AA Tactics - Help

[SniperRu]

Hey all, I'm having trouble accomplishing missions with Russian birds especially when confronted to F-15s & F-16s. R-27ER seem kinda useless since I get beamed most of the time even w/ AI @ Average... or The lock is broke due to evasive maneuvers. I can take on a single F-15/F-16 without any problem but when there are more, they overwhelm me and Im not even talking about the jammers that are continuously on. As an example: Su-27 mission Tanker Attack, any tips on how to complete this one?

 

TIA

[D-Scythe]

Hey all, I'm having trouble accomplishing missions with Russian birds especially when confronted to F-15s & F-16s. R-27ER seem kinda useless since I get beamed most of the time even w/ AI @ Average... or The lock is broke due to evasive maneuvers. I can take on a single F-15/F-16 without any problem but when there are more, they overwhelm me and Im not even talking about the jammers that are continuously on. As an example: Su-27 mission Tanker Attack, any tips on how to complete this one?

 

TIA

 

If beaming is what's throwing you off, try "dragging" your opponents to a higher altitude (if they aren't already) then drop ten-fifteen thousand feet to fire your missiles in a look-up situation. The enemy can't beam you looking-up.

[Cosmonaut]

There is no sure fire way to engage superior numbers in a Russian fighter.. so any mission that forces you into that position shouldn’t be taken seriously.. It can be fun but you should see the solution resting on repetitive play until you figure out the AI patterns for that particular mission…. Although there maybe a way for you to sneak up on them using the data link and then engage EOS with the R73 or ET missile..

 

Now two on two is where the flanker really can dominate against AI .. I have a very good tactic that works almost every time for this scenario.. Missions that take into consideration the capability of the fighter, with in reason, are far better because they require a tactical solution rather than repetitive play to gain mission success.

[Tomahawk674]

You mind sharing that 2 on 2 tactic? I could probably benefit from it :D

[Cosmonaut]

You mind sharing that 2 on 2 tactic? I could probably benefit from it :D

 

Sure. :)

 

Its not all that difficult once you can perform a basic evasion, if there is such a thing ;) .

 

Anyway I wanted to figure out a way to give both my wingman and I a good chance of surviving an engagement and the method I use is successful about 7 or 8 out of ten times. Also for the second target you can choose a host of different methods to make the kill, especially if you forget about your wingman and you just want to practice a close in missile fight or what ever.

 

The idea is to use your wingman as bait until you score both kills; First pincer to separate the enemy but don’t let your wingman get too far, then lock the bandit gunning for your wingy and tell him to engage your enemy.. then lock the bandit gunning for you and take him out. Ok now your wingy will most likely still attack the enemy that’s going for you (because of ECM I think) but it doesn’t matter because he’s just there for bait anyway so just concentrate on the bandit gunning for you.

 

After you fire your first missile don’t slow down too much as part of your f-pole maneuver instead be more aggressive as you move in for your second shot keeping and eye on your 10/11 o’clock, you’ll actually fly by the bandit shooting at your wingman. Note; don’t spare your missiles because you must keep the fighter you’re shooting at defensive at all times until he’s shot down. In the second track I posted I was a little sparing with my missiles which most likely left me having to make an evasion that I probably didn’t have too. Once you score the first kill just turn towards the second bandit and shoot.. that’s pretty much it. If you got the first one down in time then you should be able to get the second fighter before he finishes off your wingman.

 

Also you can use the mission/ tactic to practice all kinds of “stuff”; In the second track (gunz) I chose to forget about my wingy and go for the guns kill.. no reason just felt like some acm combat. Oh and I didn’t use ecm pods for this training mission.. once again no real reason other than I like it that way but feel free to change anything you want, I usually use EM’s but here I am using ER’s.

 

2 Tracks

[SniperRu]

I've decided to practice some 2v2 engagements and develop a technique of my own. The point of it is for you to go ahead and draw enemy fire on you, and attack a single target - then evading the AIM-120 fired at you while maintaining a lock for your R-27ER, giving your wingman a nice occasion to flank them both while they are busy with you. It doesnt always work but its the best I came up with. Here check out the tracks I made: one against 2 F-15s and the other against 2 F-16s.

 

Cosmonaut: I'm gonna check out your tracks now

2v2 Tactic.zip

[fulcrum251]

In the Su-27 mission "Tanker Attack",you should fly flank at first,and turn off radar,and order wingman to keep formation.then close to bandits from rear and attack by EOS.It is very easy to finish mission.

[golfsierra2]

If beaming is what's throwing you off, try "dragging" your opponents to a higher altitude (if they aren't already) then drop ten-fifteen thousand feet to fire your missiles in a look-up situation. The enemy can't beam you looking-up.

 

I don't think so. Beaming is the effect of Zero Doppler, that is a relative speed window below the threshhold were a radar can pick up a moving target. This works in every aspect. It is mandatory to come into a 'beam' position relatively to the shooter, which ideally is a section of a circle with the shooter as centre point. No increasing / decreasing range means co-speed which means Zero Doppler which results in a broken lock.

You can try that by chasing another aircraft with co-speed - you will lose radar contact as well, at least in a F15C.

[SniperRu]

Cosmonaut: really nice track, I've learned some stuff from it, thanks. Never though about telling my wingman to break on the sides lol I guess I'm still a newbie :P

 

golfsierra2: the thing is the AI is really good in beaming me, he puts me usually on his 3 o'clock. I've learned to stay lower and it's much more difficult for him to do it. Now my R-27ERs hit most of the time, and that makes me happy :)

 

fulcrum251: Ok I'll try that thanks.

[Skarp]

flanker by its self is not a great threat. a flanker with a wingman is.

[Rhen]

I don't think so. Beaming is the effect of Zero Doppler, that is a relative speed window below the threshhold were a radar can pick up a moving target. This works in every aspect. It is mandatory to come into a 'beam' position relatively to the shooter, which ideally is a section of a circle with the shooter as centre point. No increasing / decreasing range means co-speed which means Zero Doppler which results in a broken lock.

You can try that by chasing another aircraft with co-speed - you will lose radar contact as well, at least in a F15C.

 

You're mistaking LOMAC for real life.:music_whistling: There is no ground clutter in a look up situation. The doppler notch is too wide in LOMAC. I won't even go into what happens in a look down situation - especially in a 4-ship wall of Eagles - IRL.:smilewink:

[fulcrum251]

I think the radar of game use doppler mode only in looking down.

But in real life the radar could auto-switch work mode between look up and down? :-)

[GGTharos]

The radar can tell when it's facing a 'clutter' situation (just measure the noise that's coming back, and that's the simplest way I can think of, too, without even knowing what the signal looks like)

[golfsierra2]

You're mistaking LOMAC for real life.:music_whistling: There is no ground clutter in a look up situation. The doppler notch is too wide in LOMAC. I won't even go into what happens in a look down situation - especially in a 4-ship wall of Eagles - IRL.:smilewink:

 

I was not referring to the problem of ground clutter. I was referring to the fact that a radar usually needs to work with doppler processing, otherwise you never will have an indication for a contact if its approaching or receeding, not to mention the target speed indication at all - which simply is not possible to calculate without doppler.

 

A radar using only plain "pings" will show only that there is a contact in a certain direction, at a certain range and - if its 3D - at what height, but no data about the speed of the contact at all.

 

Of course, modern airborne radars all use the doppler for look-down capabilities, to find a moving target in front of the static background (ground clutter), but in the first place, that has nothing to do with beaming / the zero doppler effect which is a manouvre to break the enemies lock.

[Rhen]

I was not referring to the problem of ground clutter. I was referring to the fact that a radar usually needs to work with doppler processing, otherwise you never will have an indication for a contact if its approaching or receeding, not to mention the target speed indication at all - which simply is not possible to calculate without doppler.

 

A radar using only plain "pings" will show only that there is a contact in a certain direction, at a certain range and - if its 3D - at what height, but no data about the speed of the contact at all.

 

Of course, modern airborne radars all use the doppler for look-down capabilities, to find a moving target in front of the static background (ground clutter), but in the first place, that has nothing to do with beaming / the zero doppler effect which is a manouvre to break the enemies lock.

 

In a look up situation there is no notch = there is no "beaming" = there is no notch. I don't think I can make it any simpler than that.

 

Second, the AN/APG-63 has several modes which diminish the ability of a fighter to effectively notch it's radar.

 

Finally, what do you think beaming is if it has nothing to do with the doppler notch?

[GGTharos]

The doppler notch is nothing other than a software gate. It basically throws away all doppler shifts between X and Y - then looking down, x=your_ground_speed+20kts and y=your_ground_speed-20kts (actual speeds may vary!).

 

When looking up, you've no need to reject that particular range, so you can either turn the gate off or, if you can't do that, just reject all closures of 4000kts - 4040kts. Nothing to it.

[Guest IguanaKing]

:thumbup:

[golfsierra2]

The doppler notch is nothing other than a software gate. It basically throws away all doppler shifts between X and Y - then looking down, x=your_ground_speed+20kts and y=your_ground_speed-20kts (actual speeds may vary!).

 

Let's see if I got this right: The doppler notch is a software gate used to blank ground clutter in a level or look down situation. If a target manages to 'beam' hard enough so the relative approach speed falls within that notch, it will disappear from your radar, because the doppler notch is discarting the echo as clutter- resulting in a broken lock. Correct so far ?

 

When looking up, you've no need to reject that particular range, so you can either turn the gate off or, if you can't do that, just reject all closures of 4000kts - 4040kts. Nothing to it.

 

When you are looking up, there is no ground clutter (of course not) an therefore no need to employ that doppler notch gate. So as you described it, there will not be an effective 'beam' manouvre, because the radar will keep tracking the target even if it is co-speed (or neutral regarding the closure rate).

 

Is this what you were saying ?

[GGTharos]

Let's see if I got this right: The doppler notch is a software gate used to blank ground clutter in a level or look down situation. If a target manages to 'beam' hard enough so the relative approach speed falls within that notch, it will disappear from your radar, because the doppler notch is discarting the echo as clutter- resulting in a broken lock. Correct so far ?

 

Mostly. Doppler notch is -not- required in a level situation if there's no clutter. It will be required when you are flying low, but not when you are flying medium or high - in fact 'look down' really means the radar beam is pointed at the ground at less than some distance. In other words, to get 'look down' you might actually have to 'look down' pretty hard in some cases.

 

When you are looking up, there is no ground clutter (of course not) an therefore no need to employ that doppler notch gate. So as you described it, there will not be an effective 'beam' manouvre, because the radar will keep tracking the target even if it is co-speed (or neutral regarding the closure rate).

 

Is this what you were saying ?

 

 

Yep. Of course, you can create clutter in look up too by throwing out chaff, but it is typically easier to reject ;)

[Rhen]

By jove! I think...

 

Much better & more patiently said Ghost! I apologize for not being as patient in explaining as Ghost, but when people make puerile comments such as beaming not equaling a characteristic of doppler clutter rejection...

 

Whoops! Did it again....

[golfsierra2]

By jove! I think...

 

Much better & more patiently said Ghost! I apologize for not being as patient in explaining as Ghost, but when people make puerile comments such as beaming not equaling a characteristic of doppler clutter rejection...

 

Whoops! Did it again....

 

I'm sorry that I stroke your nerves. Obviously, you already were born with this knowledge !

 

Up to now, I was under the impression that everybody freely could discuss things here on this board and learn, but as it looks now, everybody has to be a specialist or to shut up, as least according to your comment !

 

Very sad attitude....

[Pilotasso]

^^^^thats why I kept silent, some people dont take the opinion of others. And this has been debated numerous times before, no need to add anything else, just search it.

[golfsierra2]

^^^^thats why I kept silent, some people dont take the opinion of others. And this has been debated numerous times before, no need to add anything else, just search it.

 

I see what you mean....

[GGTharos]

I think despite the occasional outburst, information from a real fighter pilot should be appreciated.

[golfsierra2]

I think despite the occasional outburst, information from a real fighter pilot should be appreciated.

 

Absolutley correct, but I didn't complain about the topic itself, only about Rhen's comments to it. This is not how people should treat each other here on this board or anywere else.

 

No need to offend others...