But thas just for 2000s and beyond, with the technology that we have in war thunder wvr is still relevant so i agree with ziggy on the relevance of supermaneuverability for the current state of the game, that will change when they start introducing stuff like the raptor, felon or just 4.5 gen stuff tho imo.
2 Likes
The problem with the F4 phantom and vietnam was that the armchair generals thought that all engagements would occur at high altitudes and would only be BVR combat against hoards of soviet nuclear bombers. It was an unproven concept that has no basis against reality.
Vietnam was instead low altitude hit and run tactics against US bombers and fighter patrols.
Technology right now is proven and effective at what it does and what it needs to do, and the lessons learnt in Vietnam are still having a major effect on decisions and tactics made today.
BFM is still taught all over because we know and understand that we have limited stocks of these advanced missiles and aircraft.
Now its useless only most of the time? What happen to completely useless?
You guys are on coping campaign right now. I hope you both are aware.
Wrong. That is why you have HMS & high off boresight capability.
Additionally supermaneuverable fighters must be equipped with high thrust to weight. Exceedingly powerful dual engines. It is a requirement I listed for supermaneuvrability previously. You are not falling out of the sky in a dogfight with fighters like the Flanker.
Have you ever seen it perform? They literally can perform with R-27ERs strapped to them. You know how large and heavy those missiles are?
Are you not acting like an Armchair general right now?
It’s only useful in a very very specific WVR scenario, and even then it is entirely countered by jamming the WEZ of the missile (tactic is to force a rolling scissors)
You mean dogfights?
Ditto
1 Like
I have not once declared that any technology & tactic is useless. Rather I never underestimate a person or weapons ability to kill.
Always overestimate & prepare. That is a US doctrine by the way.
It is “most of the time” as I put into consideration there are times that it may be successful. In modern combat, it is completely useless.
HMS and high off boresight is the “weapons envelope” sir. I also never discounted the Su-27 having powerful engines. I do however point out it is heavier than comparable aircraft, which is always going to be detrimental in a heavy turn, good engines or not.
That’s great and all, I never stated it is unable to do so with a weapon load.
Understanding the nuance that was the 60-70s mentality of U.S. Air Force at the time is important to understand why WVR combat fell behind on training.
Why? Low observability & the fog of war will inevitably place aircraft in close quarters engagements at one point or the other.
That is a fact here & now. It will remain one long into the future.
That is why the only 3 superpowers in the world have invested heavily in the capability.
You also think that flare & decoy technology stops advancing as well? Think again.
That is why ability to carry many missiles is a critical need. Something the Raptor & F-35 fails at.
I get the point you’re making here but this doesn’t count the fact that other nations also produce and advance technologically? You stated the various missiles of western countries but clearly there are other competitive and in some cases better missiles (admitted by the US themselves, hence why they are developing better tech themselves)… and i’m also confused on why we never consider THE OTHER face of the medal… yeah the US is developing the AIM-260 but are we just going to ignore the already existing counterparts and their upgrades?
A small example would be China developing a different version of the PL-15 that is supposed to be fitted inside the J20 and other stealth programs, with the major advantage of maintaining that range (or boosting it) while adding 2 more missiles to the missile bay, extending it to 6 PL-15s and 2 PL-10s.
I don’t really have any knowledge about Russian missiles but from this forum is possible to see that Russian missiles (long range) are more than just capable missiles.
On the WVR scenarios… i agree that certain planes like J-20, F35s etc… are supposed to AVOID these situations… the tech is too valuable and even if you can resort missiles that can go 360 you shouldn’t find yourself in a scenario where a single mistake can lead to you losing, even if the odds were in your favor.
This doesn’t mean that tech like TVC is useless, 2D TVC helps with IR stealth too, and pitch (potentially roll too) maneuvers without using control surfaces, at the expense of engine TBO and thrust. So there’s fair advantages, with fair trade-offs.
This is clearly not to spark debate since this is supposed to be a flanker based forum but just to consider the bigger picture i guess?
1 Like
Low observability only protects aircraft up to the “burn-through” zone. The zone is still a considerable distance away. Radar missiles can still be employed against these aircraft within that zone.
The U.S. has only used it in the F-22. Where Russia is refitting their aircraft with it, the U.S. has not done the same.
I have no idea where this is coming from, but I can almost promise you are not going to be able to lecture me about this. And I wasn’t aware that the F-22 carrying 8 missiles concealed was a detriment vs the Su-57’s 6.
Right but that is still training.
When bullets start flying past your head & those people on the other side are legitimately trying to kill you, many mistakes start being made, communication & coordination becomes less effective. The enemy is bound to slip undetected in areas you thought were otherwise secure.
This is true in every form of combat that man has ever devised to kill one another.
That is an inevitable effect of the fog of war. Have you guys ever read books on previous wars outside of your own nations propagandic history? Desert Storm speaks about these concepts, Vietnam & even the Korean war.
When S*** hits the fan, regardless of simulated combat, things always go wrong in one way or the other. You must prepare for the inevitable no matter how unlikely.
Dogfighting will remain an inevitability in aerial combat now & into the future.
Just as hand-to-hand combat will remain an inevitability now & into the future.
1 Like
No change to consumption rate means it doesn’t need additional fuel time for any reason beyond the personal one you’ve been using. You assume there must have been a change to the aircraft (there wasn’t one) simply because you feel the need to bring more fuel now?
No, I don’t have it unlocked yet. I’ll get there eventually, you know, by grinding. Are you implying that people shouldn’t GE modifications and stuff tho? As in, they shouldn’t spend money on the game?
Once, and then stalled and has to regain speed whereas the F-18 can maintain 40° around the entire circle for example. Also, that’s not even true because there are 4th generation Western fighters with superior nose pointing capability at high speeds than the Su-27. The Su-27 can’t Cobra after a certain speed and the instant turn rate at high subsonic / supersonic is inferior to quite a lot of Western fighters.
My point stands, the theory on paper is one thing. The usefulness (lack thereof) in practice is different.
Funny you’d go “Aha! Got ya!” And still be denying the fact that you couldn’t demonstrate it’s usefulness in game.
1 Like
Why are you still crying about it? We moved on dude. Like I already said carrying 1-2 minutes is not a big deal.
Even though I am carrying lighter and smaller missiles. Aircraft should perform better.
Why not GE it like you did the previous Su-27 & not play it?
The SMT & the J-11? The list goes on.
No… I buy aircraft that truly interest me completely. However, unlike you I actually play them. You GE all new aircraft & only play them for 10 games & give up forever.
You pay money to talk on the forum & larp as a psuedo game developer, not by actually playing the game is what I am saying directly to you.
I won’t engage in whataboutism. What tactics pilots and operational groups employ today is beyond my knowledge and clearance level.
Firstly, Russia has its own propaganda that has been annoying to sift through when researching history. It’s already bad enough I have to sift through the U.S and others as well to find what is fact. Korean war, as far as I understand it, was fairly even in kill numbers between Russian and U.S. pilots despite U.S. having higher numbers if we include Korean pilots. Vietnam was a U.S. failure to understand Bombers and nuclear weapons do not work to win conventional wars. Even if my research is limited to works published in English, I have enough tact to understand what Nations did well and did poorly in conflict.
1 Like
Is it just me or the img doesn’t load?
No, the image is present
2 Likes
Just loaded.