Air To Air Combat

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Air To Air Combat

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Air To Air Combat

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Air To Air Combat - 12/18/2013 12:23:30 AM

burasko

Posts: 3
Joined: 12/17/2013
Status: offline

Thank you for this simulation, I waited for a long time. In the production of the mission, I found many inaccuracies that would be good to fix, for example: F-4E Phantom II has better radar as the most advanced Russian aircraft, the evidence guided missile at a greater distance than even the SU-35 with Irbis Radar, you can check on the attached mission. I do not understand why the enemy missiles so easy detectably with radar. The only information we have realistic about the missile launch is at RWR receiver, because the enemy radar switched to STT mode. Then there is a very high efficiency AIM-54 Phoenix against maneuverable fighter aircraft, the Phoenix missile designed primarily against bombers and its possibilities against maneuverable fighter is limited. and much more, as I write, when the interested ...

Attachment (1)

Post #: 1

RE: Air To Air Combat - 12/18/2013 2:19:07 AM

TMP95

Posts: 177
Joined: 11/29/2013
Status: offline

Is there a quick way to look at all the weapon stats? How and with what program can we look at them if Yes?

(in reply to burasko)

Post #: 2

RE: Air To Air Combat - 12/18/2013 2:22:10 AM

TMP95

Posts: 177
Joined: 11/29/2013
Status: offline

I for the most part am finding missile accuracy to seem fair.

of course would like to see the stats in DB. Perhaps I find the R-27 a little too accurate. I have read of accounts (fights of SU-27 and MIg-29s) that R-27s performed awful. Could be very reasons for this of course.

< Message edited by TMP95 -- 12/18/2013 4:32:26 AM >

(in reply to TMP95)

Post #: 3

RE: Air To Air Combat - 12/18/2013 7:36:09 AM

burasko

Posts: 3
Joined: 12/17/2013
Status: offline

a

< Message edited by burasko -- 12/18/2013 8:39:09 AM >

(in reply to TMP95)

Post #: 4

RE: Air To Air Combat - 12/18/2013 7:37:02 AM

burasko

Posts: 3
Joined: 12/17/2013
Status: offline

I think the accuracy of missiles is ok, I'm talking about the F-4 shoots AIM-7 as the first, although it has a SU-35 much more powerful radar and R-27ER {in command is incorrect name R-27RE} they have more range than the AIM-seventh The problem is Irbis radar in SU-35 which has a poor performance in the simulation, Irbis detects the F-4 at a distance of 60nm, AN/APQ-120 in F-4 detects the SU-35 at a distance of 50 nm, the difference would be much greater, because Irbis is a modern radar with a passive phased antenna array with 3 m2 RCS - 350-400 km. AN/APQ-120 in Command have better characteristics than Irbis guidance for SAHR missiles, because F-4 shoots first in the Maximum range AIM-7 and Irbis shoots later although duties some time ago on the range, in Weapon Allocation / Suitable weapons is Posted: Weapon is unable to engage imprecise target, F-4 has no problems with it at a greater distance. Hit probability is mainl depends on countermeasures as visible in the Message Log.

(in reply to burasko)

Post #: 5

RE: Air To Air Combat - 12/19/2013 1:36:31 AM

TMP95

Posts: 177
Joined: 11/29/2013
Status: offline

Upon further playtesting. I'm starting to wonder some if AIM-9M is not accurate / successful enough. Ditto that for later version AIM-7s

I've set up and number of computer AI VS AI scenarios - I'm seeing F-14Ds firing 10-12 shots off and maybe scoring 2 hits. Be it 4 AIM-54s, 4 AIM-7s and 2 AIM-9Ms. The late addition AIM-7s seem to miss much more than I suspect they should. Understand earlier 1970s, 80s AIM-7s had a low 25% hit rate. But I believe the lateer 90s updated AIM-7s should have a better success rate.

I'm play testing with "ACE" US. and "Averge" Opfor units. In 2 Vs 3 engagements (computer AI both). Basically losing 2 Tomcats for 2 Mig-29s. Starting out coming head on at 70NM + .

I've also noticed. The AI does not seem to to a good job of datalinking a target so that it will be fired upon. Via that datalink. It seems the F-14Ds will not fire upon Migs until they have their OWN radar turned on. Yet the E2C in the air has them (MIGs) spotted and is showing them on the map. F-14s will not fire until their radar is turned on and locked up on them. Which should not be the case. Now if you manually take over, I can have them Fire via the Datalink. But they don't seem to on their own. Plan to test this further.

< Message edited by TMP95 -- 12/19/2013 2:53:27 AM >

(in reply to burasko)

Post #: 6

RE: Air To Air Combat - 12/19/2013 2:24:52 AM

TMP95

Posts: 177
Joined: 11/29/2013
Status: offline

What I'm noticing is that the Migs are never designated "hostile" by the AWACs or the F-14Ds until the battle is within 20NM or closer. Should this be the case? I have both sides set to "hostile" with one another. It seems the E2C block II should be able to ID the Migs has hostile before 20NM?

Last encounter had me step in with Migs around 50 NM out. hit the "H" key and immediately F-14s engaged. End of battle saw both F-14s Winchester of missiles as well as all 3 Mig-29s. 1 Mig was downed by AIM-54. 1 by AIM-9 and the last Mig was downed in a long turning gun-fight! But again, all 6 AIM-7s have missed.

< Message edited by TMP95 -- 12/19/2013 3:28:32 AM >

(in reply to TMP95)

Post #: 7

RE: Air To Air Combat - 12/19/2013 4:02:38 AM

Blu3wolf

Posts: 198
Joined: 9/30/2013
From: Western Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TMP95

Upon further playtesting. I'm starting to wonder some if AIM-9M is not accurate / successful enough. Ditto that for later version AIM-7s

I've set up and number of computer AI VS AI scenarios - I'm seeing F-14Ds firing 10-12 shots off and maybe scoring 2 hits. Be it 4 AIM-54s, 4 AIM-7s and 2 AIM-9Ms. The late addition AIM-7s seem to miss much more than I suspect they should. Understand earlier 1970s, 80s AIM-7s had a low 25% hit rate. But I believe the lateer 90s updated AIM-7s should have a better success rate.

I'm play testing with "ACE" US. and "Averge" Opfor units. In 2 Vs 3 engagements (computer AI both). Basically losing 2 Tomcats for 2 Mig-29s. Starting out coming head on at 70NM + .

I've also noticed. The AI does not seem to to a good job of datalinking a target so that it will be fired upon. Via that datalink. It seems the F-14Ds will not fire upon Migs until they have their OWN radar turned on. Yet the E2C in the air has them (MIGs) spotted and is showing them on the map. F-14s will not fire until their radar is turned on and locked up on them. Which should not be the case. Now if you manually take over, I can have them Fire via the Datalink. But they don't seem to on their own. Plan to test this further.

hmm... where are you getting that 25% Pk rate from?

with the AIM-7s - are any of them the result of your aircraft no longer supporting the missile?

(in reply to TMP95)

Post #: 8

RE: Air To Air Combat - 12/19/2013 4:38:23 AM

TMP95

Posts: 177
Joined: 11/29/2013
Status: offline

I believe I read the AIM-7 accuracy was around the 25-30% hit rates in 70s / 80s conflicts. Could be wrong.

And no, F-14Ds are not breaking contact on Migs while AIM-7s are in the air (not going defensive at this point in fight).

(in reply to Blu3wolf)

Post #: 9

RE: Air To Air Combat - 12/19/2013 5:12:02 AM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: burasko
Thank you for this simulation, I waited for a long time. In the production of the mission, I found many inaccuracies that would be good to fix, for example: F-4E Phantom II has better radar as the most advanced Russian aircraft, the evidence guided missile at a greater distance than even the SU-35 with Irbis Radar, you can check on the attached mission. I do not understand why the enemy missiles so easy detectably with radar. The only information we have realistic about the missile launch is at RWR receiver, because the enemy radar switched to STT mode. Then there is a very high efficiency AIM-54 Phoenix against maneuverable fighter aircraft, the Phoenix missile designed primarily against bombers and its possibilities against maneuverable fighter is limited. and much more, as I write, when the interested ...

Thanks for posting the save. We'll examine it for any issues.

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to burasko)

Post #: 10

RE: Air To Air Combat - 12/19/2013 5:29:59 AM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TMP95
Upon further playtesting. I'm starting to wonder some if AIM-9M is not accurate / successful enough. Ditto that for later version AIM-7s

I've set up and number of computer AI VS AI scenarios - I'm seeing F-14Ds firing 10-12 shots off and maybe scoring 2 hits. Be it 4 AIM-54s, 4 AIM-7s and 2 AIM-9Ms. The late addition AIM-7s seem to miss much more than I suspect they should. Understand earlier 1970s, 80s AIM-7s had a low 25% hit rate. But I believe the lateer 90s updated AIM-7s should have a better success rate.

What does the message log say? Why do the missiles miss? Are the decoyed? Are they jammed? Are they outmaneuvered? Do they run out of energy?

Remember guys, this is not Harpoon. There are multiple discrete steps in the missile endgame. Before getting to the "sexy" manouvering part, the missile first has to run the electronic warfare gauntlet - not sexy, but often much more important than pulling Gs. We hoped that the message log was making this abundantly clear but we begin to suspect that people read the message log about as much as they read the manual.

quote:

I'm play testing with "ACE" US. and "Averge" Opfor units. In 2 Vs 3 engagements (computer AI both). Basically losing 2 Tomcats for 2 Mig-29s. Starting out coming head on at 70NM + .

If you think there is a problem, please post a save.

quote:

I've also noticed. The AI does not seem to to a good job of datalinking a target so that it will be fired upon. Via that datalink. It seems the F-14Ds will not fire upon Migs until they have their OWN radar turned on. Yet the E2C in the air has them (MIGs) spotted and is showing them on the map. F-14s will not fire until their radar is turned on and locked up on them. Which should not be the case. Now if you manually take over, I can have them Fire via the Datalink. But they don't seem to on their own. Plan to test this further.

This is a popular misconception. F-14s cannot fire the Phoenix silently. They must illuminate the target at launch, and they must also provide illumination during mid-course at very regular intervals or else the missile will lose guidance. Only at the terminal phase, when the missile goes active, can the F-14 break off.

< Message edited by Sunburn -- 12/19/2013 10:13:04 PM >

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to TMP95)

Post #: 11

RE: Air To Air Combat - 12/19/2013 5:34:05 AM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TMP95
What I'm noticing is that the Migs are never designated "hostile" by the AWACs or the F-14Ds until the battle is within 20NM or closer. Should this be the case? I have both sides set to "hostile" with one another. It seems the E2C block II should be able to ID the Migs has hostile before 20NM?

How? If the bogey is radiating they will attempt to classify/identify it by its emissions but that takes time. Other than that, it's down to eyeballs.

There are several ways you can instruct your forces to engage contacts not yet positively classified as hostile. You can, for example, set their "Engage non-hostiles" doctrine option to YES. Or you can define a forbidden zone around the unit/area you want to protect, and configure it so that any contact detected inside it is auto-declared hostile. Of course in both cases you run the risk of shooting down airliners but this is your call.

quote:

Last encounter had me step in with Migs around 50 NM out. hit the "H" key and immediately F-14s engaged. End of battle saw both F-14s Winchester of missiles as well as all 3 Mig-29s. 1 Mig was downed by AIM-54. 1 by AIM-9 and the last Mig was downed in a long turning gun-fight! But again, all 6 AIM-7s have missed.

"Missed" how? Jammed? Spoofed? Outrun? Outmanouvered? What does the message log say?

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to TMP95)

Post #: 12

RE: Air To Air Combat - 12/19/2013 6:28:06 AM

navwarcol

Posts: 637
Joined: 12/2/2009
Status: offline

I think that for many years, all of the "cool" videos/movies, showed a missile 'locking on' then fired, then exploding fighter, but yes the pk always has been low against enemies who were capable in their aircraft.
Same on the ID.. radar sees an aircraft, but radar alone cannot classify it as anything more than a blip onscreen. If the target is not emitting, the only way to know what it is exactly is eyeballs, though at some range you can assume it hostile by its speed, maneuvering, etc.
The USS Vincennes incident in the Persian Gulf showed one what may happen when you assume that however.

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 13

RE: Air To Air Combat - 12/19/2013 9:00:03 PM

bsq

Posts: 517
Joined: 1/5/2007
Status: offline

You are setting a 3rd Gen interceptor against a 4th Gen Multirole with some of the best countermeasures there are - why are you so surprised that the results are the way they are?

(in reply to navwarcol)

Post #: 14

RE: Air To Air Combat - 12/19/2013 9:19:25 PM

RoryAndersonCDT

Posts: 1830
Joined: 6/16/2009
Status: offline

Missiles miss.

Missiles

If you really want something destroyed I'd highly recommend something with a few more kilo tones of explosive power.

_____________________________

Command Dev Team
Technical Lead

(in reply to bsq)

Post #: 15

RE: Air To Air Combat - 12/19/2013 9:35:19 PM

TMP95

Posts: 177
Joined: 11/29/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

You are setting a 3rd Gen interceptor against a 4th Gen Multirole with some of the best countermeasures there are - why are you so surprised that the results are the way they are?

An American F-14D Vs a N. Korean MIg-29A is not exactly what you suggest above. Added to that we have pilot skill of "Ace" Vs "Cadet" or "Average".

But irregardless of that I have been at work all day and plan to do more play testing. What I am seeing is the AI flown F-14Ds do not seem to take the tactical advantage of reaching out BVR on the Migs.

(in reply to bsq)

Post #: 16

RE: Air To Air Combat - 12/19/2013 9:55:55 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

Do ROE settings have a role here. I have found myself frustrated at times until I look at those and adjust. This especially true now with new engagement options.

(in reply to TMP95)

Post #: 17

RE: Air To Air Combat - 12/20/2013 1:08:49 AM

TMP95

Posts: 177
Joined: 11/29/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Do ROE settings have a role here. I have found myself frustrated at times until I look at those and adjust. This especially true now with new engagement options.

I'll look into this, very well could be it. I could be missing something. and my OP was not really a critique (though it does come off that way) more just an exploratory question to throw out at others.

I definitely can get higher kill ratings/ratios if I take over these AtoA engagements. It has just been entertaining to try and set up and number of different "what if" encounters.

I do say I've seen more AIM-7M misses than I think seems right. In fact, I don't know if I've seen one hit with an AIM-7M that was launched via AI (I know I have scored hits with them when micromanaging).

This is a great SIM.

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 18

RE: Air To Air Combat - 12/20/2013 1:58:45 AM

TMP95

Posts: 177
Joined: 11/29/2013
Status: offline

Just did another playtest now home. Took control of F-14Ds. Fired 11 missiles. All 4 AIM-54s missed (message given was missed). Jamming of them failed. But they missed target. 4 AIM-7s fired. 1 Hit. 3 Miss. 2 AIM-9s fired both missed. (message missed).

2nd Run through tonight. Fired 4 AIM-54s (3 miss / 1 hit). Fired 4 AIM-7s (all miss). Fired 4 AIM-9s (3 miss 1 hit). All of these shots are taking place inside of 45nm mark. Vast majority of misses are just that misses (all jamming is failing except twice I've seen).

< Message edited by TMP95 -- 12/20/2013 3:16:30 AM >

(in reply to TMP95)

Post #: 19

RE: Air To Air Combat - 12/20/2013 3:05:59 PM

bsq

Posts: 517
Joined: 1/5/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TMP95

quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

You are setting a 3rd Gen interceptor against a 4th Gen Multirole with some of the best countermeasures there are - why are you so surprised that the results are the way they are?

An American F-14D Vs a N. Korean MIg-29A is not exactly what you suggest above. Added to that we have pilot skill of "Ace" Vs "Cadet" or "Average".

But irregardless of that I have been at work all day and plan to do more play testing. What I am seeing is the AI flown F-14Ds do not seem to take the tactical advantage of reaching out BVR on the Migs.

Sorry to disagree, but the F-14D is a 3 Gen Interceptor - even if its developement was at the tail end of 3G. MiG-29 is a 4 Gen Air Superiority Fighter albeit with short legs and a light load out.

The advantages that your interceptor has with BVR are almost certainly lost when you consider the handling characteristics and the EPM systems etc on the MiG.

Sure the MiG will have to close in order to get a shot at the F-14 but there is no reason why this wont happen.

(in reply to TMP95)

Post #: 20

RE: Air To Air Combat - 12/20/2013 4:34:50 PM

Showtime 100_MatrixForum

Posts: 29
Joined: 9/25/2013
Status: offline

It's really, really hard to come up with a good simulation of missile behavior, especially because historical Pk isn't everything -- it's an abstraction of everything that happens between missile launch and intercept and all the battlespace around it. Was it fired from within its DLZ? What did the EW environment look like? What aspect did the missile approach from? Does shooting two missiles at a target and having one hit count as a 100% Pk or 50%? Do missiles that malfunction or fail to guide count as misses? What about missiles that are only fired to force their targets to drop stores or to force them on the defensive?

The only thing that's really safe to conclude is that BVR missiles are good enough for everyone to constantly build and develop new ones -- otherwise, nobody would be doing it! Trying to create a decent simulation without access to classified data is very, very difficult; give the devs credit for getting as close as they (hopefully) have!

(in reply to navwarcol)

Post #: 21

RE: Air To Air Combat - 12/20/2013 6:23:47 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

They build and develop them because they see the potential. There is little practical experience for BVR in a battle environment.

(in reply to Showtime 100_MatrixForum)

Post #: 22

RE: Air To Air Combat - 12/20/2013 7:24:18 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

This is an interesting and sobering read on radar missile reality, especially long range missile shots...

http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/11/09.pdf

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 23

RE: Air To Air Combat - 12/22/2013 2:55:54 PM

Blu3wolf

Posts: 198
Joined: 9/30/2013
From: Western Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Showtime 100

It's really, really hard to come up with a good simulation of missile behavior, especially because historical Pk isn't everything -- it's an abstraction of everything that happens between missile launch and intercept and all the battlespace around it. Was it fired from within its DLZ? What did the EW environment look like? What aspect did the missile approach from? Does shooting two missiles at a target and having one hit count as a 100% Pk or 50%? Do missiles that malfunction or fail to guide count as misses? What about missiles that are only fired to force their targets to drop stores or to force them on the defensive?

The only thing that's really safe to conclude is that BVR missiles are good enough for everyone to constantly build and develop new ones -- otherwise, nobody would be doing it! Trying to create a decent simulation without access to classified data is very, very difficult; give the devs credit for getting as close as they (hopefully) have!

very good point that about historical Pk - case in point is AIM-9 expenditures in ODS.

most sidewinders were released accidentally due to hot pickle.

(in reply to Showtime 100_MatrixForum)

Post #: 24

RE: Air To Air Combat - 12/23/2013 5:14:33 PM

TMP95

Posts: 177
Joined: 11/29/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

This is an interesting and sobering read on radar missile reality, especially long range missile shots...

http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/11/09.pdf

Great read! Thanks.

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 25

RE: Air To Air Combat - 12/23/2013 6:28:19 PM

Tomcat84

Posts: 1952
Joined: 7/10/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

This is an interesting and sobering read on radar missile reality, especially long range missile shots...

http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/11/09.pdf

Did he really include two shots of the Air Tattoo Fulcrum collision and call it a Serbian Fulcrum in allied force?

< Message edited by Tomcat84 -- 12/23/2013 7:30:26 PM >

_____________________________

My Scenarios and Tutorials for Command

(Scenarios focus on air-warfare :) )

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 26

RE: Air To Air Combat - 12/23/2013 6:43:39 PM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

He probably got the inspiration from the box cover of Jane's ATF

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to Tomcat84)

Post #: 27

RE: Air To Air Combat - 12/24/2013 12:00:43 AM

navwarcol

Posts: 637
Joined: 12/2/2009
Status: offline

Most BVR missiles are intended against targets that are not likely to do much maneuvering, either because they are surprised, or they simply cannot. The AIM-54 family was designed to shoot down bombers. I think any Phoenix missiles aimed at a fighter type contact are a bonus if they hit.

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 28

RE: Air To Air Combat - 12/26/2013 4:11:04 AM

dillonkbase

Posts: 177
Joined: 5/2/2009
Status: offline

Not sure if this is the best place for these but it seems somewhat on topic... I know the manual doesn't fully list this, but is anyone aware of an air weapons guide or brief. Something simple like for the f-14 the phoenix requires illuminator on and constant guidance until ... effective range...
The sparrow ...

for the f-18
The AAMRAM needs x y and z
it does not need guidance after launch and can be fired off data from other sources... ect

when I read the database I'm never certain if a missile is forgettable or if it needs guidance (particularly guidance from its launching aircraft)

(in reply to navwarcol)

Post #: 29

RE: Air To Air Combat - 12/26/2013 6:26:36 AM

Blu3wolf

Posts: 198
Joined: 9/30/2013
From: Western Australia
Status: offline

well case in point, the AMRAAM can be launched without a target, but for high termination criteria it wants guidance up to when its seeker goes active (pitbull for medium PRF).

in theory it could be launched from a friendly datalink, but I am yet to see a confirmed source demonstrating a launch with a cold radar. the closest I have seen is a radar standing by, with the fighter completing an intercept then switching his radar on, guided in by a friendly datalink but still launching on his own data.

if a weapon is active radar homing, in general it needs guidance until it goes active. if a weapon is semi active radar homing, in general it requires constant guidance until termination.

(in reply to dillonkbase)

Post #: 30