:Cant wait to get to the skyhawk, why is it so small  When the US Navy sought replacements for its A-1 Skyraiders, huge propeller-driven beasts with 50ft. wingspans, 8,000lb bomb loads, and a max speed of only 322mph, Douglas Aircraft decided to try something radical. The Skyraider was a close air support platform, meaning that its top priorities are bomb load, toughness, and loiter time. Normally these three priorities require a large plane to carry all that weight, one which is heavily armored and carries a lot of fuel. Douglas, instead, created a design based on the following principles:-As small as possible. If the wingspan was low enough, folding wings were no longer necessary, and the wings could be strengthened to carry freakish payloads instead. They decided to go with a delta wing and cruciform tail, for the best compromise between performance and surface area relative to wingspan. To get around the low fuel capacity, the aircraft was capable of air refueling, and two drop tanks were almost always carried. (in fact, by design, the drop tanks were also there to cushion a wheels-up landing so that the plane could be immediately returned to service). The Skyhawk couldn't necessarily circle the battlefield for as long as the venerable A-1, but it actually had a slightly longer operational range, could do everything else faster, and remain in the AO indefinitely with air refueling. -As simple and reliable as possible. No elaborate radars or avionics, no afterburner. Easy to fix and service. The Skyhawk would become legendary for toughness. This had the added benefit of making the aircraft desirable by foreign countries, and it was a smash hit on the export market for decades. -As light as possible. Many design innovations were made to reduce the takeoff weight, which would reduce the size of engine they'd need. The landing gear was designed to fold into fairings attached to the wings, instead of folding into the wings themselves, which would have required heavier materials to reinforce the aircraft. This lightness also translated into maneuverability; the A-4 was so nimble that it found a second home at aggressor squadrons, demonstration teams, and as a daytime patrol fighter in smaller militaries.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
Madurai posted:I'm trying to imagine flying Neshers against the Royal Navy task force in the Falklands, and the results do not seem like fun. If I had a choice between a Nesher and a Sea Harrier in a dog fight I'd probably go with the former. If I had a choice between AAF and RAF wingmates, signaling and ordinance then it would be the opposite.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
The Casualty posted:ENLIGHTENING Thank you very much, interesting read! Id never really run into the airplane before, so it was bit of a mystery for me. When I get back to the countryside I should visit the local airfield to see if the museum there is open. Theres mainly Finnish aviation history but last time I went there was a whole Mig-17 there. Also here in Helsinki theres a Mig-21BIS on a roof top sight seeing terrace in the harbor. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
punakone posted:Thank you very much, interesting read! Id never really run into the airplane before, so it was bit of a mystery for me. Nice! One thing I forgot to mention about the Skyhawk. It manages to fit a 9,000lb ordinance capacity onto only 5 hardpoints. By contrast, the A-1 it replaced was able to spread 8,000lbs across 15 hardpoints. That meant Skyhawk squadrons sometimes had to get a little creative to cram all that ordinance on. Use of Triple Ejector Racks (TERs) or Multiple Ejector Racks (MERs, basically a rack for six bombs) were common for Skyhawks in "bomb truck" configuration.  That's six bombs on the centerline, three more on the midboard pylons, and a single bomb on the outboards. At 500lbs each, this Skyhawk still has enough theoretical capacity for four more bombs, but nowhere else to put them. A more common loadout during Vietnam was much lighter, usually two rocket pods and two bombs or napalm canisters. The Casualty fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Mar 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
The McCain is pretty nice. Dude could tell you about them rocket pods too  (  )
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
The Skyhawk has pretty awesome nickanmes too like "Scooter", "Heinemann's Hot Rod", "Tinker Toy" and many more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:If I had a choice between a Nesher and a Sea Harrier in a dog fight I'd probably go with the former. If I had a choice between AAF and RAF wingmates, signaling and ordinance then it would be the opposite. I was thinking more about the SAM problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
I imagine flying an entire campaign with the Nesher is a soul destroying experience on par with the merc campaign... unless you derive all your fun from getting shot down constantly.OwlFancier posted:You know it's very strange watching you react to SAMs in this. I know the feeling. Admittedly it's derived from LOMAC rather than OFP/ArmA, but in that game you tend to be proper hosed if you decide to ignore a launch tone. And god help you if you find yourself facing a S-300. Either that or I'm just monumentally awful at avoiding SAMs. The Casualty posted:Awesome Skyhawk stuff The more you know! I have on occasion wondered why the Skyhawk is so goshdarned small, but never quite enough to actually bother finding out. It still fucks with my mind seeing a Skyhawk carry heavy payloads (such as in the image you posted). Something that small carrying that much is the work of sorcery, sorcery I say! Madurai posted:I'm trying to imagine flying Neshers against the Royal Navy task force in the Falklands, and the results do not seem like fun. No, definitely not. Admittedly I can't remember the title of the book (though it did cite all its sources), but I read that as Argentinian aircraft ingressed into San Carlos Water they would find themselves getting pelted by everything from Sea Dart/Wolf and Rapier SAMs to infantry small arms fire - on occasion the fire was so heavy that pilots were scared off and would abandon their attacks entirely to avoid getting shot down. It didn't help that the first thing that they saw when they rolled in was the SS Canberra, which was still painted white. Supposedly several pilots mistook it for a hospital ship (rather than the impromptu troop ship it actually was) and refrained from firing. This meant they only had a few seconds to acquire a new target and attack before they got dogpiled by every air defence in the task force. Of course, everything didn't go the task force's way - apparently Royal Marine anti-air teams had trained to tackle targets going twice as slowly and a fair bit higher than the Argentinian pilots actually attacked at, which proved to be a big issue. Take that anecdote with a pinch of salt, though, the book I read that in didn't provide any sources. I think. Especially since Rapier was apparently a bit pants anyway. And it just so happens that the Skyhawk was also used against the task force! I think that a flight sank HMS Coventry due in part to their skill and some tremendously bad luck on Coventry and Broadsword's side. Sorry for the rambling, I hope that answers your question, though. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
The Casualty posted:This lightness also translated into maneuverability; the A-4 was so nimble that it found a second home at aggressor squadrons, demonstration teams, and as a daytime patrol fighter in smaller militaries. Which is why you can see them flying circles around F-14s any time you go down to your local video rental store and get a VHS of Top Gun. You can also get a good chuckle at F-5s standing in for the "MiG-28." Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Mar 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
http://theaviationist.com/2014/03/13/wild-weasel-f-100/ This might be some interesting reading considering the subject, not that long perhaps but still kinda interesting to some.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
Soup Inspector posted:I know the feeling. Admittedly it's derived from LOMAC rather than OFP/ArmA, but in that game you tend to be proper hosed if you decide to ignore a launch tone. And god help you if you find yourself facing a S-300. Either that or I'm just monumentally awful at avoiding SAMs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
Speaking of gunpods on an F-4, here's one with 15 of them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
Season 12. Yom Kippur War - Hump or Death (A-4H Ahit) The new war is essentially the previous war in reverse. Aka the history of the Middle East. Or wars in general. S11E01: 1973.10.06-07 (I Hate Sand) 1973.10.06  Recon? There's a lot of fighting we could help with, but they want to know just how bad things are. Here's our suicide squad  And our little bird's feathers  I forgot to point out, that it's the 1972 model, but the Ahit in my mind exits only before and after the upgrade. The mission video  In which we get comfortable  It's a good idea to come armed to a "peaceful" recon flight. 1973.10.07  I'd expect the front line to give in a little, but our earlier success boosted the troop morale or something... Wait till we actually attack tanks. The mission video  In which I ramble over a plate of fried tank crews  Meh... Although, Dagan is getting impressive scores. Now look at the roster, and see how his stats compare to the stats of the other two pilots.  More recon? Can I just write "There's a fuckton of Egyptians there" and save us a load of fuel and ordnance? The mission video  In which the Skyhawk is a grazing animal  Dagan takes a day off in the middle of a firefight. P.S. This has to be included punakone posted:Cant wait to get to the skyhawk, why is it so small The Casualty posted:
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
The Skyhawk feels like a breath of fresh air after the big slabs we've been flying recently. Finally, we can out-turn our opponents rather than vice-versa! Out of curiosity, do you know at least roughly where enemy SAM sites crop up or are you reduced to flailing around blindly hoping you can take one out through sheer dumb luck? The way you flew leads me to believe the former (and it's not like it's too hard to guess, considering they linger near enemy lines), but you never know.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
A hydraulic round of applause for the A-4. What a spunky little thing!
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
Soup Inspector posted:Out of curiosity, do you know at least roughly where enemy SAM sites crop up or are you reduced to flailing around blindly hoping you can take one out through sheer dumb luck?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
SelenicMartian posted:The SAM sites spawn in predetermined slots on the map, so if you work in the same area for a few missions you'll know, where the hot things are. Of course, in the morning the slot might have an SA-2F and three hours later there might be an SA-6. I can't decide if the changing SAM types is a good thing, since I highly doubt they'd park a SA-2 in one location for the entire war, or a bad thing, because it could gently caress over a player who believes they're going to get vaguely menaced by a SA-2F... only to get whacked by a SA-6 out of nowhere. Of course, even that could be spun into a positive note: it keeps you on your toes. Still, good to know.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
Soup Inspector posted:I can't decide if the changing SAM types is a good thing, since I highly doubt they'd park a SA-2 in one location for the entire war, or a bad thing, because it could gently caress over a player who believes they're going to get vaguely menaced by a SA-2F... only to get whacked by a SA-6 out of nowhere. From what I gather a lot of the Israeli's success in the Yom Kippur war was based on Syria being too lazy to actually camouflage or move their mobile anti-air defenses. I think it was all based on the Syrians not wanting to dig latrines.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 08:39 |
|
|
It is kind of a shame that there's such a small draw distance the ol' Mk I Eyeball isn't much help finding ground units in a freaking desert.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 00:37
|
|
