Zephyr Net


Return to the Fighters Anthology Resource Center

Go to the VNFAWING.com Forums
It is currently Mon Apr 28, 2025 13:22 pm

View unanswered posts | View active topics


Board index » Flight Simulations » Fighters Anthology

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]



Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 8 of 9
  [ 125 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
Eagle114th
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 17:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 04, 2003 12:43 pm
Posts: 377
Location: N/A
VNFAWING-Updates wrote:
Eagle114th wrote:
There are one thing I must report you, just in case, you might have missed that part while your FAF are still in development. There are one thing that really bothered me, when I flew airstripe strike mission (Single player) in B-52H Stratofortress, after encountering Su-27, I dodged their missiles with powerful jammering system and some of evading turning, but when that pilot snapped into tail chasng me. That is when I fired M61 Vulcan cannon, but for some of reasons, it kept bloody MISSING su-27, even when Su-27 were only about .1 to .3 mn from me, that is not... excalty right. I knew that, if it was in real situations, B-52H comptuer controlled cannon would have torn Su-27 into many pieces if Su-27 pilot were stupid enough to chase B-52 from Buff's rear, just like when MiG-21 once got shot down by quad .50 caliber machine gun from B-52D in vietanm war (correct me if I am wrong on that part though).

So I thought you might could check that, and tail gunnery definely should have about 80 chance or higher of hitting enemy fighter at very close range, in my opinion.

Im off to fly FAF 2003 more, I really enjoy it and that is osmething I can do for now while waiting for your new updated version of FAF.


Eagle out...


BUFFs have no tail cannons in the next FAF release. USAF removed them all after Desert Storm...


Yes I realize about that, but why would they do that, if these rear-moutned cannon designed for self-defend? Unless they are no longer nesscary since we already got a high-tech weapons system in our latest fighter, being supported by AWAC that would provide air-cover for B-52H, thus giving enemy a tiny chance of sneak-attack upon these flying BUFF, right?

However, on second notes, are you ever considering of making mutli-version of BUFF, one earlier (with M61 cannon included in early version of B-52s) and latest version (current version we have that are currentlyused in our USAF)? Im just wondering about that, unless it is impossible because there is no longer a space for an additional aircrafts to be added in, due to limitations of FA engine? Im starting to learn more and more of how limited FA is while you keep breaking through limitations of FA's engine itself. Or you do not wish for them to be added into your FAF becuase you already have many of different projects being worked?


Eagle out...

_________________
"Great pilots are made not born... A man may possess good eyesight, sensitive hands, and perfect coordination, but the end product is only fashioned by steady coaching, much practice, and experience."
Air Vice-Marshall J.E. "Johnnie" Johnson, RAF
Top
 Profile  
 
Eagle114th
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 19:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 04, 2003 12:43 pm
Posts: 377
Location: N/A
Understood... The reason why I sent B-52H into 4 Suhkoi fighters is becuase I was testing how well it can defend itself against these fighters and see how well I can evade them, you konw pracitcing trying to evade, just in case neemy fails to protect me in single players (AI can make wrong moves sometime). So it wont hurt to practice that, and because of that, I noticed the tails gunnery was not so effective against enemy. Thank you for informing me the rasons why tail-gunnery would not work in FAF anymore. So that mean I no longer can reply on self-defend gunnery on... Lets say Tu-95, Tu-22 and another aircrafts that have self-defend guns, but instead... I must reply on fighters who would provide air cover to protect my ass before moving into enemy terrority and bomb these enemy in FAF from now on, only if I were to be bomber pilots in any single players.


Eagle out...

_________________
"Great pilots are made not born... A man may possess good eyesight, sensitive hands, and perfect coordination, but the end product is only fashioned by steady coaching, much practice, and experience."
Air Vice-Marshall J.E. "Johnnie" Johnson, RAF
Top
 Profile  
 
Ali
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 20:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 20:30 pm
Posts: 411
Location: Canada/Sicily
I think the tail guns were removed due to a friendly fire incident in Iraq back in desert storm. If i remember correctly a F-4G misstook a b-52 for a zsu-23 because of tailgun fire. Fortunately the phantom fired a HARM missile and since its imposible to shoot down boggies with HARM it missed the BUFF. But the agm-88 still managed to damage the B-52 when it exploded near it. correct me if im wrong...

_________________
Image
Belly full of HELL
Top
 Profile  
 
KAPTOR
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 02:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2003 00:26 am
Posts: 1409
Location: Mid-Coast USA
Sorry, no reversers on any of the BUFFs.

_________________
Fighting for justice with brains of steel

Let your anger be like the monkey which hides inside the piniata.
Top
 Profile  
 
KAPTOR
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 02:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2003 00:26 am
Posts: 1409
Location: Mid-Coast USA
Dont have a time line but the tail guns were being removed even before Desert Storm. The B-52G gun became an infra-red decoy generator. The afterburner killed tail guns in bombers, once fighters got afterburners they didnt need to approach from the rear where the bomber profile is actually kinda small, easier to attack from above and to the side where you really cant miss hitting something that big. As far as I know NO in service bomber in the US or Russia has tail guns anymore perhaps not even the top and bottom turrets formerly seen on Russian bombers.

_________________
Fighting for justice with brains of steel

Let your anger be like the monkey which hides inside the piniata.
Top
 Profile  
 
KAPTOR
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 02:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2003 00:26 am
Posts: 1409
Location: Mid-Coast USA
Ali wrote:
I think the tail guns were removed due to a friendly fire incident in Iraq back in desert storm. If i remember correctly a F-4G misstook a b-52 for a zsu-23 because of tailgun fire. Fortunately the phantom fired a HARM missile and since its imposible to shoot down boggies with HARM it missed the BUFF. But the agm-88 still managed to damage the B-52 when it exploded near it. correct me if im wrong...

You need to stop smoking crack, that would be a good reason to remove that Weasle pilot from service, NOT to remove an entire weapon system from a series of aircraft.

_________________
Fighting for justice with brains of steel

Let your anger be like the monkey which hides inside the piniata.
Top
 Profile  
 
Ali
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 22:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 20:30 pm
Posts: 411
Location: Canada/Sicily
i dunno do they smoke crack in your place? back here they sniff it. :twisted:

they would have removed it even if this ff didnt take place. but this incident forced the airforce to retire the guns early.

http://www.blinkbits.com/en_wikifeeds/Y ... tofortress
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-52_Stratofortress

Quote:
* During the early morning of January 17, 1991 the first day of operation Desert Storm a B-52G (aircraft 0248) was fired upon by an F-4G Wild Weasel. The B-52's tail gunner locked his tail gun radar on the Wild Weasel mistaking it for an Iraqi MIG. The Wild Weasel immediately detected the B-52 tail gun radar and misidentified the radar signature as that of an Iraqi Anti-Aircraft Artillery (AAA) site. The F-4G Wild Weasel crew fired a single AGM-88 HARM anti-radiation missile and watched in horror as it headed not towards the non-existent Iraqi AAA site, but to one of the B-52 bombers it was tasked with protecting. Luckily the missile failed to hit the plane, but instead detonated directly behind the bomber. The resulting shrapnel and missile debris caused an excessive amount of damage to the tail section of the B-52G. It ripped off everything aft of the vertical stabilizer. This included much of the tail gun system, the aft Electronic Warfare suite, and the drag chute. The B-52G was able to return safely to the island of Diego Garcia. It was later fully repaired at Anderson Air Force Base on Guam where it was renamed "IN HARM's WAY". The tail gunner position was subsequently eliminated from the entire B-52 fleet.


http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?viewTh ... tID=100439

another reason why it was removed:
http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/B-52_Stratofortress

Quote:
In the mid-1990s, the tail gun was removed from all of the B-52H aircraft to reduce weight and because a gun is ineffective against fighter aircraft launching guided missiles.
[/quote]

_________________
Image
Belly full of HELL
Top
 Profile  
 
KAPTOR
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 02:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2003 00:26 am
Posts: 1409
Location: Mid-Coast USA
Sorry to burst your bubble but all those "referances" are just cut and paste copies word for word from Wikipedia.
I found no referance what-so-ever to a BUFF named "In HARMS Way" and no evidence that that accident ever happened. Cant imagine why WWs would be FOLLOWING B-52s into a combat zone anyway. Only incident like that was the fighter pilot seeing ground fire and thought it was AAA and dropped a bomb on some Canadians as I recall.
Calling the In HARMs way story bunk for now.
And once again the G model had the 4 50cals changed before Desert Storm to act as IR decoy launchers, I have a pic.

_________________
Fighting for justice with brains of steel

Let your anger be like the monkey which hides inside the piniata.
Top
 Profile  
 
Ali
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 20:30 pm
Posts: 411
Location: Canada/Sicily
no i wasnt arguing anything man u got me wrong. just trying to explain why the guns were removed thats all. :D i heard about that harms way incident on tv documentary. so i searched for it on the net and found some crap.

more linkz

http://rickrottman.wordpress.com/2006/06/

http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_d ... ew=extract

http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avb52_2.html

_________________
Image
Belly full of HELL
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 8 of 9
  [ 125 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Board index » Flight Simulations » Fighters Anthology

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group