arteedecco

^^ Yeah, I agree... this should be fixed in the ME; very confusing.

Ah, thanks for the info.. makes sense. What if the lead group has only 2 waypoints and at waypoint 2 ("DP"), there is an action to set waypoint 1 ("SP"). Will the lead aircraft just keep cycling between waypoint 1 and 2 with the second aircraft following the whole time? Or will the lead aircraft hit waypoint 2, go back to waypoint 1, go to waypoint 2 and then RTB with the second aircraft following the whole time? Thanks! BTW, I tried out the follow command and it worked great... flight of 4 Tu-22M3 ! Thanks!

Thanks @Grimes. I guess the problem I have is how time consuming it is to have to re-create complex flights when you want to add more aircraft. You have to go through and edit group names, pilot names, add advanced actions, change altitudes and airspeeds, select loadouts, select paint schemes. Am I missing something or is there a much quicker way to effectively duplicate an existing aircraft group including all of its advanced actions etc? I do know about copy/paste, but then you end up with the identical aircraft... better than re-creating everything from scratch, but it would be very nice to be able to group aircraft groups into the same flight. I mean, in RL you see flights of C-17s dropping hordes of gear or troops... I gather this is more of an AI game logic issue. Thanks for any help you can provide. I'd also love to see them allow you to effectively re-set a group and respawn it so when it dies.. it starts over. Cheers!

Why is it that for certain aircraft, like C-130, Tu-22, and many others when I create a mission and add a new aircraft group and set multiple aircraft per group... when I fly the mission only one of the aircraft is present? I've tried this with many different aircraft, many different times. Certain aircraft like Mig-23, F-5, etc all work just fine and can have the usual of 1 - 4 aircraft per group. Thanks! [EDIT] Here are related threads, wonder if there are updates on this coming? http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1620952 http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=98809 http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=83811 [/EDIT]

Cool... I wasn't able to find it so thanks for posting the link. Yeah... I see that he's got missile lock (I'm assuming this is training) then bandit notches (probably pre-briefed) and you see the contact drop. Then you hear the IP (?) give guidance on visual acquisition and the pilot boresights and regains lock. Did I get all that right?

LOL got it. Equipment failure... not a tactic to depend upon!

Question here is... how did a 29 get w/in 4nm of a 15 w/out the 15 being aware of its presence? Since that kind of stealthy approach would be nice to emulate in DCSW.

Possibly hoping Eagle flight would pass overhead and then could ambush them. Odd to me that the Mig-29 flight ran while the Mig-25 flight pursued then realized they were hosed and ran... maybe trying to draw out Eagles to bait them into Mig-29 flight that had retreated. Course... could be the Mig-29s had lots of stuff non-operational on their airframes and anyway... 2 v 4... 29s to 15s head on... die die die, especially w/ AWACS and probably limited / no GCI supporting Migs.. not trying to devolve this conversation from it's original topic of BVR tactics.

At 5 miles the Mig would pretty well have to have visual on the Eagles in order to maintain proper beam while in the notch (right?)... since your angular rate of change relative to the Eagles would be quite fast... hard when Eagles are 10K up above and you're hauling at over 700knots at 500 feet AGL (not a lot of time to let your eyes stray from the ground). Plus... Eagles radar more powerful that close in and as you say... you may beam one, but because of the offset of the others Eagles in the flight... you probably won't be beaming at least one of the others. Interesting.

Anyone? How to determine position from bullseye in FC3???

Well I thought it was awesome. I'm surprised they even discuss missile evasion tactics at all, but you're right they do say "notch". @GGTharos has mentioned that lots of it is non-classified and public domain... I never would have picked that stuff up before going through this stuff with FC3. Neat! +1

Cool, makes sense. Since we've pretty well handled crank, notch, beam (to some extent), and orthogonal rolls. Next questions: (ref.: page 111 of the "DCS FC3 Flight Manual EN.pdf") Raero, Rpi, Ropt, Rmnvr, Rtr, Rmin, Probability of Kill (PK), "spoiler" shot, ECM << that's what I want to talk about next I know that's a a hefty list, but I'm only talking in the initial convergence and some of those go together, but all apply to initial BVR engagement tactics. Raero (Rmax) - Range with Optimal Steering, including aircraft lofting. This is the maximum aerodynamic range the missile can fly out to and still kill a target. It assumes a non-manouvering target that maintains a constant velocity, and represents the earliest opportunity at which a target intercept can be computed. Ropt - Max Range Probability of Intercept with Optimum Steering. Requires steering dot to be centred and also assumes non-manoeuvring, constant velocity target. (note: "dot centered") Rpi - Max Range Probability of Intercept with Current Steering. Assumes non-manouvering target with constant velocity. (note... "with Current Steering") Rmnvr - Max Range against a Manoeuvring Target. Assumes target executes a 4g, level turn to face away from the missile at the moment of launch. Rtr - Range Turn and Run. Indicates the maximum launch range against a target executing an evasive turn and run maneuver at launch and is calculated using current steering. If steering closely approaches optimal steering, RPI approaches ROPT. Once the dot is centred, RPI and ROPT are the same. Rmin - minimum missile launch distance What is shown directly on the HUD from longest range to closest range (top to bottom) is: top: Rpi next: Rtr bottom: Rmin A.) Is Raero shown in any way on the HUD, or just has to be estimated by pilot? In other words... if two aircraft are closing (both locked up in STT) and the range indicator is above (further out) than Rpi... and you are M1+.. you pitch up and fire... will your shot hit if bandit chooses to come straight in without evading in any way? B.) Should you generally always fire a spoiler at Rpi to get bandit defensive or dead? What if you're cranked (Rpi won't === Ropt because dot will probably be out of center). C.) Is it better to fire first shot somewhere after Rpi, but before Rtr? (obviously if bandit does nothing and appears to have no indication that you are approaching / engaging, you could wait til Rtr, but that is unlikely in this case) D.) ECM... ON or OFF? I know that there's a lot to this, but how to decide? I know that at about 20nm you should have it off because you've already reached "Burn Through" plus you're just advertising your position (easy azimuth).

Yep, you're completely right. I was treating it as linear, but as I wrote that all out I realized it would be a curve, not a straight line for just the reason you mention. However, it still seemed illuminating to start with a basic example like that since that is where it starts. Anyhow... good eye! :smilewink:

As you do this "crank"... won't the enemy radar contact (in both planes) gradually drift even further out to the side, since you're angle is shifting as they continue to close? Seems to me that this would relate in a very very gradual bank into the bandit to maintain the appropriate angle (edge of gimbal)? Also, what happens as your contact begins to drift on the bandit side? Won't he adjust heading to maintain your contact and therefore cause you to have to then adjust out (crank out more)... resulting in a shallow S-turn pattern throughout the close?

Maybe I'm not understanding you... we're talking about acceleration right? Because maneuvering certainly does care about indicated (more mass flow over surfaces means surfaces are more effective... sub-sonic). In terms of acceleration w.r.t Inertia, ya I get you. Yah... I thought I said "Indicated Airspeed" earlier in my post, since that's a more linear measure of mass flow than True Airspeed, but I may have poorly articulated what I was trying to convey. Would you agree that the number of air (and therefore oxygen) molecules flowing into an engine at 400 IAS at sea level is roughly (not accounting for compressibility) the same as at 400 IAS at 30,000 feet, while the TAS is significantly higher at 30,000 feet than at Sea level?

Okay, interesting... so you are basically forcing the missile to recalculate constantly for a turn (change in heading) AND a high-G altitude change... so a dynamic change in two planes at once? Is the idea to effectively roll... around the missile as it closes in? (obviously it never just stops so you never complete the roll around it, but it's like a wave curl, right?)

Ah well... so... it's all about mass of airflow being moved and engine RPM. Higher (at the altitudes we are talking) is usually colder, but yes thinner... However... remember we read Indicated Airspeed which means... effectively same amount of molecules at any given altitude if Indicated Airspeed is held constant. So... I don't agree with the statement that jet engines are less effective up high for a constant Indicated Airspeed. Also... faster means more airflow... means more thrust out of engine (so their output increases as you go faster). A lot of the thrust from a jet is actually in the compressor stages... of course using afterburner changes that. IF, you have a reduced RPM... a jet engine will "lag" and take a bit to "spool up", but again with afterburner ... it helps to even things out. Plus... a missile has less air to interact with up high... so it is in a somewhat similar predicament in terms of maneuvering (not thrust so much since they are (all || most)? solid rocket boosters). Mind you, I'm not saying you have the same "WHOOOMPF" (acceleration) up high as you do down low... I get the overall sentiment of what you're saying. For those inclined to read more, link to nasa paper on the topic. Entirely possible I have misinterpreted... feel free to disagree and correct me where I'm wrong! :) Cheers! :)

You and me both! ;) (and will-do on the Tracview)... by the way... Tracview is really only useful in Single Player... multiplayer drops packets and missiles end up all over the place... or so I thought??? PM me if you want to try some of it out... I would love to try it out against someone else who has the concepts.

Yep... maneuvering flight means increased induced drag, which goes up exponentially (link to equation). Plus... if missile motor is vectored... I'd imagine there would be some loss of thrust (in boost stage).... thereby reducing effective range further. Like you said... it's not as simple as drawing two equally long lines, then curving one... the curved one (the one that has to curve further) will actually get shorter the more it curves. Again... supporting the practice of being faster, being more survivable. yeah, it can seem counter-intuitive because part of your vector is still closing on the bandit and yes, if you are going faster overall... that portion of the vector pointed towards the bandit is also greater, but... that so is that lateral component... and when you're past 45 degrees off-boresight... well... that lateral velocity vector is greater than your forward vector. Wish someone could post a quick vid and diagram of an "orthogonal roll". I gather the orthogonal roll maneuver is really only useful if the missile is just about out of energy... but would love to hear more about how to execute it and in what situations.

Yeah, that's very good advice. I find that my SA is often terrible because I neglect to make mental pictures of the terrain around me, my current heading coming into the engagement, etc. Then when I have to beam... I am lost and have to keep referencing the RWR, which has lag, is heads-down, and bad to stare at if you're trying to control your craft AND look for bandit and/or smoke. The other issue is.. the bandit maneuvers making your beaming / notching maneuver ... "dynamic", you have to adjust for his counter-maneuvers... usually to bring his radar to bear if you are turning. BTW... another thought came to me about being at combat speed when in the "crank"... in this way... if you have to beam or notch... you can do it quick... reducing the opportunity for the bandit to see which way you turn (though it's probably somewhat obvious)... your radar track just drops... as opposed to if you are accelerating where your turn rate is slowly increasing in the turn... yeah... 60 degrees to 90 degrees is a short way to go, but I guess the more "instant" you can do it, the better!

Thanks for your thoughtful and detailed feedback all! @Siskin, thanks for catalyzing such a good discussion and for working to articulate your methods. Let's keep things civil and as @Siskin recommended steer away from inflammatory comments. The overall goal is to provide a good resource for those of us less versed in BVR tactics. I wanted to throw in some thoughts on the "crank" topic. @Siskin, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you are saying that when nose-to-nose with the bandit (on the front-end of the engagement, no weapons fired), you use an indicated airspeed (IAS) below combat maneuvering speed (max performance / "cornering speed"), correct? If I am correct in that understanding, you do that to reduce the closure rate... giving you more time to react, but primarily your goal is to give you more time from any launched, incoming missiles? You combine this reduced IAS with offsetting via a "crank" maneuver, further reducing closure rate to the bandit, right? (or do you accelerate for the "crank"... I read it that you did not accelerate into the "crank" to combat speed, right?) IF a missile is launched, you execute your Split-S to convert Potential Energy (PE) into Kinetic Energy (KE) and reversing course 180, still correct? Now.. the others will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the issue they have with this technique is that this requires you to accelerate, which is slow for a couple reasons.... a.) you have to accelerate (which takes time), but b.) at reduced airspeed your aircraft takes longer to maneuver and you cannot change direction as quickly as if you started at combat speed, thereby negating some/most/all of the "gains" you got by having a reduced initial airspeed. So... let's say you have a combat speed of 425 knots in the F-15C.... if you "crank" to 60 degrees your velocity vector in the direction of the bandit drops to 212.5 knots (half), but... you still maintain your forward velocity of combat speed, meaning you can change direction at the most rapid rate possible for your aircraft. Keeping things simple.... let's say bandit doesn't change direction significantly after you "crank" what is the difference in times to 20 nautical miles between the two aircraft, if the bandit also maintains 425, but trucks straight on in? For this argument, assume both aircraft gain radar lock at 50 nautical miles. V1 = your velocity vector in the direction of the bandit V2 = bandit velocity vector in your direction Vc = closure velocity (Vca === option A, Vcb === option B) * assume Indicated airspeed === True airspeed (no wind) Option A, nobody "cranks": Vca = V1 + V2 = 425 + 425 = 850 Knots Option B, YOU "crank" immediately after establishing lock, but bandit does nothing: Vcb = V1 + V2 = 212.5 + 425 = 637.7 The difference (%) between Option A and Option B is 75%. Now... the time to 20 nautical miles from 50 nautical miles is simply, Velocity = Distance / Time... so Time (T) = Distance (d) / Velocity (v): Option A (Ta), with Vca of 850 Knots: Ta = d / v = 30nm / 850 nautical miles per hour = 30 / 850 = 0.03539 hours = 2.1178 minutes (2m : 7s), or 127.058823529416 seconds Option B (Tb), with Vcb of 637.7 Knots: Tb = 30 / 637.5 = 0.047044 hours = 2.82264 minutes (2m : 49s), or 169.411764705876 seconds Tb is 33% longer than Ta... in other words... if you "crank" you get 33% more time in the engagement... plus... your vector that is 90 degrees to the oncoming bandit is 368.06079660838645 knots. That portion of your vector, which is 90 degrees to the direction of the oncoming aircraft is the big part here and what you want maximized... and why the recommendation is to be faster, rather than slower in this "cranked" situation. If the enemy fires and you are going laterally (90 degrees to the shot and bandit) at 368 knots... additionally... you are already at your combat (max perf.) speed, no need to accelerate to it. If you were slower... you have increased your problems... a.) you have to accelerate, b.) you have a smaller differential between your velocity away from the missile and the missile velocity towards you (e.g. you have less time, the missile has more energy). Someone smart please review my math / logic and correct me if/where I'm wrong. Sorry I don't have a diagram.

<< +1 @dooom :thumbup: Most helpful. @GGTharos / @EtherealN, what's your take on that vid? Any recommendations, corrections, ways to improve?

It's actually quite simple, the name makes it sound complex. Go back and read the post response from @EtherealN which I posted in the opening post of this thread. He explains it. Also, here's a link to terminology (search for "crank"). As @GGTharos says: Just turn (max G while preserving combat speed ~425 KIAS for F-15C) until the target (radar contact) is all the way to one side of your radar display (approximately - just shy of - 60 degrees). That's a "crank" as I understand it. Go another 30 degrees (total of 90 degrees - perpendicular - to radar) and now you are on the "beam". Re-reading @EtherealN's post in the opening of this thread, you will see that if you have gone to the gimbal limit (~60 degrees) and are still in trouble and need to defeat a missile radar or enemy aircraft's radar by a.) beaming, or b.) notching (which is beaming with the addition of - usually - descending BELOW the offending radar you are attempting to defeat... using ground clutter to your advantage). A drawing will be useful to be sure... I don't have the means right now either. "Snipe"

Thanks for posting these findings @mjeh! Wish this stuff was a.) in release notes / manuals and b.) resolved considering ME has been around forever. (tangent) Would be nice for many reasons - including LOE - to be able to put the ME into a 3D mode where you can use the external views dynamically w/out having to run the mission. Could even be less graphics and just basic shapes like Tracview (wireframes / icons).

In FC3 flying the F-15 or Su-27... how do you use that information since AFAIK there's no bullseye reference unless the mission planner A.) was kind enough to put one of your WP at or very near bullseye and B.) they bothered to mention that fact in the mission briefing (letting you know which wp it's near). Even with that.. if you're not AT the correct WP... I suppose your'e left to using F10 and the measurement tool... assuming bullseye is depicted OR you can ascertain where your WP that is collocated with bullseye is on the map? Or is there a real simple way (fingers crossed)??? "Snipe"