Drop tanks shortcut
-
When needed … pilots doesn’t care about the number nor the type of bombs they have under the wings. If/when needed, they drop stores, no problems …
Remember also that one pilot (salary + formation investments) cost several F-16s. However, during regular war mission, they do not drop wing tanks when empty just to reduce a bit the drag …Going back to my question –- are there scenarios wherein a pilot would drop his tanks but not his bombs?
-
I have dropped tanks before my bomb run. I usually do so if there is SAM coverage and I need to be ready to jink and jive on my way in/out.
-
I have dropped tanks before my bomb run. I usually do so if there is SAM coverage and I need to be ready to jink and jive on my way in/out.
Interesting. I did not consider that! Thanks!
I also like to go CAT I just as I begin my run, that way I’m already “configured” for the escape maneuvers. Do you do that as well?
-
Er, what aircraft are you specifically talking about when you speak of Vietnam and WWII and Korea?
WWII: P38s and P51s routinely flew with drop tanks, and standard practice was to dump them prior to engagment.
Korea: F-86 Sabres have the same sort of system to drop external fuel tanks.
Vietnam: So many tanks were dumped that boats made from them are not uncommon sights.So you’re saying you’ll limit yourself to 70-80% effectiveness as a “tactic”?? I’m sure your virtual wife and family will appreciate that. “He tried to be tactical, ma’am, and that cost him performance in his jet that could’ve otherwise saved his life.” Sorry, but when I go prep for an A-A engagement, I try to make sure the odds are stacked in my favor as much as possible.
Then again, this is from playing a few human-vs-human fights. Maybe fighting against AI is easier, leading to that mentality. I’d rather RTB thinking “I probably could’ve done that without dumping the ordnance” compared to having a nice silk parachute ride thinking “I shoulve dumped that ordnance.”
I’m speaking pretty obviously of Human vs AI campaigns, as in those, you don’t have 30~60 folks running multiple missions an hour hitting diverse objectives all of which help the war effort. A failed mission results in a poor mission results page which handicaps the AI making them less effective in combat. In those circumstances, your “Virtual wife and family” will be butchered by an oppressive regime if you fail, so it’s worth some risk.
-
So all those reports in Vietnam and WWII and Korea about dumping tanks before an engagement is what exactly?
You are talking about WWII and Vietnam war. I am talking about 1990’ 2000’ conflicts, Gulf war, Balkans war and nowadays operations.
You only dump what you need to, and in quite a few of these campaigns if you drop and run at every hint of opposition, you’ll lose
In modern ops … Nope, you save (rare and expensive) assets and come back later.
Edit: I am rather talking about real life NATO doctrines. Not Falcon4 gamplay.
-
Going back to my question –- are there scenarios wherein a pilot would drop his tanks but not his bombs
… Rare. Could be a very specific mission like the attack of Osirak power plant.
I have dropped tanks before my bomb run. I usually do so if there is SAM coverage and I need to be ready to jink and jive on my way in/out.
Can be a reason. But don’t do it too often, you will rapidly run out of WT. IRL, this would only be envisaged in a risk acceptance level high, so quite rare if not exceptional. IMO, if risk of SAM threat is known and so hight, mission will be postponed or more assets (SEAD, EW … etc … ) will be assigned.
-
You are talking about WWII and Vietnam war. I am talking about 1990’ 2000’ conflicts, Gulf war, Balkans war and nowadays operations.
Seems a bit of a stretch to call the air campaigns fought since Vietnam to be wars given how laughably the opposition is outgunned, but I take your meaning.
In modern ops … Nope, you save (rare and expensive) assets and come back later.
Edit: I am rather talking about real life NATO doctrines. Not Falcon4 gamplay.
And I’m talking purely from a Human vs AI Campaign gameplay perspective, because the thread was about gameplay not real world practice or doctrine.
-
And I’m talking purely from a Human vs AI Campaign gameplay perspective, because the thread was about gameplay not real world practice or doctrine.
Ok. We are not on the same “frequency” then.
Personally, I prefer practicing simulation like I fly in real.
Exploiting lack of software realism/weak points is something relatively easy (kinematic missile dodge, CBUs on Hart site, HTS and HAD to pin point SAM sites … etc …) Not my taste.
So I better understand what you mean. In that case, yep, dropping external tanks will give you some advantages (sometimes) … Check and monitor your squadron stores.
-
It’s more exploiting unrealistic combat conditions and a lack of death mattering. I’ve been flying a lot on the ITO with some friends, and it’s pretty much agreed the sort of combat we’re getting into simply wouldn’t happen, because the first hour of the war the US would rain so many Tomahawk’s down on Egypt there wouldn’t be anything left but glass and ruins.
-
… Rare. Could be a very specific mission like the attack of Osirak power plant.
Can be a reason. But don’t do it too often, you will rapidly run out of WT. IRL, this would only be envisaged in a risk acceptance level high, so quite rare if not exceptional. IMO, if risk of SAM threat is known and so hight, mission will be postponed or more assets (SEAD, EW … etc … ) will be assigned.
Agreed, not saying it is what is done IRL. But that I have. I have ran out of jammers and tanks in some of my first campaigns. Learned quickly that better flight planning can help overcome ‘obstacles’.
-
It’s more exploiting unrealistic combat conditions and a lack of death mattering.
… Arf. Simulation sofware can’t be perfect. As I am used to say: 80% of simulation’s realism is provided by the user himself and a part of it still remains in his own imagination.
-
For TvT and large player coop events I’m inclined to agree with you.
-
Haha Tirak you beat me to it… Was going to say: for 100% realism open mission commander at start of campaign and delete every radar site, half of the Sam radars and half of the aircraft to simulate tomahawk strikes. Tomahawks don’t have the kinetic energy for runways, still need to do those yourself
-
WWII: P38s and P51s routinely flew with drop tanks, and standard practice was to dump them prior to engagment.
Korea: F-86 Sabres have the same sort of system to drop external fuel tanks.
Vietnam: So many tanks were dumped that boats made from them are not uncommon sights.Not very familiar with older aircraft but aren’t most of those primarily air-superiority fighters rather than A-G or multi-role aircraft? Also, what weights were the bombs that they carried back then? Are they the same as now?
I’m speaking pretty obviously of Human vs AI campaigns, as in those, you don’t have 30~60 folks running multiple missions an hour hitting diverse objectives all of which help the war effort. A failed mission results in a poor mission results page which handicaps the AI making them less effective in combat. In those circumstances, your “Virtual wife and family” will be butchered by an oppressive regime if you fail, so it’s worth some risk.
And I’m talking purely from a Human vs AI Campaign gameplay perspective, because the thread was about gameplay not real world practice or doctrine.
One failed mission does not handicap the AI that much and I’d rather return the aircraft, both mine and my wingies, rather than force a bad situation. While a virtual death may not matter very much and you may say you’d rather virtually die after successfully bombing a target (is that still counted as a win?!), I try to make decisions based on what I would do IRL (with my limited understanding, of course). This is also why I RTB after a mission and not just exit the game after the bombs have been dropped. This is also why I pay attention to AWACS calls.
While I fully understand we are talking about a game here, I’m playing a virtual war simulator and fly a virtual aircraft in the virtual skies over virtual Korea. I don’t like losing my virtual life if I can help it and when I do, I try to learn lessons from it. Forcing a bad situation just means that the lesson is NOT to force a bad situation.
In modern ops … Nope, you save (rare and expensive) assets and come back later.
Edit: I am rather talking about real life NATO doctrines. Not Falcon4 gamplay.
Why are we particular about radio discipline? Why do we have startup procedures? Why do we study pop-ups and fence in before the target? Because we want to play like “real life.” If we treated this purely as a game, it’ll all be about runway or air starts, “Hollywood” radio chatter, missile evasion ala Behind Enemy Lines, and so on.
… Rare. Could be a very specific mission like the attack of Osirak power plant.
I’ll have to watch the documentary on that again… but can you refresh my memory about at what stage they dropped tanks and how it fit with the overall strategy?
Can be a reason. But don’t do it too often, you will rapidly run out of WT. IRL, this would only be envisaged in a risk acceptance level high, so quite rare if not exceptional. IMO, if risk of SAM threat is known and so hight, mission will be postponed or more assets (SEAD, EW … etc … ) will be assigned.
What is “WT”?
-
-
This was before I played Falcon 4 AF, but even then, I could never understand why they “evaded” the missile that way and did all of that fancy flying….
-
-
I’ll have to watch the documentary on that again… but can you refresh my memory about at what stage
Only a four ship Low level deep strike in Iraq without posibilities of AAR.
WT => Wing Tanks
-
This was before I played Falcon 4 AF, but even then, I could never understand why they “evaded” the missile that way and did all of that fancy flying….
In fact, when trapped and when “you” have “failed” … RL looks more like this:
-
I’ll have to watch the documentary on that again… but can you refresh my memory about at what stage they dropped tanks and how it fit with the overall strategy?
Not very familiar with older aircraft but aren’t most of those primarily air-superiority fighters rather than A-G or multi-role aircraft? Also, what weights were the bombs that they carried back then? Are they the same as now?
The F-16s (4 x Block 5 and 4 x Block 10) dropped the WTs about 394nm in near the Iraqi border. The CL tanks were dropped closer to the target before hitting it at a range of which I know not. (not from a documentary but from various sources)
The outbound leg was around 556nm on the deck so quite a radius to meet.The F-4 Phantom II drops (370/600) seemed more like ferry tanks initially and don’t know if that ever changed……but fairly certain they had to jettison the centerline tank at least to be able to actually fire the AIM-7s…there was at least one case where this little step was forgotten IIRC.