860 réponses à ce sujet

[Serza]

That reminds me of the kid dream to become a SEAL. It's not even that long I considered it.

Heh... Time flies.

[Serza]

For almost 10 years now, yeah. United States Army (bringing freedom to you since 1775).

 

It's beautiful isn't it? 

 

My experience in the military has made me one of those sick individuals that's made me think things like this are beautiful. If you aren't American, you might say that in some ways, I'm the stereotypical violent American with a fetish for the military. And explosions. Specifically, calling them in. 

 

Being a JTAC? I'd say fun. Or is it a FAC, I can never remember which one's correct.

 

Let's face it. I'm the typical "WOOO SPECIAL FORCES COOL" kid. Except I guess I know more than the regular "WOOO SPECIAL FORCES COOL" kid...

Well, it's still nowhere near as much as the men who do it know.

[God]

Being a JTAC? I'd say fun. Or is it a FAC, I can never remember which one's correct.

 

Let's face it. I'm the typical "WOOO SPECIAL FORCES COOL" kid. Except I guess I know more than the regular "WOOO SPECIAL FORCES COOL" kid...

Well, it's still nowhere near as much as the men who do it know.

 

I'm an Intel Officer now. Baghdad (and the Army) are going to be an image in my rear view in about 29 days. I'm retiring from the Army at the end of December, at an age young enough to still live out my youth (I'll have just turned 26). 

 

I was a 13 Fox, Fire Support Specialist when I first enlisted back in May of  2006. After OSUT, I finished up my last year of High School in 3 months (I was 17 at the time I went to Basic), graduated early that December, immediately reclassed into Intelligence (I had to be at least 18 to get the MOS I wanted, and the Army agreed to let me go to Basic early under another MOS) as a 35 Mike (Human Intelligence Collector), and got certified as both a Mike and a Foxtrot in the 35 series (Intelligence Analyst) in June of 2007. Just in time to get attached to a collection unit that was detailed with the 173rd Airborne for their deployment to Afghanistan that year. If you've ever seen the documentary 'Restrepo', I know several of those men. The detail was for 7 months, and we got back nearly half a year ahead of everyone else. Afterwards, I did a lot of TDY's and extra training at posts all over the U.S, Germany, Japan, and Korea. Intel guys are the joes that get moved around a lot. We're troubleshooters, and we're always needed somewhere else, which is good (free traveling). Managed to get some stability and nail down several degrees, and used that time to fulfill my own dream of officerhood (aka, going from Jedi knight to Sith Lord). Commissioned through ROTC in December of 2011, and have been an Intel Officer ever since. Kept up with the TDY's all over the country, but sadly, I don't get to travel that much anymore. Decided that I had enough of the Army (I'm a regular college age dude who happens to be in the Army afterall), and after volunteering for two brief tours for Inherent Resolve, I'll be seeing my days in the Army coming to a close at the end of the year. Then on to the next big step. World travel, with backpacking and hipstering, and maybe more college. Europe, and Australia in my sights.

 

Briefed plenty of SF guys over my time. Worked closely with a lot of them. Great people, but man, they're intense, even for me.

[God]

Only F4 is more badass than F14.

 

F15 is like a simpler brother of F14:

 

 

 

I don't want to talk about the lame F18!

 

Obsolete planes man (smh)...

 

The Phantom was a nasty piece of work back in the day, after they worked the kinks out of it.

 

The Eagle? Statistically speaking, it's the most successful aircraft ever utilized by any military. And I've heard it's a pleasure to fly.

 

The Hornet it my dad's favorite plane. He only trained on it briefly, when it was first introduced, but he fell in love with it. 

 

As I said, he wasn't too fond of the Tomcat. He appreciated its value and what it could do, but he didn't like what he had to do with it in the Navy. As I said, it's a long-range interceptor, not a superiority fighter.

[Serza]

I understood about 70% of that. As I said, I know more than the regular person my age who thinks SF are cool, but I still can't match people who enlisted.

 

It's funny how the phonetic alphabet makes or breaks a lot...

[Serza]

Obsolete planes man (smh)...

 

The Phantom was a nasty piece of work back in the day, after they worked the kinks out of it.

 

The Eagle? Statistically speaking, it's the most successful aircraft ever utilized by any military. And I've heard it's a pleasure to fly.

 

The Hornet it my dad's favorite plane. He only trained on it briefly, when it was first introduced, but he fell in love with it. 

 

As I said, he wasn't too fond of the Tomcat. He appreciated its value and what it could do, but he didn't like what he had to do with it in the Navy. As I said, it's a long-range interceptor, not a superiority fighter.

 

Oh, the Phantom. The first plane to not have cannon or MG based armaments. Then deployed in climates where the older Sparrows and Sidewinders were unreliable as hell.

 

I remember that adding a gun was one of the first things they figured out on the later Phantoms. A good plane, regardless. Actually looks good, too...

 

I think I actually saw a documentary that claimed 1/10 success rate for the missiles... Or maybe it was just the AIM-9, which used IR homing, which got messed up by the temperatures? Maybe that's why the AIM-9C was a radar-homing.

[PhroXenGold]

Out of curiosity, am I the only one who just had to put the Top Gun soundtrack on after looking at the last couple of pages?

[Cknarf]

It's been playing on loop in my head since I first saw (parts of) it in 1995.

 

Also, I heard F-15s fly quite well with only one wing.

 

[bEVEsthda]

Oh, the Phantom. The first plane to not have cannon or MG based armaments. Then deployed in climates where the older Sparrows and Sidewinders were unreliable as hell.

 

I remember that adding a gun was one of the first things they figured out on the later Phantoms. A good plane, regardless. Actually looks good, too...

 

I think I actually saw a documentary that claimed 1/10 success rate for the missiles... Or maybe it was just the AIM-9, which used IR homing, which got messed up by the temperatures? Maybe that's why the AIM-9C was a radar-homing.

 

The Air Force went through a whole lot of motions to get a gun on the F-4. And then they never had much use for it. In reality, extremely few kills were made with guns. And the first gun install on the F-4E didn't work properly either.

 

The Navy never bothered. They had learned dissimilar air combat flying instead. The early missiles weren't as good as later, but it helps a lot if they're fired from a position in the best of their envelope. I actually think McDonnell got it right the first time. Despite that guns have been carried by every fighter since, they have hardly been used in air to air at all.

 

And yes, you can have a cookie now. I removed all markings. I wrote a long piece on the F-90, but unfortunately my Chrome browser which Bioware forces me to use, suddenly decided to interpret backspace inside the edit box, as global browsing-go-back for the window. It does that sometimes. Very annoying. It'll have to wait, the F-90 piece. I'm not redoing it now.

[Cknarf]

I wrote a long piece on the F-90, but unfortunately my Chrome browser which Bioware forces me to use, suddenly decided to interpret backspace inside the edit box, as global browsing-go-back for the window. It does that sometimes. Very annoying. It'll have to wait, the F-90 piece. I'm not redoing it now.

 

 

I just started using this. That backspace crap is annoying.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Out of curiosity, am I the only one who just had to put the Top Gun soundtrack on after looking at the last couple of pages?

 

No, I never watched Top Gun more than 10 minutes on TV to actually remember its soundtrack.

I can think about 'Hot Shots' tho!

[Aimi]

Out of curiosity, am I the only one who just had to put the Top Gun soundtrack on after looking at the last couple of pages?

You might be. I was thinking of this instead.


 

It's been playing on loop in my head since I first saw (parts of) it in 1995.
 
Also, I heard F-15s fly quite well with only one wing.
 

Here comes the snow...

[Cknarf]

Another reason why I loved Zero.  That sound track was epic. I need to go pick up a PS2, like, now.

 

Edit to add: PJ is still totally alive somewhere.  They can't just drop a bomb like "I'm gonna propose after this." and have him go out like that.

Modifié par Cknarf, 12 juin 2015 - 04:04 .

[SardaukarElite]

I liked Ace Combat, but then it got too... animesque and cartoon-y for me. Liked Assault Horizon though... well... most of it... well... I liked the bits that didn't rely on the crap combat system. It was pretty, but too forced in how it was used, and it felt like several parts got cut for the revamped combat system.

 

I think Assault Horizon is the greatest example of an absolutely terribly designed game still managing to be quite a lot of fun.

 

 

I kinda liked the arcadey combat; more realistic flight sims, like the ones that proliferated for most of the 1990s, had the problem of incorporating all of the insanely boring aspects of flight in addition to the exciting ones. They were fun enough, but sometimes you just want to pull off ridiculous tricks and shoot things and not worry about fuel and lift and suchlike things.

 

There's a difficult balancing act between allowing the average player pretend to be an ace and making a game with more depth than just casually following and shooting down spectacularly stupid enemies.

 

 

Russians you say?

 

Su-27s are gorgeous.

[Cknarf]

 

 

 

Su-27s are gorgeous.

 

Aaaand the Su-47 is horrifyingly ugly.

 

 

Barf.

 

 

[SardaukarElite]

Aaaand the Su-47 is horrifyingly ugly.

 

Well... yes. But I find the Thunderbird 2 wings kind of amusing.

[Aimi]

There's a difficult balancing act between allowing the average player pretend to be an ace and making a game with more depth than just casually following and shooting down spectacularly stupid enemies.

Another reason I like Zero. Its aces were actually pretty deadly; the AI was probably the best of any of the games. I still think that Zero was more of a challenge than Ace Combat 6, even though the latter was a newer game and incorporated ridiculous enemies like Pasternak and his Nosferatu.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

 

Isn't it just a huge jet engine?!

 

Another Badass F4 wallpaper:

 

 

*presses F4 button on his keyboard and summons a F4*

[PhroXenGold]

No, I never watched Top Gun more than 10 minutes on TV to actually remember its soundtrack.

I can think about 'Hot Shots' tho!

 

Film wise, Hot Shots is way way better. But Top Gun has one of the greatest soundtracks ever, and you should feel bad for not knowing it.

 

Anyway, sexy planes was the current theme, yes?

 

[Serza]

The Air Force went through a whole lot of motions to get a gun on the F-4. And then they never had much use for it. In reality, extremely few kills were made with guns. And the first gun install on the F-4E didn't work properly either.

 

The Navy never bothered. They had learned dissimilar air combat flying instead. The early missiles weren't as good as later, but it helps a lot if they're fired from a position in the best of their envelope. I actually think McDonnell got it right the first time. Despite that guns have been carried by every fighter since, they have hardly been used in air to air at all.

 

And yes, you can have a cookie now. I removed all markings. I wrote a long piece on the F-90, but unfortunately my Chrome browser which Bioware forces me to use, suddenly decided to interpret backspace inside the edit box, as global browsing-go-back for the window. It does that sometimes. Very annoying. It'll have to wait, the F-90 piece. I'm not redoing it now.

 

Well, a gun that's rarely used is still better than being completely unarmed when you fire off all the missiles.

 

Also, wasn't it the Navy who began with the TOPGUN program? Or, uh... Strike Fighter Tactics Instructor program? Damn, that name's kind of a...

I always thought TOPGUN was (partially) about reviving the usage of guns when necessary. And, well, tactics.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

What about putting two Sniper Rifles on both sides of fighters that can be fired from the cabin by a screen and joystick?

 

*expects 100,000$ for his idea*

[Serza]

What about putting two Sniper Rifles on both sides of fighters that can be fired from the cabin by a screen and joystick?

 

*expects 100,000$ for his idea*

 

Sure. No scoping ftw!

[bEVEsthda]

Well, a gun that's rarely used is still better than being completely unarmed when you fire off all the missiles.

 

Also, wasn't it the Navy who began with the TOPGUN program? Or, uh... Strike Fighter Tactics Instructor program? Damn, that name's kind of a...

I always thought TOPGUN was (partially) about reviving the usage of guns when necessary. And, well, tactics.

 

The "Top Gun" fighter school was/is a Navy program.

The closest  Air Force correspondence was the Fighter Weapons School's "Aggressors". Different, in as much as Top Gun provided education and training of air combat instructors, while the Aggressors provided dissimilar opposition for air combat training.

 

But the focus of both activities was dissimilar air combat and to increase fighter pilots' awareness of how to fly their - usually - fundamentally superior aircraft in a way that also yielded superior results. Gunnery had nothing to do with it. The Navy - which was more successful than the Air Force - only scored one single kill (IIRC) with guns during the Vietnam war. The famed F-8 Crusader, often called "the last gunfighter", scored only one kill with guns. All the rest were with missiles! (this is from memory, if it was three I apologize, but it changes nothing about my point)

So no, the missiles or lack of gun wasn't the problem. The flying was.

 

This (how to use the superiority of your aircraft) was a fairly common and well spread skill among american fighter pilots during WW2. Somehow, both the skill and the most important properties of fighter aircraft had been somewhat forgotten, up until 1968.

 

In media and among historians, air combat performance and "maneuverability" are poorly understood quantities. It's common to read or hear that Japanese WW2 fighters were "more maneuverable" than American fighters, or that the Mig 17 is "more maneuverable" than the F-4 Phantom. This is false, and springs from a crude and primitive perception of what "maneuverability" is. That primitive perception is basically that being able to fly a tighter and slower turn is "better maneuverability". In reality, to do that is suicidally worthless.

 

The purpose of air combat is to maneuver your plane, against opposition, in a way that you achieve a position where you can destroy the opposition, - and to maneuver your plane in a way so the opposition fails to achieve a position where he can destroy you.

 

Expanded this way, combat becomes much more complex than air show aerobatics or just turning as tight as you can. Too complex to easily describe, but you could say that it is an energy (altitude & speed) game. The aircraft that can keep its energy highest, loses least energy during maneuvers, is able to feed in new energy - whatever it takes to retain energy better than the opponent - wins. The plane that is forced to shed more energy during maneuvers, lose.

The most important single property of the air combat plane is not how tight it can turn, but how much turning load it can sustain!

 

If the F-4 Phantom was flown properly, it would beat everything in the world except the F-8 Crusader and the F-5E Tiger. The slatted Phantom, F-4E, F-4F, F-4S, would also beat the F-5E Tiger.

Flying a F-4 against a Mig 17, the pilot would keep his F-4 in envelopes where it would perform better on its energy balance than the Mig 17. And the F-4 can force that situation, because - in relevant terms - it simply is a better air combat fighter.

To describe a typical maneuver, instead of following a tight turning Mig 17 and allow speed to bleed off, the pilot would lag down to keep separation and instead zoom up into the vertical, and then roll into the direction of the Mig 17, pull towards its tail and then unload the wing to convert back to speed. The basic recipe for any fighter that has its favored envelope at a higher speed than the opponent, is to keep speed up. Turn, but don't turn so hard that the speed falls down into an envelope favoring the enemy, "zoom and boom", use vertical rolls for direction changes, lag pursuit to keep separation.

This is also somewhat how most american WW2 fighters would fight best. "Yo-yo" it was sometimes called in its most extreme form, like P-40s against Ki-43s or A6Ms.

 

Now all this takes awareness of that planes are different. Hence the emphasis on dissimilar air combat training. F-4 against F-4 practice, is poor preparation for a meet with a Mig 17.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Based on another outdated knowledge:

 

So is Apache the best Fighting Helicopter around?

[The Invader]

Based on another outdated knowledge:
 
So is Apache the best Fighting Helicopter around?

In my opinion, yes it is.



The Longbow is essentially the Ferrari of gunships.