Lockon Operation Red Flag/Combined Air Exercise

[rogue_blade]

man that sounds like it was so much fun

[Anytime]

Any chance of the next missions objective beeing a deep strike to take out a Nuclear reactor :) Should be more spectacular for the TV crowd.

[Woodstock]

Any chance of the next missions objective beeing a deep strike to take out a Nuclear reactor :) Should be more spectacular for the TV crowd.

Do you see any flyable deep-strike-capable aircraft in LockOn?

:doh:

I don´t.

[TucksonSonny]

Any chance of the next missions objective beeing a deep strike to take out a Nuclear reactor :) Should be more spectacular for the TV crowd.

 

I have a new idea for a Red flag exercise: “Capture and hold/defend a certain marked airbase.”

Rule: you need to hold 1 plane of your team on the tarmac on the airfield while other teammates defend it.

Rather the time of occupation counts for a victory and less the scored air kills.

Action guaranteed anyway!

[Anytime]

Su-33, u could assume most of the SAMs have been taken out and Blue needs to defend it with a limited number of fighters.

 

:pilotfly:

 

Do you see any flyable deep-strike-capable aircraft in LockOn?

:doh:

I don´t.

[Woodstock]

Sorry for jumping at some of the suggestions all the time,

but I also donґt like the prospect of any FPS concepts like the proposed "capture the base".

It has as much to do with simulating military aviation as the dreaded airquakes.

Iґd never participate in or support unrealistic stuff like that.

[TucksonSonny]

Sorry for jumping at some of the suggestions all the time,

but I also donґt like the prospect of any FPS concepts like the proposed "capture the base".

It has as much to do with simulating military aviation as the dreaded airquakes.

Iґd never participate in or support unrealistic stuff like that.

 

 

Maybe it will be more realistic if you could add the Black Sharks in the proposed “capture the base” mission exercise.

BTW, do you remember the Falklands war?

[Anytime]

By the way loved the first Red Flag, congrats to all involved.

[Frostie]

In an unlimited A2A 'weapon employment engagement' the side with more Active missiles will always have the upper hand because of LO's poor missile modelling, very poor tactics are encouraged of releasing then going home for -more- which cannot be done with semi-active missiles so encourages ET spamming aswell then going back for more(this is almost airquake).

 

This is why in Squad matches no rearm is allowed so as a totally tactical battles ensues with great 'missile mangement and tactics' being the victor.

 

If air superiority is lost its because pilots haven't managed their systems professionally rather than not spamming enough.

 

I look fwd to the next. GJ guys.

[Teknetinium]

I must say even if I hade some FPS problems, that this was somethig I never thought was possible in lomac,a big successe. NO airquike forces red and the blue teams to inploment more complicated tacticks and teamwork between defferent squads. Its grate,, and gives all who are apart in it more experience...Good Flying all.

[Anytime]

Maybe you need Awacs so at least u can get a bogie dope on the jammer.

[Frostie]

I've never heard of the "no rearm" rule in matches. Again, just put one missile on each aircraft (make it a Mig so you have to get close).

 

I wouldn't think of trying to tell you how to fight your a/c, why would you attempt to tell someone else how to? As for the team with the active missiles having the upper hand, how do you figure? How many kills total were there? What kept BlueCAP from pushing you guys back were your SAM sites. Once the BUK was gone we controlled the straits from there on out.

 

Methinks that you're focusing on one tiny thing when Red Flag was so much more than just an a/a conflict.

 

Why are you taking me as preaching the rule ,im making suggestions on improving the experience. Methinks you can't handle not having your own way.

Air superiority WAS the main part of the conflict as is all aerial conflicts.

[Frostie]

I have a new idea for a Red flag exercise: “Capture and hold/defend a certain marked airbase.”

 

Rule: you need to hold 1 plane of your team on the tarmac on the airfield while other teammates defend it.

 

Rather the time of occupation counts for a victory and less the scored air kills.

 

Action guaranteed anyway!

We could call it 'Capture the RedFlag'.:D

[Groove]

ruggbutt, blue side won.

 

can we now contine on a debate how to improve this event for us all ? ;)

[Frostie]

I've never heard of the "no rearm" rule in matches.

 

All our guys saw was a wall of jammers. That explains the unsupported AMRAAMs, as well as the blind fired ET's and I saw a bunch of HOJ shots. How many kills total were there?

 

How many kills , exactly.

Ive just been involved in such 'no rearm' match a few hours ago and the majority of launches were made AFTER burn through with plenty of kills and excellent tactics performed from both sides.

 

 

This was just a 5v5 fightersweep so each engagement only lasted 30mins , but during joint exercises ive been involved in with 10v10 the no rearm rule still allowed for a good hour of action , I know that people are scared to be downed first but this is war and sacrifices have to be made so show some balls and ENGAGE.:D

 

Ruggbutt

Take note, Air superiority is not downing a/c but owning the airspace.

[Kuky]

For those who didnt make it, or was absent: you missed out on one of the coolest online community events ever undertaken!

 

OMG this was sooooo great much fun.

 

yeah... I was scheduled to fly but couldn't make due to technical difficulties (bloody PC's :music_whistling:) so keep rubbing it in :thumbup:

[Frostie]

You're talking about two different things altogether. Flight times for strike a/c (at least for blue) were half an hour or more, not accounting for how long it took to get all flights airborne. Red Flag ran for 3 hours. Did you have 40 a/c involved in your squad match?

 

5v5 = 30mins, 10v10 = 1 hour

20 v 20 = well you do the math ,

with good weapon management this would be a pretty exhilarating experience. At the present setting the main engagement is active vs active and rtb for more, with limited weapons you can even get DF's with fighters and bombers.

 

Its been suggested a set amount of weapons or maybe only 1 rearm, I don't believe unlimited is good.

[Breakshot]

I totaly agree with Frostie and Cali on this one. Think about it, if there is no rearm/refuel we solve three main problems.

 

One: not all flights take off at the start of the mission, thus we have staggered load ins (which solves the lagg).

 

Two: This puts all emphasis on planning and strategy. Planners would have to work out take off times, flight routes (not just direct since we will not have all planes in air), how many planes to commit at a given time to control the airspace throughout the 3 hours etc...

 

Three: We will have to engage smarlty to guarantee a kill, which would stop the spam/ECM fest.

 

 

I am all in for no refuels/rearms. Its a great idea!

[Kuky]

I think if we stay on "everybody stay safe", this missions will get boring pretty fast. But thats my opinion and i will try to participate in everyone of them.

 

Mate, I have to comment on this one...

 

In real life, the mission goal would be to complete the mission, definitely stay alive and not have any, or at least minimal number, of loses.

 

Training pilots is very expensive so "wasting them" is not wise, same as not wasting expensive payload... or lossing a multi milion/bilion aircraft(s) or other equipment.

 

If you were in real aircraft, in real combat... I am sure you wouldn't fly so that you don't feel bored :music_whistling: If you want realism, then surely you'd want to RTB to base...

[Breakshot]

Planners would have to work out take off times, flight routes (not just direct since we will not have all planes in air), how many planes to commit at a given time to control the airspace throughout the 3 hours

 

 

I guess Ill just quote my point here, because it seems u just replied without actually understanding it fully.

[Frostie]

Mate, I have to comment on this one...

 

In real life, the mission goal would be to complete the mission, definitely stay alive and not have any, or at least minimal number, of loses.

 

Training pilots is very expensive so "wasting them" is not wise, same as not wasting expensive payload... or lossing a multi milion/bilion aircraft(s) or other equipment.

 

If you were in real aircraft, in real combat... I am sure you wouldn't fly so that you don't feel bored :music_whistling: If you want realism, then surely you'd want to RTB to base...

 

Good buddy

Have you ever read up on how quickly airforces would be obliterated if a superpower face off came about ,you act a pussy you and your territory will be lost even quicker, theres no run back to base for rearm in 6 seconds in the real world.

 

I like the idea of a 10-15min wait period for rearm.

 

 

 

IRL if one flight was winchester there would be another flight of fresh planes/pilots vectored to replace the existing CAP..

 

The case for more fighters as in the real world for support would also hold true for strike and ground units so it doesnt come into it in our small scale RF.

 

It also throws tactics out the window because with the fuxored ECM you'd have to get in twice as close to take a shot

 

I really don't understand what you are posting 'ECM fuxored?' 'tactics out the window'? twice as close IS a reality , im not sure you've got a good grasp of what tactics involves.

[Breakshot]

But like Rugg said that wont stop the ECM blasting

 

Yes, but it would reduce it by a whole lot.....

[Frostie]

RE. no rearm , I would imagine that's what you guys like, that's how you play your matches.

Seems everyone does bar you.;)

[Kuky]

Good buddy

Have you ever read up on how quickly airforces would be obliterated if a superpower face off came about ,you act a pussy you and your territory will be lost even quicker, theres no run back to base for rearm in 6 seconds in the real world.

 

I like the idea of a 10-15min wait period for rearm.

 

The mission goals were mostly ground targets, shipping and some SEAD invloved. Fighters were to provide a CAP which they did. The enemy aircraft were kept away.

 

Now, I would agree to some extent that in real life, if you were ordered to engage to destroy an enemy flight, then that would be another story. In this case you would not fire and go "safe" because it would most likely result in mission completion failure.

 

So far, this is still training... and I am sure once mission goals change, so will tactics, engagemets... and so on.

[Prophet]

I actually prefer having the re-arm we did.

 

To an extent it simulates the vast amount of planes that an air-force would have at their disposal, that we cant possibly have.

 

In the future, I would almost like to see an ATC used. Our comms worked good, but it would be more realistic for the strike to call ATC for assistance, and then ATC decide who needs to be diverted for assistance.

 

Anyways, it was great fun. I think there will be many improvements next time to make it a bit more challenging for both sides.