Target aspect switch

[Kula66]

Does this switch have any other effect, other than simply changing the closure filter from 1800 to -600 to 1200 to -1200? Any other radar magic going on to allow you to track a beaming target more reliably? In other words, why not leave it just to nose?

[Harlikwin]

On 6/19/2021 at 4:14 PM, Grater Tovakia said:

while Outer Air Battle put the priority focus on killing the bombers, killing the missiles was a tested (and practiced) means of employment for the Tomcats and their AIM-54s.

 

So. The flight profile for the kh22 was to be fired at like 300nm. Boost climb to like 80k feet, at like m 4.5, then dive at target. 

 

Not saying it cant be done. But with 1800 limit I'm curious how it was done?

 

http://www.ausairpower.net/XIMG/000-Kh-22-Backfire-C-CONOPS-1.png

Edited June 22, 2021 by Harlikwin

[GGTharos]

Maybe the 1800 limit was quickly updated to deal with it.  There are possible limitations for measuring that large a shift but I guess all of this stuff is for the 'them' to know and 'us' to wonder about

[Harlikwin]

1 minute ago, GGTharos said:

Maybe the 1800 limit was quickly updated to deal with it.  There are possible limitations for measuring that large a shift but I guess all of this stuff is for the 'them' to know and 'us' to wonder about

 

There are similar numbers for apg73 and 70... A bit higher than 1800 but not by that much. 

[MBot]

Quite surprising. The IIAF specifically selected the F-14/AIM-54 combo over the F-15/AIM-7 to counter Soviet recce Foxbat intrusions into Persia in the 1970s. Soviet reconnaissance MiG-25 demonstrated the capability for Mach 3 sorties over Israel. And it now seems that the Tomcat cannot track such a target from a geometry required for a successful intercept (high speed and head-on)?

Edited June 22, 2021 by MBot

[Grater Tovakia]

35 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

So. The flight profile for the kh22 was to be fired at like 300nm. Boost climb to like 80k feet, at like m 4.5, then dive at target. 

 

Not saying it cant be done. But with 1800 limit I'm curious how it was done?

 

http://www.ausairpower.net/XIMG/000-Kh-22-Backfire-C-CONOPS-1.png

 

I apologize, my response was more regarding slower cruise missiles as Ironmike said and not with missiles such as the AS-4. I somewhat ignored the example the OP gave as a means by which to address the larger missile/bomber threat and how the OOB doctrine dealt with it. However I've heard it referenced about the ability to shoot down the missiles yet this may have simply been a case of lack of clarification on the missiles in question and like my comment not directed specifically at the AS-4. 

 

At the same time I would like to believe, given certain tests that had AIM-54s being launched at targets (albeit with enlarged RCS and at a difference of altitude) with closure at around Mach 4 during which Tomcats could in fact intercept said target despite the closure, that killing an AS-4 was in fact feasible despite the closure. I of course will defer to HB on this as they seem to have a good team asking the right questions, I just find it a little odd.*

 

In spite of this it is all largely theoretical, while I am sure an attempt would be made to shoot at an AS-4 the brunt of that task would largely fall on the ships within the CVBG. I apologize again for the confusion lol.

7 hours ago, AH_Solid_Snake said:

For the purposes of the Vc / target aspect switch you're of course correct. I just have a somewhat ingrained reaction to the TWS unless otherwise attitude in flight sims when the reality that I'm aware of is fairly well the opposite, STT unless otherwise needed.

 

For the 100nm test if we are recalling the same one correctly then they spent time augmenting the radar signature of the drone and the test criteria was more around the Phoenix reaching that point and completing the intercept rather than the AWG-9 (I appreciate the two are linked), kind of proving that with some advances in electronics the system has some growth potential yet. In such a test with such a high closure single target I'd much rather put trust in STT to hold it than the (correctly modelled) reliability of TWS. Can you imagine getting half way through the intercept and having the little X appear and then the AWG-9 guestimating when to send the active signal for that run

I ask that the RIOs here correct me if I am wrong, but doesnt the DATA TRANs function help negate that? if the track is lost the RIO can reassign the track no?

 

 

 

*attached is the test I am referring to

Edited June 22, 2021 by Grater Tovakia

[Harlikwin]

13 minutes ago, Grater Tovakia said:

I apologize, my response was more regarding slower cruise missiles as Ironmike said and not with missiles such as the AS-4. I somewhat ignored the example the OP gave as a means by which to address the larger missile/bomber threat and how the OOB doctrine dealt with it. However I've heard it referenced about the ability to shoot down the missiles yet this may have simply been a case of lack of clarification on the missiles in question and like my comment not directed specifically at the AS-4. 

 

At the same time I would like to believe, given certain tests that had AIM-54s being launched at targets (albeit with enlarged RCS and at a difference of altitude) with closure at around Mach 4 during which Tomcats could in fact intercept said target despite the closure, that killing an AS-4 was in fact feasible despite the closure. I of course will defer to HB on this as they seem to have a good team asking the right questions, I just find it a little odd.*

 

In spite of this it is all largely theoretical, while I am sure an attempt would be made to shoot at an AS-4 the brunt of that task would largely fall on the ships within the CVBG. I apologize again for the confusion lol.

I ask that the RIOs here correct me if I am wrong, but doesnt the DATA TRANs function help negate that? if the track is lost the RIO can reassign the track no?

 

 

 

*attached is the test I am referring to

 

 

Yeah IDK. Ive seen that test and who knows what the actual cruise speed of the kh22 was at alt,  1800 is like m3.2ish at 80k . The only thing I wonder is if the 1800 limit applies to look down or only certain radar modes.  Maybe it doesnt apply to PSTT or something like that. 

Edited June 22, 2021 by Harlikwin

[GGTharos]

1 hour ago, Grater Tovakia said:

At the same time I would like to believe, given certain tests that had AIM-54s being launched at targets (albeit with enlarged RCS and at a difference of altitude) with closure at around Mach 4 during which Tomcats could in fact intercept said target despite the closure, that killing an AS-4 was in fact feasible despite the closure. I of course will defer to HB on this as they seem to have a good team asking the right questions, I just find it a little odd.*

 

AS-4 would show a closure at mach 5.5+ (as much as M7 depending on the shooter's speed) when it gets moving, if the speed number pans out.  

There are claims that even AEGIS would have had problems dealing with it.

[Harlikwin]

31 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

 

AS-4 would show a closure at mach 5.5+ (as much as M7 depending on the shooter's speed) when it gets moving, if the speed number pans out.  

There are claims that even AEGIS would have had problems dealing with it.

 

Yup. Except for DCS aegis which is a never ever miss machine. 

 

Actually I wonder if the kh22 in dcs even flies right. 

[MBot]

On 6/20/2021 at 12:48 AM, TLTeo said:

I vaguely remember reading that the worry/idea was simply that Soviet naval aviation would have been able to have such large bomber groups that a fair number of them were almost guaranteed to get a missile launch off (even assuming they would go up against every Tomcat on the boat, each carrying 6 AIM-54s), hence the need to shoot down both bombers and ASMs.

 

I don't have a source so I could easily be completely wrong though

 

You are right, it was the doctrine of Soviet Naval Aviation to launch a divisional strength attack per target carrier, so between 40 (two regiments) and 60 (three regiments) missile carrying bombers plus a decent number of escort jammers. A carrier operating alone was unlikely to be able to defend against such a strike (and this was recognized in the US Maritime Strategy of the 1980s). USN carriers thus would have operated at least in pairs or more for mutual defensive support in high threat theaters (Norwegian Sea, Mediterranean, North Pacific). But then, the Soviets would probably assign additional bomber divisions to strike such groups as well, so who knows how this would have gone.

 

Let's play with the numbers a bit. A single carrier had 24 Tomcats. If we assume that 10 of them could be airborne to meet a Soviet attack, each carrying 6 Phoenix, they could shoot down a 60 bomber division if the Soviets approach most cooperatively, every single Tomcat is in a perfect position to engage every single bomber and every single missile hits. Now of course it is rather unlikely that every Tomcat carries 6 Phoenix (aircraft to loiter on CAP would probably carry 2 to 4) and we all know how missile PKs are in combat. A bomber killed for every 2 missiles would probably have been an excellent result. But most importantly, the Soviet bombers would have attacked from multiple axis simultaneously. The carrier intending to position its CAP several hundreds of miles away for the outer air battle (to kill the archer), is forced to spread its CAP over a wide arch of hundreds of miles to cover all possible axis (and as such, one CAP cannot shift to support another CAP). The Soviets would thus have had the initiative to either also spread their bombers over the full range of available attack directions or put extra weight on certain axis (generating a Schwerpunkt) for a breakthrough. Under these circumstances it is almost certain that some bombers, and even likely that a significant number of bombers, would have reached a missile launch position.

 

Making the above assumption and wargaming these scenarios in both DCS and strategy games, I always thought that it would make sense to keep a small fraction of your defensive fighter force close to the carrier to commit it against any breakthrough once identified. In mechanized ground warfare this is the classic role of the reserve of a ground commander. Such Tomcat reserve held in a central position (either on CAP close to the carrier or launched from deck alert) would be able to be vectored on any attack axis.  But since it cannot reach any supersonic bombers before they come into missile launch range, would need to be able to intercept the missiles launched from this attack axis. As such I was always under the impression that the Tomcat should be able to engage the Backfire's missiles as well. Otherwise, a single squadron of 10 bombers making it through the outer screen unchecked (which I do not think is too unlikely) would be able to launch a missile salvo that had a decent chance to overwhelm the carrier escort's air defense screen (pre-AEGIS).

 

Edited June 22, 2021 by MBot

[Grater Tovakia]

 

12 minutes ago, MBot said:

 

You are right, it was the doctrine of Soviet Naval Aviation to launch a divisional strength attack per target carrier, so between 40 (two regiments) and 60 (three regiments) missile carrying bombers plus a decent number of escort jammers. A carrier operating alone was unlikely to be able to defend against such a strike (and this was recognized in the US Maritime Strategy of the 1980s). USN carriers thus would have operated at least in pairs or more for mutual defensive support in high threat theaters (Norwegian Sea, Mediterranean, North Pacific). But then, the Soviets would probably assign additional bomber divisions to strike such groups as well, so who knows how this would have gone.

 

Let's play with the numbers a bit. A single carrier had 24 Tomcats. If we assume that 10 of them could be airborne to meet a Soviet attack, each carrying 6 Phoenix, they could shoot down a 60 bomber division if the Soviets approach most cooperatively, every single Tomcat is in a perfect position to engage every single bomber and every single missile hits. Now of course it is rather unlikely that every Tomcat carries 6 Phoenix (aircraft to loiter on CAP would probably carry 2 to 4) and we all know how missile PKs are in combat. A bomber killed for every 2 missiles would probably have been an excellent result. But most importantly, the Soviet bombers would have attacked from multiple axis simultaneously. The carrier intending to position its CAP several hundreds of miles away for the outer air battle (to kill the archer), is forced to spread its CAP over a wide arch of hundreds of miles to cover all possible axis (and as such, one CAP cannot shift to support another CAP). The Soviets would thus have had the initiative to either also spread their bombers over the full range of available attack directions or put extra weight on certain axis (generating a Schwerpunkt) for a breakthrough. Under these circumstances it is almost certain that some bombers, and even likely that a significant number of bombers, would have reached a missile launch position.

 

Making the above assumption and wargaming these scenarios in both DCS and strategy games, I always thought that it would make sense to keep a small fraction of your defensive fighter force close to the carrier to commit it against any breakthrough once identified. In mechanized ground warfare this is the classic role of the reserve of a ground commander. Such Tomcat reserve held in a central position (either on CAP close to the carrier or launched from deck alert) would be able to be vectored on any attack axis.  But since it cannot reach any supersonic bombers before they come into missile launch range, would need to be able to intercept the missiles launched from this attack axis. As such I was always under the impression that the Tomcat should be able to engage the Backfire's missiles as well. Otherwise, a single squadron of 10 bombers making it through the outer screen unchecked (which I do not think is too unlikely) would be able to launch a missile salvo that had a decent chance to overwhelm the carrier escort's air defense screen (per-AEGIS).

 

As it seems this thread has some interest on the topic, attached is a good report done by CIA in 1979 on the Soviet bomber threat with a focus on the emerging threat into the 1980s.

 

 Personally I have always given the Soviet bombers a low chance of success, this is for a myriad of reasons really many of which are outlined in the attached report. A critical function people seem to neglect in these calculations is range, an multi axis coordinated attack sounds fantastic, but when your bombers are at their limits of fuel and  you don't have a clear idea of exactly where the CVBGs is this perfect plan goes out of the window rather rapidly.

 

 Another issue here is that assuming we go by NATO's perfect number of 4 CVBGs that is a lot to contend with when your bombers are carrying at max 2 missiles each, on top of this is the Soviet leaderships estimates that this type of attack could only be performed a mere number of times given the expected losses. Add on a determined well trained enemy who has purpose built equipment for such an envoirment and who's EW and SA is far superior to your own and you have what basically equates to a suicide mission.

 

Also for your example of 10 Backfires making it through the missile screen, 20 AS-4s no matter their capability would have a tough time breaking through any CVBG/CTF of a number greater than one and this is assuming no extra escorts, SAGs, or Standing Forces had joined with the Carrier group. 

Soviet Naval Aviation Antiship Doctrine.pdf

[Harlikwin]

Yeah the soviets mostly figured it was gonna be a 1 way trip for most bombers as well, I dont have a link to that paper but its out there too. 

 

The real question is this 1800 knot number for the AWG9 and what exactly it means. 

Edited June 23, 2021 by Harlikwin

[near_blind]

Did the Jester options make it into today's hotfix?

[alexej21]

Definitely not to the change log 

[Lurker]

On 6/20/2021 at 11:47 AM, gyrovague said:

Added Jester option to set aspect switch, and defaulted the switch position to nose aspect. This should be available in the next openbeta.

 

Can we get a bit of clarification here? Does that mean that Jester will not be able to set the switch automatically, I.E. Jester will not be able to calculate the closure and set the switch accordingly, but that the pilot in front has to tell Jester to set the switch, otherwise it will always be in nose aspect position?

Edited June 24, 2021 by Lurker

[Jayhawk1971]

Nevermind. Failed to read the whole conversation.

Edited June 24, 2021 by Jayhawk1971

[draconus]

27 minutes ago, Lurker said:

Jester will not be able to calculate the closure and set the switch accordingly, but that the pilot in front has to tell Jester to set the switch, otherwise it will always be in nose aspect position?

When would you need anything other than Nose selected?

[Lurker]

7 minutes ago, draconus said:

When would you need anything other than Nose selected?

 

When targets are egressing? I assume there is a pretty good reason why engineers installed that switch in the real plane in the first place right? 

Edited June 24, 2021 by Lurker

[draconus]

Just now, Lurker said:

When targets are egressing? I assume there is a reason for why that switch exists in the real plane right? 

It'd be rather rare case to chase a target with more than 600kts of opening while you're still flying towards it imo. Even when that happens you'll be able to use Jester menu. Making him smart about that would need a bit more programming.

[Kula66]

Hence my earlier question, does the switch do anything else apart from engage a filter? ie, if you set it to beaming, does it engage any other logic to assist with tracking a target in the notch?

[FWind]

AWG-10

Edited June 24, 2021 by FWind

[Golo]

2 hours ago, Kula66 said:

Hence my earlier question, does the switch do anything else apart from engage a filter? ie, if you set it to beaming, does it engage any other logic to assist with tracking a target in the notch?

It should do something according to the manual:

In the short pulse STT modes the aspect switch sets the system tracking mode to the corresponding echo edge or centroid to counteract countermeasures like chaff and specific jammer modes.

However that works.

[bies]

6 hours ago, FWind said:

AWG-10

 

 

So Phantom could track up to 2900 knots closure and Tomcat only 1800 knots?

[RustBelt]

On 6/21/2021 at 5:09 AM, Kula66 said:

Referring to 'Iranian Tomcats in Action', a successful engagement of an M2.3 25 at 70k' was prosecuted by 'the 14A accelerated to M1.5 and climbed to 45k' ... so keeping slow was not how they were used in RL combat

 

You're misunderstanding what's happening here. They Accelerated to M1.5 then Zoom climbed to 45k. They put the airspeed in the bank, THEN converted airspeed for altitude. I don't believe the Tomcat A can even get to M1.5 in a climb of any useful rate. 

 

Also a lot of this discussion is forgetting that this isn't about a single plane of engagement. You have to work out the Trigonometry of both off aspect and off altitude to find the true Closure speed. 

[FWind]

AWG-9 from F-4X http://aviationarchives.blogspot.com/search?q=F-4