Supporting wingman's SARH ?

[Dirty Rotten Flieger]

So I am flying Su27 with my trusty wingman and up ahead is a single F15 with aim120s coming straight at us...

 

Can I slow down and hold a lock on the enemy F15 while my wingman goes in with burners and fires R27er and then breaks away . Will my radar lock illuminate the target for his R27ER in flight? This would effectively make his missile fire and forget so he can evade the incoming slammer.

 

I tried using Tacview to see if this is possible but it seems not to work. Why not? How does the missile know who is illuminating the enemy aircraft, and why does it care ?

 

I was hoping this would be a great team work tactic for flanker pairs to use against Aim120 armed F15c.

Edited January 13, 2016 by Dirty Rotten Flieger

[pepin1234]

Is not implemented. If they give us all the candies in FC3, you don't gone buy the next full simulated fighters... :lol::music_whistling:

[Dirty Rotten Flieger]

So will this work with the MIg 21 or the Mirage 2000 ? Anybody tried?

[Boberro]

Does even such old Su-27S support that?

[Dirty Rotten Flieger]

Well even the most primitive radar and SARH missile should work like this. a dumb missile that just intercepts an illuminated target doesn't know who illuminated it.

 

It occurs to me now that he su27 are not possible to use them in the manner they were intended. In groups, illuminating each others targets, so they could make attack runs and break off after firing. Just as they would with fire and forget missiles.

 

This should really be the core tactic of online flankers, but it doesn't work .

[PiedDroit]

Well even the most primitive radar and SARH missile should work like this. a dumb missile that just intercepts an illuminated target doesn't know who illuminated it. .

A primitive radar would do that yes, but a more modern one would probably use different frequencies (one for each ship) to allow a flight to do multiple shots on distinct targets.

Edited January 13, 2016 by PiedDroit

[*Rage*]

Flankers are also missing peer to peer datalink.

[OxideMako]

Flankers are also missing peer to peer datalink.

 

It's in there, it works with AI wingmen/AWACS/GCI. But IIRC it has real issues in multi, and most servers don't put the SU-27s in 4-ship groups to use it. I don't think it is usually deliberate, (looking at you 104th) as most servers don't put landing waypoints for the M-2000C ILS either. You can tell if the mission's designer doesn't fly or own certain modules/planes.

 

Also, during Blue Flag, my Wingman fired an ET while I fired an ER. I was taken out and he had then switched to radar and was credited with a kill by an R-27ER (he had not yet fired his). So it was either a bug or some form of what happened to the OP. Not seen it happen since though, but I have not really played around with it.

Edited January 13, 2016 by OxideMako

[GGTharos]

Every aircraft in the flight will typically be set up to work on a different channel, especially for modern fighters. That aircraft's missiles will be tuned to the exact radar parameters by that fighter as well.

 

The reason is mutual interference. It can (more to the point, most likely will) cause problems such as preventing the launch of a missile to early fuzing of the missile due to EMI. And that will happen even if one radar is guiding in STT, but the other's just in search - at least for older missiles (yes, this is actually well documented).

 

This notion of 'guiding wingman's missile' is not impossible, it's just highly impractical. So if you're wanting such a 'neat feature', you should get it with all the problems it causes ... ie. you'd pretty much be stuck with EMI all the time when you and your wingman are using the same channels (and for data-link, too) and you'd have to operate one radar set at a time.

 

In practice this causes you to become one platforms instead of two, and makes life easier for the opponent's ECM equipment.

 

Guide your own, and have your wingman do wingman work.

 

Edit: Him getting credit for the 27R kill is some form of bug

Edited January 13, 2016 by GGTharos

[GGTharos]

Well even the most primitive radar and SARH missile should work like this. a dumb missile that just intercepts an illuminated target doesn't know who illuminated it.

 

In fact they did, and it is part of why they sucked.

 

It occurs to me now that he su27 are not possible to use them in the manner they were intended. In groups, illuminating each others targets, so they could make attack runs and break off after firing. Just as they would with fire and forget missiles.

They're intended to guide their own missiles to target. I don't know where you got the idea that they'd do what you suggest, or how you came up with it, but is incorrect, and it is poor tactics.

 

You've reduced yourself to having 2 planes at least attacking a single target instead of taking on a target each. It's potentially okay-ish if you're facing only one bandit, and it may be what happens online ... but it isn't what happens in a real battle.

 

This should really be the core tactic of online flankers, but it doesn't work .

No, it shouldn't. Learn multi-ship tactics instead of fantasy equipment use.

[Fri13]

Every aircraft in the flight will typically be set up to work on a different channel, especially for modern fighters. That aircraft's missiles will be tuned to the exact radar parameters by that fighter as well.

 

The reason is mutual interference. It can (more to the point, most likely will) cause problems such as preventing the launch of a missile to early fuzing of the missile due to EMI. And that will happen even if one radar is guiding in STT, but the other's just in search - at least for older missiles (yes, this is actually well documented).

 

This notion of 'guiding wingman's missile' is not impossible, it's just highly impractical. So if you're wanting such a 'neat feature', you should get it with all the problems it causes ... ie. you'd pretty much be stuck with EMI all the time when you and your wingman are using the same channels (and for data-link, too) and you'd have to operate one radar set at a time.

 

In practice this causes you to become one platforms instead of two, and makes life easier for the opponent's ECM equipment.

 

Guide your own, and have your wingman do wingman work.

 

Edit: Him getting credit for the 27R kill is some form of bug

 

Instead seeing it as benefit in some situations but only as "highly impractical" is fairly narrow field of view in my opinion. As it has been stated in many books how great tactical advantage it is to be able guide other launched missile.

 

So yes, we want it with all the drawbacks as with the bonuses. :)

[blkspade]

Well even the most primitive radar and SARH missile should work like this. a dumb missile that just intercepts an illuminated target doesn't know who illuminated it.

 

It occurs to me now that he su27 are not possible to use them in the manner they were intended. In groups, illuminating each others targets, so they could make attack runs and break off after firing. Just as they would with fire and forget missiles.

 

This should really be the core tactic of online flankers, but it doesn't work .

 

If SARH missiles were designed to work the way you envisioned (solely with radar in mind), it would be just as easy for the targets radar to fool it, or any number of things that would conflict and cause it to misguide. The proper tactic would be to fly with ample separation so that the Eagle can't track/engage you both at the same time. Committing on one leaves him open to the other.

[GGTharos]

Do the air forces of the world also have a 'fairly narrow view' in your opinion? :)

 

As far as I know, you'll never get it and it's much better that way.

 

But yes, if the minuses were simulated, and the online environments were adequate enough to represent such, you'd simply never use such a feature. But the online environments aren't adequate enough, and there's no need to go into the effort of simulating this, either. Or more to the point ... if it was, then may as well leave the whole R-27 countermeasure issue as it is right now, since it would be highly appropriate.

 

Instead seeing it as benefit in some situations but only as "highly impractical" is fairly narrow field of view in my opinion. As it has been stated in many books how great tactical advantage it is to be able guide other launched missile.

 

So yes, we want it with all the drawbacks as with the bonuses. :)

Edited January 13, 2016 by GGTharos

[Fri13]

Do the air forces of the world also have a 'fairly narrow view' in your opinion? :)

 

In you opinion Indian Air Force is inferior to everyone (even when beating Americans butts) as they use those tactics :-D

[GGTharos]

They didn't use such tactics, precisely because they're not inferior and they actually understand the value of real multi-ship tactics and mutual support.

 

And really, if you want to call a 30v4 without aim-120 capability 'kicking butts' as opposed to an exercise, I have a few bridges to sell you :)

[Fri13]

I cant say for the Su-27 and russian / soviet Tactics.

 

But i know for a fact that the JA-37 Viggen was capable of guding the Semi Active missiles of group members.

 

And a tactic often used and trained for with the Viggen was when flying in a group of 4, 3 of the 4 fighters would fly with radars cold and getting all the radar information from the first viggen with the radar on and they could also

 

launch The semi active missiles (Skyflash) that would be guided by the radar of the lead aircraft towards the target.

 

One Technique ive read about is that their would be 2 viggens flying front radars cold and 2 with radar hot about 15-20km behind.

 

The Pair behind would feed the information to the pair ahead.

 

This allowed the Pair ahead to fire off their missiles and then take evasive actions while the pair behind pushed and guided the first pairs missiles to the target.

 

That way the first pair could take evasive action after the missiles had been launched without the missiles loosing track while an opponent would have to choose between taking evasive action and risk loosing radar lock or pushing and risk being hit.

 

So their where nations that used these kinds of tactics but i dont know if the SU-27 was capable of doing so.

 

 

Shh.... those are the inferior countries and tactics, you know ;)

[Fri13]

They didn't use such tactics, precisely because they're not inferior and they actually understand the value of real multi-ship tactics and mutual support.

 

And really, if you want to call a 30v4 without aim-120 capability 'kicking butts' as opposed to an exercise, I have a few bridges to sell you :)

 

 

Sure sure... They are inferior because they are inferior. And the americans always lost because it was 30 India's vs 4 Americans....

 

Everyone clearly inferior with their tactics, their weapons, their aircrafts and by their countries.... I get it. :pilotfly:

[GGTharos]

I'm not going to argue with you about it. You keep laughing it up, all you're accomplishing is to prevent yourself from learning what's really going on :)

[Sweep]

 

 

 

This is funny...You realize GG isn't American, right? :D

[JINX_1391]

a tactic often used and trained for with the Viggen was when flying in a group of 4, 3 of the 4 fighters would fly with radars cold and getting all the radar information from the first viggen with the radar on and they could also

 

launch The semi active missiles (Skyflash) that would be guided by the radar of the lead aircraft towards the target.

 

Sorry if this is naive in my logic, but would three of a four ship really fly blind? Wouldn't it be better for each ship to be actively searching, say each at a different part of the engagement area in front of them?

 

One Technique ive read about is that their would be 2 viggens flying front radars cold and 2 with radar hot about 15-20km behind.

 

The Pair behind would feed the information to the pair ahead.

 

This allowed the Pair ahead to fire off their missiles and then take evasive actions while the pair behind pushed and guided the first pairs missiles to the targets.

 

That way the first pair could take evasive action after the missiles had been launched without the missiles loosing track while an opponent would have to choose between taking evasive action and risk loosing radar lock or pushing and risk being hit.

 

This is even more unbelievable to me. Tactically this makes no since even before I start to think about radar/weapon perimeters. This "move" effectively neuters the weapon deployment range for all ships in the flight. Lead two aircraft can only engage targets within radar range 15-20km BEHIND them. Please find where you read about this tactic I would like to see it.

 

I can't tell if this is for real or not...help...two's blind.

[GGTharos]

How funny would it be if the Skyflash was a clone of the exact missile that experienced severe guidance and fuzing problems when two aircraft would use the same channel to guide their missiles, even if one was in search mode?

 

... well, it is. And these problems are in official documents, not 'something someone read in a book/on the net'.

 

Such tactics have been talked about, and they have always been crap. At minimum it assumes a 2:1 numerical superiority over your opponents, and if you do not have this superiority, you've just left half the enemy force un-checked.

 

So while this type of thing is definitely possible, designers have considered it a serious problem and have been actively working to prevent aircraft from interfering with each other ... and thus not guiding each other's missiles.

 

And yes, at least one Polish MiG-29 instructor mentioned using such a tactic. Technical problems aside, there is a free bandit that can pursue the evasive fighter while the other guy is tied up with the original bandit; and you might not even know which bandit is attacking who.

 

So, you tell me, how is this tactic of turning two weapons platforms into one crappy one a good thing, because that's exactly what's being pandered here.

 

And a tactic often used and trained for with the Viggen was when flying in a group of 4, 3 of the 4 fighters would fly with radars cold and getting all the radar information from the first viggen with the radar on and they could also

 

launch The semi active missiles (Skyflash) that would be guided by the radar of the lead aircraft towards the target.

Edited January 13, 2016 by GGTharos

[*Rage*]

I cant say for the Su-27 and russian / soviet Tactics.

 

But i know for a fact that the JA-37 Viggen was capable of guding the Semi Active missiles of group members.

 

And a tactic often used and trained for with the Viggen was when flying in a group of 4, 3 of the 4 fighters would fly with radars cold and getting all the radar information from the first viggen with the radar on and they could also

 

launch The semi active missiles (Skyflash) that would be guided by the radar of the lead aircraft towards the target.

 

One Technique ive read about is that their would be 2 viggens flying front radars cold and 2 with radar hot about 15-20km behind.

 

The Pair behind would feed the information to the pair ahead.

 

This allowed the Pair ahead to fire off their missiles and then take evasive actions while the pair behind pushed and guided the first pairs missiles to the targets.

 

That way the first pair could take evasive action after the missiles had been launched without the missiles loosing track while an opponent would have to choose between taking evasive action and risk loosing radar lock or pushing and risk being hit.

 

So their where nations that used these kinds of tactics but i dont know if the SU-27 was capable of doing so.

 

I'd love to read more about that, if it is a valid tactic. Do you have a source?

Edited January 13, 2016 by ///Rage

[*Rage*]

if it was, then may as well leave the whole R-27 countermeasure issue as it is right now, since it would be highly appropriate.

 

Is that some kind of acknowledgement of an issue?;)

[Ragnarok]

MiG-31 can do it. But... complex conditions require long time corrections. For example, in the description for AIM-120 it is clearly stated it can be launched with Eagle platform, and that the guiding with E-3! But in RL, USAF tried once or twice a long time ago, always unsuccessful. No longer spending money on testing. I do not know in the near future...

 

...theoretically possible, but practically hard to do or nonsensical.

 

either case, it comes to the inertial guidance, easier than SARH but it's a big mistake correction also.

Edited January 13, 2016 by Ragnarok

[GGTharos]

That's not quite correct.

 

F-15 (and other aircraft) can receive DL information from AWACS or other aircraft, and they can use it to target another aircraft.

 

However, upon launch they are doing the guiding of their own missile - the launching aircraft tracks the target, generates the m-link etc. The 'AMRAAM buddy code' exists specifically to prevent mutual M-link interference in a flight of aircraft.

 

I suspect this is also the case for MiG-31, F-22, whatever else. :)

 

Allegedly the AIM-120D can be 'guided by AWACS', but I have some doubts about fitting a link-16 terminal into a slammer.

 

MiG-31 can do it. But... complex conditions require long time corrections. For example, in the description for AIM-120 it is clearly stated it can be launched with Eagle platform, and that the guiding with E-3! But in RL, USAF tried once or twice a long time ago, always unsuccessful. No longer spending money on testing. I do not know in the near future...

 

...theoretically possible, but practically hard to do or nonsensical.

 

either case, it comes to the inertial guidance, easier than SARAH but it's a big mistake correction also.