If we can call this BVR or any Long range operation in the M-2000c

[Doum76]

Greetings guys,

 

 

I was woundering, i started practicing air combat in the M-2000c last week, actualy ever since i fly in DCS it is the first time i ever try this out seriously, but since i find the M-2000c an awesome module, even though it is still a beta and needs some fixes i really like it. :) But reading stuff as for so called BVR, lots of people giving their tips comes up with the same i found last year when i tried with FC3 aircrafts, most trick people where giving with the SU-27, and i'm woundering, asking this to people that actualy knows real facts and tactics if it a real precedure done by pilots or simply some video gamings guys trick?

 

As much as it camee a trick for the M-2000c and SU-27, my woundering is more of a concern for the M-2000c here. Their tips is runing with radar off, flying low and using terrain masking.. my question mostly is, do real pilots fly blind not knowing where to find stuff or even if there is (taking away the Awac Factor for now) or is it simply a video gaming approach that we don't care much about diying or crashing and since we are in a close theatre with knows enemies somewhere we dare doing this tactics? As long as i'm concern, i hate this tactics since it makes all the puzzle and headach for the developpers to crate a warking Radar, if so, they should all skip programming a radar and every new module could come out faster, since no Radar then if everyone is turning their RWR off, they also should skip the RWR programming? :) Ok i was getting sarcastic here, but realy, do real pilots go blind like that and risking to loose their wingman also and lead if they ever loose visual on them?

[Saltat_cum_mortem]

Please disregard I'm pretty sure what I said was accurate, but I can't seem to track down the source. Sorry

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Edited September 6, 2016 by Saltat_cum_mortem
Can't find source of information

[QuiGon]

That depends all on the mission and the situation. Generally speaking, if you have air superiority you want to detect enemies as soon as possible, while in a situation where the enemy is superior you want to remain hidden as long as possible. But even in US-made F-16s there is an EMCOM switch which can be put to silent to turn off all (radar) emissions. ;)

And even if you have air superiority, if there are enough sensors to cover the area, you want to turn yours off to not give away too much information (position and number of aircraft) to the enemy.

Edited September 6, 2016 by QuiGon

[Schmidtfire]

Sometimes it helps to fly very high instead! A lot of players won't expect someone at that altitude.

If you're lucky, the F-15's has already engaged a low flying bandit and are getting low and slow. In general, they have also already spammed all their Amraams before the merge... So you will be more on an even foot when you commit :joystick:

 

I don't know if M-2000C radar has a good look/shoot down capability, but I have used this tactic a lot with the Su-27. In real life, I think the most common tactic against an F-15 would be to go very low. Or to run/eject...

[QuiGon]

my question mostly is, do real pilots fly blind not knowing where to find stuff or even if there is (taking away the Awac Factor for now)

 

I also want to say that operating without AWACS or GCI is pretty rare IRL. Fighter pilots seldom have to find targets on their own, they are usally guided by either AWACS or GCI. That might be about to change nowadays or in the near future, given the increased capability of fighter radars, but they're still limited in elevation and azimuth.

Edited September 6, 2016 by QuiGon

[VTJS17_Fire]

In real life, you would counter a F-15 flight only with GCI/ AWACS support in the M-2000C. Since the other side have also GCI/ AWACS available, it doesn't matter.

 

I also hate hide&seek tactics for my own playstyle, but the North Vietnamese did the same in the 60s/70s with their MiG-17/21 jets against the Phantoms.

 

If I'm inferior in technology and/ or firepower, I would (and do) counter it with manpower, say more aircraft (this is also, what the North Vietnamese did). With that, you can use more advanced tactics than alone or in a two ship.

 

In reality, you try to counter a force always with advanced technology (US, F-22) or with a higher number (Chinese philosophy).

Edited September 6, 2016 by VTJG17_Fire

[Aginor]

During the Falklands war (when ground clutter was much more of a problem compared to now) flying low was a very good way to hide from enemy radar.

 

Flying low was also popular with the Iraqis during Desert Storm IIRC. They used terrain masking to prevent detection to a certain degree.

 

And then of course flying low as an evasion maneuver, that's pretty much in every textbook. Again Desert Storm has some examples of MiGs escaping despite AWACS and all that stuff, by flying very low.

 

 

EDIT: But basically what Fire said: If you have air superiority you tend to use your radar more.

[bkthunder]

My 2 cents.

 

The "air-quake" scenarios that we see so often in DCS are totally unrealistic, at least for 4th gen aircraft. This is due to:

 

1. Mission designers not putting in awacs

2. The missiles are badly modelled in DCS

3. The radar and ECM in DCS is a 20+ years old code (the same as Flanker 1) that was never too realistic to start with.

 

Sum these things together, and players are somewhat forced to fight the way they fight in DCS.

 

My A-A MP experience in other sims is completely different, and I don't see any air-quake happening there.

[QuiGon]

During the Falklands war (when ground clutter was much more of a problem compared to now) flying low was a very good way to hide from enemy radar.

 

This was especially a problem, because the RN did not have a AEW/AWACS-platform at that time, because they retired their Fairey Gannet AEWs a couple of years before with no replacement. Because of this they had to rely solely on "SCI" (Ship Controlled Intercept ;)) which was a huge disadvantage. That's why they configured some Sea Kings for the AEW role (designated Sea King AEW2) after the experience of the Falkland War to have at least some kind of airborne radar.

[VTJS17_Fire]

Flying low was also popular with the Iraqis during Desert Storm IIRC. They used terrain masking to prevent detection to a certain degree.

Maybe some, but not at all. Their MiG-25 interceptors did often a straight climb to high altitudes to intercept strike packages.

 

 

My 2 cents.

 

The "air-quake" scenarios that we see so often in DCS are totally unrealistic, at least for 4th gen aircraft. This is due to:

 

1. Mission designers not putting in awacs

2. The missiles are badly modelled in DCS

3. The radar and ECM in DCS is a 20+ years old code (the same as Flanker 1) that was never too realistic to start with.

I agree with you in general, but the radar is less a problem, IMO.

 

To leave out the AWACS support in combination with restricted export rules (for LotATC for instance) is a big issue and a no go for me.

 

But more important to me is mission design. Where in reality do you have two coalitions which fight against at a invisible line over and over again? You always have an attacking/ offensive force/ coalition and one defensive. Sometimes more on one or both sites, but as good as never "neutral" to their intentions (attacking/ defending). Except WWI.

[Saltat_cum_mortem]

My 2 cents.

 

The "air-quake" scenarios that we see so often in DCS are totally unrealistic, at least for 4th gen aircraft. This is due to:

 

1. Mission designers not putting in awacs

2. The missiles are badly modelled in DCS

3. The radar and ECM in DCS is a 20+ years old code (the same as Flanker 1) that was never too realistic to start with.

 

Sum these things together, and players are somewhat forced to fight the way they fight in DCS.

 

My A-A MP experience in other sims is completely different, and I don't see any air-quake happening there.

I may be the only one here who didn't play quake, but could you explain "air-quake" anyway?

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[Azrayen]

The "air-quake" scenarios that we see so often in DCS are totally unrealistic, at least for 4th gen aircraft. This is due to:

 

1. Mission designers not putting in awacs

2. The missiles are badly modelled in DCS

3. The radar and ECM in DCS is a 20+ years old code (the same as Flanker 1) that was never too realistic to start with.

I agree with you in general, but the radar is less a problem, IMO.

Big +1, with Fire's caveat!

I would add a 4th point: there is less danger close to the ground in DCS than IRL, due to relatively low ground forces density in a "typical" air-quake server mission.

Perhaps just adding randomly and densely placed efficient SAMs/AAAs systems would "raise the deck".

 

Sum these things together, and players are somewhat forced to fight the way they fight in DCS.

I disagree. You only consider public servers with symetric missions and no (or not enough) "rules". Those lead to "exploits", but those are not the only way to fly ;)

Edited September 6, 2016 by Azrayen

[Britchot]

I may be the only one here who didn't play quake, but could you explain "air-quake" anyway?

 

Quake is a First Person Shooter where you play on a small map against an opposing team. The gameplay would wind up resulting in spawning, rushing in, scoring a kill or two, quickly dying, and respawning. Kill death ratios could be something outrageous like 20 kills to 30 deaths as an example.

 

This has been applied to online player versus player servers/games where no regard for personal survival is kept and the only goal is to shoot down someone else as quickly as possible. This is opposed to flying with the intent to survive and make it back alive and preferably in one piece so the plane can be used again.

Edited September 6, 2016 by Britchot

[Saltat_cum_mortem]

Quake is a First Person Shooter where you play on a small map against an opposing team. The gameplay would wind up resulting in spawning, rushing in, scoring a kill or two, quickly dying, and respawning. Kill death ratios could be something outrageous like 20 kills to 30 deaths as an example.

 

This has been applied to online player versus player servers/games where no regard for personal survival is kept and the only goal is to shoot down someone else as quickly as possible. This is opposed to flying with the intent to survive and make it back alive and preferably in one piece so the plane can be used again.

Thanks

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[Bacab]

It might also be relevant to keep in mind the fact that the Mirage 2000C was never intended to counter any Fox-3 fighter. When it entered active duty the most advanced missiles available were all Fox-1. Later, when Fox-3 became the norm, the Mirage went through an upgrade process to stay up to date.

 

Flying low has several drawbacks: it diminishes your range and the duration of your flight, it prevents you from flying efficient CAP by your own, it puts you at a disadvantage if the enemy spot you first, it makes you vulnerable to ground fire...

I think it's only viable if your opponent has a huge advantage (which in reality may not have been the case since when this version of the plane was the backbone of French Air Force, Fox-3 weren't a threat yet)

[Doum76]

Thanks for al the replies guys, good reading :)

[Doum76]

It might also be relevant to keep in mind the fact that the Mirage 2000C was never intended to counter any Fox-3 fighter. When it entered active duty the most advanced missiles available were all Fox-1. Later, when Fox-3 became the norm, the Mirage went through an upgrade process to stay up to date.

 

Flying low has several drawbacks: it diminishes your range and the duration of your flight, it prevents you from flying efficient CAP by your own, it puts you at a disadvantage if the enemy spot you first, it makes you vulnerable to ground fire...

I think it's only viable if your opponent has a huge advantage (which in reality may not have been the case since when this version of the plane was the backbone of French Air Force, Fox-3 weren't a threat yet)

 

 

Exactly, but if i even wanna get online, the most populated servers are those with aircraft using fox 3, since people are playing to get the most kills, but i'm more in the M-2000c now for a few reasons, yes it doesn't have Fox-3, but cockpit is clickable and makes sim immersion more for it and it feels less than an arcade aircraft than any of the other FC3 aircrafts... might be looking for some servers with gen 3 fighters, but not much i think with some population.. i realy felt in love with the Mirage... Wish i had a few people to fly/practice dogfights or any other air air combat with the M-2000c or Mig-21, but people i know, are mostly flying all modules and not only one, or i fly with a buddy which is an helicopter lover and i fly often with him, but as for the m-2000c playtime, not much luck so far.

Edited September 7, 2016 by Doum76

[gavagai]

I've asked this question to an air force pilot.

 

You fly low in the mountains because it is fun. Some say it is even more fun than dogfighting.

 

You don't fly into combat that way because the chance of being shot down is inordinately higher. IR sams are a serious threat, and you lose standoff capability against a higher adversary.

 

On the other hand, I'm not going to conclude that the tactics we see in DCS are wrong. They are born from over 50% of the jets being the F--15C with amraams against adversaries with fox-1 only. You definitely can't win up high, so getting low makes the odds a little less bad.

[Saltat_cum_mortem]

First off, the F-4 Phantom was designed with the assumption that it would only engage in BVR combat. In practice it didn't work out that way, but this was the intention. Furthermore, the M2000 first flew (I'm at work right now so I don't have access to my usual sources, but if wiki is correct) after both the F-14 and 15 had been introduced into service, both of which demonstrated far improved BVR capabilities. Whether the French were convinced of the importance of BVR may be a different matter, but they do seem to have made an effort at providing that option. Therefore saying that fox 3 wasn't a serious threat when the M2000 was introduced is a bit questionable.

 

Second, if you are at a disadvantage in a BVR fight and surface to air threats aren't an issue, turning off the radar, getting low to the ground, and getting your head outside the cockpit and on a swivel is probably your best option. Assuming you didn't cut your RWR for mystical reasons known only to yourself, that should give you some level of concealment while also warning you about aircraft running radar in the area. Furthermore RWR should also give you some warning about surface to air threats in the area so that you can steer clear of them.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[VTJS17_Fire]

You don't fly into combat that way because the chance of being shot down is inordinately higher.

Not only that. You have another adversary: The ground. You have to fight against the enemy and with concentration of all the systems and your tactic, you also have to fight against the mountains. That's a factor, you don't have at mid to high altitudes.

 

On the other hand, I'm not going to conclude that the tactics we see in DCS are wrong.

You can't say, they're wrong. You can say, they're not real or work only against new virtiual pilots, in these simple airquake scenarios, where you often meet one vs. one or similar situations.

 

As long as you reach your object - shoot down the enemy aircraft - it's the right tactic. I also tried some real life tactics from the 70s, such as that one from Operation Bolo. It has some disadvanteges, but it worked.

 

But most of the used tactics I've seen in public, don't work against organizied groups (with TS3) in a more real scenario, with AWACS and SAM so to say.

 

And these hide&seek tactics don't work in every terrain. In the Caucasus you have high mountains and tight valleys, great to hide and pop-up. But in Nevada or the Strait of Hormuz map, you don't have such an environment. So with the new maps - more sea and flat terrain - all these pilots have to adapt new tactics to get to WVR range.

[Bacab]

First off, the F-4 Phantom was designed with the assumption that it would only engage in BVR combat. In practice it didn't work out that way, but this was the intention. Furthermore, the M2000 first flew (I'm at work right now so I don't have access to my usual sources, but if wiki is correct) after both the F-14 and 15 had been introduced into service, both of which demonstrated far improved BVR capabilities. Whether the French were convinced of the importance of BVR may be a different matter, but they do seem to have made an effort at providing that option. Therefore saying that fox 3 wasn't a serious threat when the M2000 was introduced is a bit questionable.

 

Second, if you are at a disadvantage in a BVR fight and surface to air threats aren't an issue, turning off the radar, getting low to the ground, and getting your head outside the cockpit and on a swivel is probably your best option. Assuming you didn't cut your RWR for mystical reasons known only to yourself, that should give you some level of concealment while also warning you about aircraft running radar in the area. Furthermore RWR should also give you some warning about surface to air threats in the area so that you can steer clear of them.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

The AIM-120 A was delivered for the first time to US forces in 1991. Therefore it wouldn't reach a country considered to be a threat to the French before at least a few year.

 

And indeed 5 years later France began receiving Fox-3

 

The AIM-54 is an other story. I have no idea what threat it would have been. Iran claims several hit during the Iran-Iraq war but I have never seen an unbiased study of those engagement.

Edited September 7, 2016 by Bacab

[VTJS17_Fire]

The AIM-120 A was delivered for the first time to US forces in 1991. Therefore it wouldn't reach a country considered to be a threat to the French before at least a few year.

But the AIM-54 was delivered to the U.S. Navy around about two decades before. And that is/ was a Fox 3 missile, as well.

[Bacab]

But the AIM-54 was delivered to the U.S. Navy around about two decades before. And that is/ was a Fox 3 missile, as well.

See my edit, I was 2s too late. The AIM-54 is an hybrid SARH/AARH designed to take down bombers at long range. I doubt it would have behaved well against fighters (otherwise I don't understand why the AIM-120 would have completely changed the aerodynamic and the system design). The Iran-Iraq war is very difficult to analyze due to the lack of documentation.

[Saltat_cum_mortem]

The AIM-120 A was delivered for the first time to US forces in 1991. Therefore it wouldn't reach a country considered to be a threat to the French before at least a few year.

 

And indeed 5 years later France began receiving Fox-3

So AIM-7F and AIM-54 are chopped liver. I would understand if you said that American advancement in the field is a moot point but the importance of what was going on at the time is what I was getting at. If we want to talk about adversaries we could discuss the Russian R-40 or, in theory, the R-33. But the point is that the threat was real ever since the 50's. It wasn't brand new as of the 80's.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[Bacab]

So AIM-7F and AIM-54 are chopped liver. I would understand if you said that American advancement in the field is a moot point but the importance of what was going on at the time is what I was getting at. If we want to talk about adversaries we could discuss the Russian R-40 or, in theory, the R-33. But the point is that the threat was real ever since the 50's. It wasn't brand new as of the 80's.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

I might not have been clear enough in my original post. My point is that you may want to fly down the Mirage only against fighter that are more advanced and when flying over friendly territory. The only planes that would force you to do that are fox-3 planes, planes the Mirage wasn't originally design to handle.

 

Against opponent firing SARH missile like the R-33/R-40/AIM-7 it should do fine and flying low doesn't seem to be a valid tactic anymore.