Been flying falcon 4 in all its iterations since 2002. Now closing in on 4000 flight hours for the F-16 in BMS.
Thanks BMS for a great sim and many years of fun flying!
Been flying falcon 4 in all its iterations since 2002. Now closing in on 4000 flight hours for the F-16 in BMS.
Thanks BMS for a great sim and many years of fun flying!
@Dram said in Dealing with the J20:
Hi,
I concur, but unfortunately F22 is unavailable in Rolling Fire.
Regards
Dram.
I agree with the others, best choice is to turn and stay away from the J-20ās.
But honestly, I think the J-20 shouldnāt be included in the campaigns at all. Especially if the F-22 isnāt available. Thereās a mismatch there. The J-20 cannot be modelled realistically (just like the F-22) and in real life modern day F-16ās have toys available that we donāt have yet in BMS, like AESA radar. Not that that would be a fair fight, but itās not really realistic to have modern 5th gen fighters against F-16ās that donāt have the latest upgrades.
@TOPOLO said in Dealing with the J20:
Viper is not able to deal with modern a2a threat, best should be to send Raptor, and if none are available, try Eagle, they have been the air superiority fighter of the USAF until the Raptor came in.
Eagles wouldnāt fare much better than F-16ās against 5th gen fighters.
J-20ās are in the stock BMS campaigns now? Thatās too bad, I donāt think they should be there. That will cause an imbalance IMHO. Modern F-16ās have all kinds of toys that we donāt yet have in BMS (AESA radar, link-16 etc.). I realise that the J-20 is also limited with regard to realistic modelling, but youāre basically putting an F-16 with the tech of a few years ago against a brand new jet that is just now becoming operational. Itās nice to have these new jets in the db and put them in TEās. But I donāt think they belong in campaigns. Just my 2 centsā¦
<blockquote>ā¦no RL Naval Aviator refers to any model Hornet as a ābugā. Iāve been hanging around them for over 30 years and they just flat donāt do that. āBugā is something that (civilian) commercial actors came up with to keep the lawyers off their backs. </blockquote><p><br />Tomcat pilots did refer to the Super Hornet as a bug. I think it came from the Tomcat/Hornet rivalry. Thereās even a patch for it:<br /><br /><a href=āhttps://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/I~0AAOSwulde2Rqa/s-l400.jpgā target=ā_blankā>https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/I~0AAOSwulde2Rqa/s-l400.jpg</a></p>
Hi, I donāt know if this was posted already, search didnāt come up with anything. But I noticed a small bug with fox 3 calls from my own pilot voice. In several missions Iāve flown I noticed the fox 3 call gets stuck in a loop or something. When I launch my fox 3 against a bandit, I get the proper Falcon 1 fox 3 call. But then it gets in a loop that my pilot voice keeps repeating the fox 3 call a number of times even though I only shot 1 missile. One mission the voice kept making fox 3 calls for the rest of the duration of the flight. If this is already a known bug, please disregard my post.
<blockquote>@Migbuster <br />i donāt think the pirouette is doable. I basically have the hammerhead down tho:<br /><a href=ā
ā target=ā_blankā> </a></blockquote><p><br />Nicely done, cool to see! Still looks a bit too slow for a useful reversal in BFM though. Still wondering how Okie did it. But indeed the original video doesnāt provide enough information on what he actually did like Migbuster mentioned. </p>@danster said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
@Miron The perennial conundrum with tech sims, it seems to me, is where to draw the line in time- given that the line tends to creep anyway. I personally would rather have a ā100 %ā realistic block 50 than a guestimate of a 70. If the developers work on the latest SAMS, to take another example, they have to upgrade the F16 weapons and sensors, by informed guessing , to the most modern ( not to mention struggling with the F35 and its ilk) and then all the 80ās era tech becomes confused with 2022 tech.
I agree, but even the block 50 is still being updated. I understand that the 50ās will also get the center display and AESA radar etc. So itās very hard to even get current blocks 100% correct. So maybe indeed you have to draw a line somewhere. I would love to see the center display being added to Falcon cockpits. But I donāt know if enough data is known to do it properly. Because when you add the display, you also need to basically upgrade to AESA equipped Vipers.
No F-16ās deployed to Desert Storm were carrying the AIM-7. These were all AIM-9 only. Indeed only the ADF version at the time was able to carry the Sparrow and none of these units deployed to Desert Storm.
@drtbkj said in Are backseaters pilots?:
@Atlas Hi. This is an interesting question. As Airtex and Lorik wrote, it depends on the situation. I wouldnāt base everything on Hamptonās view . That was from a single seat pilot, and a young arrogant one at that. From what I have heard, the Navy at least is more like Flight of the Intruder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_flight_officer
I wouldnāt take any of these remarks too seriously. Pilots make fun of backseaters all the time and vice versa too. Mover makes fun of WSOās on his youtube channel too, calling them the last flare. Even F-14 pilots make fun of RIOās. Saying that theyāre useful for holding up an umbrella when it rains walking out to the jet. Iāve seen cruise videos with RIOās making fun of pilots as well. Itās just good natured ribbing that is quite common in the fighter world.
@Dee-Jay said in Are backseaters pilots?:
@Atlas said in Are backseaters pilots?:
No offense meant to anyone, but are RIOs/WSOs pilots? Do they have any flight training?
I think it was Dan Hamptonās book where he said something like he wouldnāt listen to a backseater but he would listen to the guy in front. I might be wrong, itās been a good few years since I read that book, but Iāve always had this in the back of my mind. One of my pals just showed me a video of Ward Carroll making statements about flying the Tomcat and tactics and such but I thought backseaters donāt have aircraft control? Unless in a trainer aircraft, of course.
Always happy to be proven wrong and educated on these matters.
Dan Hampton is just a stupid moron who think he is superman.
How nice to call someone a stupid moron (someone who isnāt even a member on this forum). Doesnāt that even go against forum rules?
Iāve read quite a few books by fighter pilots and yes he does have a bit of a superman thing going, but I didnāt think it was that much worse than books Iāve read of/about other fighter pilots. I could see the humor of it. And some points he made were quite valid in my opinion.
As for the original topic. RIOās/WSOās are not pilots, although as mentioned they have limited flight training. They are however equal and full flight officers and can be mission commanders, squadron commanders etc. So they are regarded equal flight members.
@Dram said in Dealing with the J20:
Hi,
I concur, but unfortunately F22 is unavailable in Rolling Fire.
Regards
Dram.
I agree with the others, best choice is to turn and stay away from the J-20ās.
But honestly, I think the J-20 shouldnāt be included in the campaigns at all. Especially if the F-22 isnāt available. Thereās a mismatch there. The J-20 cannot be modelled realistically (just like the F-22) and in real life modern day F-16ās have toys available that we donāt have yet in BMS, like AESA radar. Not that that would be a fair fight, but itās not really realistic to have modern 5th gen fighters against F-16ās that donāt have the latest upgrades.
@TOPOLO said in Dealing with the J20:
Viper is not able to deal with modern a2a threat, best should be to send Raptor, and if none are available, try Eagle, they have been the air superiority fighter of the USAF until the Raptor came in.
Eagles wouldnāt fare much better than F-16ās against 5th gen fighters.
Been flying falcon 4 in all its iterations since 2002. Now closing in on 4000 flight hours for the F-16 in BMS.
Thanks BMS for a great sim and many years of fun flying!
@Stevie said in Ovearhead break landings during wartime?:
@Master-Yoda - in the Navy/USMC, yes. I know guys that did that during the Afghan wars - both over the ship, and ashore. General rule of thumb - āyou fight like you trainā.
As for unexpended ords - pilots do not like to bring live ords home, but they sometimes will depending on how many are left in the magazine or what they areā¦in general missiles are always brought home. Otherwise, afloat they will just drop them into the sea on the way home, or in the shore based Afghan case they had a specific area where they could go drop them prior to landing.
I read that too, but I also remember reading that at some point they stopped dropping them, because it became too expensive. At some point the wars slowed down enough that they hardly ever had to drop ordnance in combat anymore. So at that point I read it became standard to bring it back and land with ordnance.
@Dee-Jay said in Ovearhead break landings during wartime?:
@Master-Yoda said in Ovearhead break landings during wartime?:
Pretty much what the title says, is it realistic to use overhead patterns to land your flight during a war if the weather doesnāt require IFR?
Not with live ordnance under the wings.
Are you sure about that? This F-14 carrying a JDAM is doing an overhead break at 3:25:
Granted, that is on a carrier and may be different than at an airfield. Here in Holland Iām not sure about what they do when carrying bombs, but Iām certain Iāve seen the QRA F-16ās carrying live Amraams and sidewinders do overhead breaks:
@Master-Yoda said in Ovearhead break landings during wartime?:
Pretty much what the title says, is it realistic to use overhead patterns to land your flight during a war if the weather doesnāt require IFR?
Yes, I think so. I think it was actually developed for wartime operations to be able to recover aircraft quicker than when they come straight in.
@molnibalage said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
@molnibalage said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
@Stevie said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
@WPNS24 - some of the āimprovementsā Iāve read forum talk about in 4.36 were also a step backwards. The 4.35 model was closer to RL, and Iāve been thinking of ways to try and transplant that model into 4.37ā¦knowing full well that I will kill MP, but Iāll just have to live with that. I guess.
Getting back to some history behind the AIM-120, the F-14A/AWG-9 demonstrated Phoenix shots against six targets in one pass during itās Development - resulting in six killsā¦that can NOT be done using STT - Single Target Track. The AIM-120 is essentially a follow-on to Phoenixā¦soā¦
> The AIM-54 never achieved six kills during a test.
On the margin.
1972
November ā Navy breaks new ground with several first recorded during a single flight: This was the first multiple launch from an F-14A aircraft, and the first multiple launch against multiple targets by a military crew. The missile
performed satisfactorily. LCDR Donald G. Klein and Lt. Jack H. Hawyer were the F-14A crew for the historic launch.December 20 ā An F-14 accomplished a āfour-for-fourā AIM-54 test over the Pt. Mugu missile range. Flying at M0.7 and at 31,500 ft, the Tomcat launched four AIM-54s against five targets ā three QT-33 and two BQM-34, each flying at M0.6 and at altitudes of between 20,000 ft and 25,000 ft. The missiles were fired at relatively short ranges, between 25 and 30 miles, and were launched in quick succession - not simultaneously. One missile scored a direct hit and the three others passed within the warheadsā lethal zones, thus scoring hits.
1973
June ā Hughes completed their testing program with a world record-setting performance; launched from an F-14A over Pt. Mugu, a Phoenix missile was launched against a BQM-34E Firebee drone at a distance of 110 nautical miles. This shattered the previous record of 76 nautical miles, which was achieved during the RDT&E phase. At the time the missile had achieved a 77% success rate, with 43 scored hits out of a total of 56 missiles launched from various aircraft.
November 21 ā First Phoenix proves effectiveness in full-arsenal testing on an F-14 operating over the Pacific Missile Sea Test Range. The F-14 fired six Phoenix missiles over a 38-second period and guided them simultaneously at six separate targets 50 miles away, obtaining four direct hits. Flown by CDR John R. āSmokeā Wilson and LCDR Jack Hauver, the Tomcat was flying at speed of M0.78 and an altitude of 24,800 ft - while the target drones were flying at speeds of M0.6 to M1.1. This was the only time six Phoenix were launched by a single aircraft.
Phoenix testing was completed in 1973 after a program of 60 launches
In the original test in the 70ās indeed not all Phoenix hit their target, but I seem to recall a story posted somewhere that one of the squadrons duplicated the test years later āto set things rightā. I think it may have been VF-11 in a live fire exercise right before the Phoenix missile was retired (sometime around 2005) and they needed to get rid of them anyway. What I recall in that shoot, all missiles did hit their target. I did a search however, but canāt find anything anymore. So Iām not sure.
@Stevie said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:
@Snake122 - this sounds lilke things Iāve heard as well. The AWG-9 was a completely analog radar, and the Phoenix was an analog missile. The AIM-120 is digital, and this is why it didnāt get integrated onto the F-14 (which was part of the original plan).
The F-14 was used as the test plane for the AIM-120 because it had the most powerful radar. It was integrated with the F-14, but it ended up not getting it because of budget reasons. The F-14 already had an active missile with the Phoenix and A-G was a priority. The choice was either Amraam integration or A-G integration, there wasnāt enough money to do both.
The F-14 was pretty much sidelined from Desert Storm because it had no A-G role and its avionics were outdated because the NAVY didnāt update it with things like NCTR, again due to budget reasons. Because of this it wasnāt allowed to fly CAP stations in Desert Storm. The F-14 was almost retired early because of this, because politicians thought its role had played out now the the cold war was over. So when they had to choose between Amraam or A-G, they chose A-G to make the airplane relevant again after the cold war. And choosing the A-G option arguably saved it from the chopping block until it did get retired in 2006. But it did play a very prominent role in OEF and OIF because of all the added A-G capability it had received in the years after Desert Storm. The F-14ās Lantirn was more capable than the F-18. Itās display in the rear cockpit was larger and higher resolution than the F-15E and the F-14 had long legs giving the F-14 deep strike capability or long on station time capability, making it the strike platform of choice in OEF and OIF for many years. So I think they made the right decision.
With regard to the radar discussion in this thread, shouldnāt it be RWS instead of TWS? As others have hinted in this thread and linked to another thread, the TWS mode isnāt the most reliable mode to be using from what I understand.
@Stevie said in Falcon BMS 4.37 SIM MODE Thoughts:
@Tomcatter31 - I would expect AI to behave as if you had taken a real shot.
AI SHOULD be acting in accord with their own RWR and ECM indications, which for the most part are going to be driven by your FCRā¦and in the case of CATM, your FCR is all they have to work with. Or SHOULD beā¦
To make them behave otherwise would require a BIG effort from the devs, which honestly, I would not think would be worth the effort.
Yeah, I think the idea to be able to fly training missions similar to real life with simulated shots would be interesting, also in single player with AI. But I can indeed imagine that would require a very big effort in AI behavior and indeed is probably not worth the effort. I was just curious when I saw the trailer video that they added the CATM feature and was curious how it works in the sim.
@Stevie said in Falcon BMS 4.37 SIM MODE Thoughts:
@Tomcatter31 - in RL, CATMs are ādumbā stores which only contain the minimum of seeker electronics required to drive aircraft displays.
The only real advantage of using CATMs over using SIM is that in most cases a CATM will allow to go MASTER ARM - ON without fear of actually shooting your friendly target.
The other (main) advantage to loading CATM for training is that they get the actual weight and inertia of the load out up to real numbers so that the pilot can feel/know/learn how his jet is actually going to act at that weight/drag/configurationā¦which Iām not certain how well is modeled in BMS - particularly the inertial effects. This may be because the jet is so small, or because of my limited OTW display sizeā¦hope to see different once my cockpit project is completed.
It should also be noted that in some cases CATM are loaded without CADs installed, so for missiles that would be JETTād by lighting the motor, they cannot even be JETTād.
Thanks, I understand what CATMs are in RL, but I was wondering how it works in BMS. I understand it allows you to fly training missions and set the master arm in SIM. I understand in multiplayer with human pilots on both sides this works. You can take simulated shots and the plane that is hit leaves the area. But what does the AI do when you take these same simulated shots? I assume they havenāt been programmed to leave the area after they take a simulated hit?
@falcon4 said in Falcon BMS 4.37 SIM MODE Thoughts:
Yeah, itās actually a really simple but clever trick. By shooting invisible, (mostly) harmless missiles you get perfect simulation of what an actual missile would do and the AI responds as if it got shot at.
That makes sense, but what happens when the AI gets āhitā by this invisible missile and I assume not damaged? Does he continue to engage after that? I imagine itās like Stevie said that the CATM is only really useful with multiplayer, but havenāt been able to test it yet.