F-15C combat questions

[TAW_Blaze]

The main issue i find in the game is that the missiles do crazy high G maneuvers to intercept an enemy thats far away and not doing much of anything, losing a lot of speed in the process, this inherent tracking issue, becomes even more obvious in MP, where planes are very jumpy, you can lose lock on an enemy, just because when you shoot his connection decides to launch him in outer space. That is an extreme example, but there are plenty of small yet jerky jumps when you look at a client in DCS World.

 

This. I suspect even such minor jumps in ping or whatnot that are invisible to you will make the missile climb into space and then come back, watching missile camera can show some really amusing things.

[GGTharos]

I'm not going to comment in whether Falcon gets everything right in terms of the AMRAAM, just that it gets the atmosphere right in that respect.

 

If you run into 8nm (at least, and at SL, longer the higher up you go) of an AMRAAM toting aircraft and you know he's launched or going to launch, just eject. Something similar would go for the 77. Could you evade it inside the Rtr? Sure, there are ways - but your chances would still be quite slim depending on the launch range. It's all about timing and perfect execution of evasion. It's a very fast missile, so you don't get time to do much, and you have to do it exactly right. Even if you fall right into he notch, you need to stay there long enough and prevent the missile from getting you out of it. It's going to aim for your trajectory anyway, and if you haven't notched the parent aircraft too (or he hasn't dropped the track for other reasons) it'll know where you are thanks to the M-Link. It really doesn't mind your chaff, doppler + track/kinetic filtering are pretty certain ways to just flat out ignore it. I'm not going to go into complications like ECM etc, just pure maneuver + chaff evasions.

 

The DCS 120 does none of that, and it's flight trajectories are very inefficient and wasteful of energy. So is the 77, and some say the AIm-7 uses similar trajectories, though it's Pk is lower for the 7for a variety of reasons. The R-27 is at least a step up from using pure PN as well, but APN is all it uses to our knowledge, which is far less efficient than what the other missiles do.

 

The AFM is 'ok', there are still issues that need to be fixed - a lot of the problems are in the guidance, and that's what really does all the magic.

 

I've probably missed/have not discussed a bunch of things, but I don't want to make this a huge exposition. All things 'missile' like are fairly complicated, but I think I've given things fair treatment to present how things should be.

 

@FLANKERATOR: The 'MISSiles' thing is a very old joke, and doesn't apply to these modern missiles. Shoot them in parameters and they will physically hit. Miss distance increases as you go out of Rtr, sure, but I think you'd be surprised at how much capability these things have to strike targets directly the better their guidance gets . All they need is available g, and new missiles hold onto that better than old missiles.

 

A final note: People are accusing each other of insults etc. That's not what anyone means to do I'm sure. Things get heated in with these subjects. If things get too heated I'll close the thread, but I don't think it'll get there.

 

Part of the notion of the AMRAAM is screwed in DCS comes from the fact that people have come accustomed to Falcons AMRAAM being almost a death ray for the last 15 years, which is right and which is wrong, who knows but a lot of people hold out for Falcon as being the pinnacle of simulation, this IMO is where it gets ugly. Its as though Falcon has set the benchmark for many of what an AMRAAM should be like, almost brainwashed. There are issues with all the missiles in DCS that are not AFM WIP but these are seeker/chaff/notch related, I did ask a few years back if we were going to have a DCS:AMRAAM but that seemed a long way off, lets hope ED can sort it and all missiles out.

Edited February 10, 2014 by GGTharos

[lunaticfringe]

This. I suspect even such minor jumps in ping or whatnot that are invisible to you will make the missile climb into space and then come back' date=' watching missile camera can show some really amusing things.[/quote']

 

Easy solution to this: if a tracked aircraft is lost server side due to ping, the weapon pays a reduced cost calculated based on the duration of apparent disconnect and amount of resulting reposition. While the server is without contact to the contact, the weapon should maintain original programmed heading, relative to proportional guidance directive (if applicable) or lofted launch *only* if original parameters required such (no ballistic then reentry due to server drops).

[TAW_Blaze]

I was thinking something similar. But first we'd have to discuss with ED, I don't know exactly how it works right now.

[karambiatos]

Thats an incredibly convoluted solution, the netcode likely needs its error correction algorithms updated, so players jumping into space doesnt even happen, when packets are lost.

[GGTharos]

Actually missiles can be desensitized to taret maneuvers in RL to prevent the missile from reacting to RCS scintillation and other issues, so such a thing would probably have to be included anyway.

 

But you are right, I would not pitch this as a fix for warping, use a fix for warping to fix warping :)

[TAW_Blaze]

But you are right, I would not pitch this as a fix for warping, use a fix for warping to fix warping :)

 

Indeed.

[lunaticfringe]

You can fix netcode all you want, and the suggestion isn't intended to supplant that; what you can't fix are * connections; even in this day and age of high bandwidth cable and fiber, you still get them. Players scream up and down that they're seeing great ping, no issues, but they will still bounce around like a super ball slathered in Flubber.

 

No matter how good you make the netcode, you've got to make it robust enough to deal with the outlier. Subsequently, you install routines such as the above to mitigate potential impacts when someone who would be better served playing browser games on Pogo tries to get into your fight. When disaster strikes, it lets those in the know come back and seriously drive the point home- "it's not us- it's you".

[Frostie]

Frostie, your a make believe fighter pilot on a GAME, stop coming across as an expert. Your displaying nothing but arrogance as well as ignorance.. The 120c in this game is terrible, for every 20 120's I fire I'm lucky if 2 hit. That hit ratio is way off. Stop acting like there isn't something terribly wrong with the 120c because there is. IASGATG knows what hes talking about, I know that for a fact.

 

Nothing worse than someone telling you how little you know when they know even less about you, especially from someone that doesn't understand the difference between 'your' and 'you're'. I don't want to be a grammar nazi but doing it once is a common mistake but several times over two posts. Pro tip, if these don't sound right don't use them, 'you're' for 'you are' and 'your' for 'my'.

 

Myself, i'm an Engineer of 20 years working in the Aerospace industry, I've been involved with projects concerning the Eurofighter, F-35, F-22 and SM3, non of which makes me an expert on any of them. But what I do have is a degree of understanding and point of view in the field. Like i've pointed out earlier, if expressing my concern on how data is being acquired is wrong then what is the point of discussion.

 

Cheap quip:

As for schooling Rage good luck with that, he's been trained by the 51st not the youtube society. :cheer3nc:

Edited February 12, 2014 by Frostie

[Pilotasso]

For what's worth its not just the AMRAAM its all missiles. I was having a long range BVR mission online over flat terrain just now and ended up wasting all my 8 missiles and achieved mutual annihilation by guns. Nobody respects the radar weapons anymore. The only fun fights are those with shorter ranges between bases with lots of mountains in between.

[IASGATG]

Just as a passing thought then, as an aerospace engineer, would it surprise you that the AMRAAM in the game has a (Significantly) positive Cl at 0 AoA? (Yes, altitude and about 4 other factors play a role, we're talking idealised)

[Frostie]

You know what, just keep on discussing. We'll keep on working on the missile. If you dont like the results of the missile after we complete our work, that really sucks for you. The engineering burden is on us after all, and ED has a very capable team that will be critiquing and asking the right questions. After we correct the AMRAAM, we are greatly looking forward to correcting the thrust, drag, lift and other parameters of your R-27 and R-77's. If you want to see the data, the validation and the comparison, we'll be happy to oblige! :smartass:

But we're not discussing your work on the missile here it is a thread about using the F-15 in combat so please don't go getting the hump.

Your work has only cropped up at your announcement, and i'm sure everybody is pleased to hear that someone is having a deep interest in addressing any potential problems that may be with the AMRAAM or missiles in general, thanks for taking it up.

 

I suggest you and your crew read this thread again and try and find this link between your work and me supposedly disrespecting it, i'm pretty sure you'll find out that it doesn't exist. IASGATG never stated to me this was a current project and rather talked about everything from a theoretical stand point and my responses were inline with that and nothing more.

[simis]

Omg Frostie, you schooled me so hard man... on grammar.. You are sooo darn cool and smart Frostie!! I really don't care what your credentials are as well as Rage, or that my grammar wasn't up to par in a forum post. The fact of the matter is regardless of what you think $300,000.00 went through my bank account this year. So, that weak attack on my intelligence, well you know exactly where you can shove that buddy. I don't care who trained who, I have no problem schooling the both of you then putting that sh*t on youtube for everyone to see.

[lunaticfringe]

[NineLine]

Really guys? What is the Forum topic? Forum Combat Question? No... no its not, so lets get back on F-15 Combat Questions, and save the chest pumping for in the skies... Provided you havent scared the OP off the forums already...

[lunaticfringe]

Regarding radar, two basic possibilities:

1. radar mode, frequency range, scan elevation or azimuth could have been "outside paramaters" to see the bandit, or the bandit was masked by terrain.

2. the game's radar does need some work...

 

1. If you're *locking* a guy up (ie, going STT) and was at altitude that should be significantly above terrain and he's gone within five seconds, he's notching you; either he's turning 90 degrees perpendicular to your flight path, or he's going vertical either up or down (generally down, but up can happen if fast).

 

Radars (especially the APG-63, even in its early software) have ways to mitigate this through frequency shifts, but this isn't modelled here. Subsequently, your best option is a check turn, ten to fifteen degrees in one direction or the other. The reason for this is that the window of the notch is relatively small- it should be (if memory serves) less than 10 degrees of that 90 degree perpendicular heading. Thus, turning one way or another is going to break that target out of the notch. Getting back in TWS here should keep him seeing the same search warning, but no lock, while you've actually got him tagged up and can shoot AMRAAM (Sparrow won't work here, naturally).

 

This is a tertiary effect of the launch and drag technique. If you're both on essentially a pure intercept course, to get to the notch if you've turned away requires that he cope, not with your original position, but your offset. Turning away from you he can actually *shorten* the range your missile has to go while playing for the notch (think of the missile's original range as the hypoteneuse of a right triangle; you turn outside of the hypoteneuse, while he turns towards the angle- now your missile only has to fly the "b" side to intercept, rather than the hypoteneuse length) meaning that if you detect this move and turn back in to maintain support, you're upping the Pk. Conversely, if he turns into you to notch, he's shortening your effective range for the followup and while remaining defensive.

 

Folks go for the notch, and miss it quite often though under/over shooting. It's important to look up, grab your heading, and make sure you're 90 off that value when you let go of the corner. Get in the habit of changing your scan elevation a good measure as soon as you see the track history marker go; at least 4000' on the top of the elevation is a good rule of thumb. Let his energy (keep tabs on his rate of closure- that's what it's there for) to determine whether to look up or down.

 

But do *something*. Don't sit in the same scan elevation and heading waiting for daylight the instant the other guy does something. Swap modes, get in TWS, turn your nose (cold if you had a bite as to which way he was going so you can buy time to search if you had no weapon in the air, hot if he was already defensive), and get on the bastard.

[Niehorst]

...reminds me of the two golden rules of aircombat:

 

The one who sees the enemy first will leave the battle as winner!

 

The one who loses sight to the opponent is DEAD!

 

...isn't it like that?

[AFAlinebacker42]

The one who sees the enemy first will leave the battle as winner!

 

...isn't it like that?

 

"He was dubbed "Forty Second Boyd" for his standing bet as an instructor pilot that beginning from a position of disadvantage, he could defeat any opposing pilot in air combat maneuvering in less than 40 seconds;" from, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boyd_(military_strategist)

 

The late Col. John Boyd is a shining example against that. Awesome book to read about an awesome fighter pilot: http://www.amazon.com/Boyd-The-Fighter-Pilot-Changed/dp/0316796883 I think he's a SH example of taking the luck out of the fight and making it all about the knowledge and skill of the pilot.

[lunaticfringe]

Not necessarily. Some will often "see" their opponent without an offensive sensor (RWR) when they could be painted by the other well before it's done. Converseley, one may see that opponent late on the RWR and turn the tables purely based on fighting using that tool offensively, turning on detectable emissions only long enough to hand off and launch a weapon immediately.

 

Hell, USN Adversaries were versed in using nothing more than a direction-finding radio in stripped Mongeese or Foxes to do what many would now consider offensive RWR employment, when their opponent F-4s, F-8s, F-14s, or F/A-18s had painted them thirty or more miles away; it was all a matter of knowing what the other guy had to lob at you and how to beat it.

 

And so you expect the notch or other move to deny support to your weapon; thus, you anticipate a loss, at least for a time, a return in BVR, and so you maneuver your aircraft and your radar as required to maintain, or reacquire that hostile. You're always moving something, subtle adjustments to better your picture, better your position, and deny him options. That adjustment you make to reacquire him low or high might also let you pick up his pal who was hiding in the cell resolution. And when you lose him, you abide by the rules on how much time you have to reacquire before it's time to bug out based on range and last known rate of closure. Because you're playing by those order rules, you'll find him again before he finds you, and you'll keep him defensive until he's dead. Or you'll escape to engage another day, or reestablish neutrality and turn back in hot.

 

It's how one handles that loss of return in BVR that separates the men from the boys. How you're forced to the merge is determined by how well you fight BVR, and it's that opening position in that circumstance which dictates 90+% of how the resulting dogfight ends. The only people who get involved in WVR are those who have control of the situation and will win, or those whom are desperate and will lose. All the performance in the world won't make up for an AIM-9M or an R-73 at two miles aft of your beam and his gun to fall back on; if he got that far on you, it means he's better than you.

 

Go in control, and you won't lose sight. Be desperate, and you might as well close your eyes and not watch what's coming.

[Frostie]

Great in depth view at dealing with notching Fringe. What about terrain masking, how would a flight deal with that especially if the bandit had GCI, better to not press or is there more to it.

[GGTharos]

First off, getting a successful notch vs. an F-15 in REAL life is not so easy. That radar will keep a track for a good while after you enter the notch, which means that missile is still on its way to you, and if you DO come out of the notch (either by your actions or those of the F-15 pilot) before the track is timed out, the radar will re-acquire you and so will the missile. It's not like in this game where dropping into the notch and dropping a bit of chaff = trashed missile.

 

But there are consequences to this even if you do ditch the missile as well - like lunaticfringe said your entry into the merge depends on how well you fight BVR. If your weapon system is keeping the other guy defensive for more than the 2 seconds needed in DCS, what position is that attacker going to merge in? That's right, he'll be the one on the offensive.

 

As for fighters using terrain cover, it isn't a tactic that can't be dealt with. GCI and terrain cover alone are not adequate when you're fighting a force equipped with capable AWACS and the ability to wield off-axis flights to nullify your cover. Fighters flying high will see over peaks of mountains and your ability to evade incoming missiles from there will be limited.

 

Similarly, fighters with GCI + terrain cover can be baited out of it and such tactics have been used in the past.

 

Every tactic has a counter-tactic, and whether it works of fails depends on battle management, training, and equipment capability, none of which is represented in DCS.

[AFAlinebacker42]

...none of which is represented in DCS.

 

[lunaticfringe]

What about terrain masking, how would a flight deal with that especially if the bandit had GCI, better to not press or is there more to it.

 

From my understanding of reading various USAF/USN materials (Pre-classified- ie, pre-1993 Fighter Weapons Review, F-4/F-15 RAG manuals, F-14/F/A-18 intercept introduction stuff, etc), beating TM is situational in nature relative to your role.

 

If you're in a CAP, you're going to generally get stationed at a point where you can look at the expected avenues of attack as they exit the terrain and come at your defended position; essentially, it's like vector logic, but without the expanses of water. I know where you're coming from, I sit back at high altitude, and wait for you to come out in the open, because you've got to pass through me to get to your target. If I'm accelerating to launch as soon as you clear the terrain or start your pop up, while you're trying to climb into decent range parameters for your weapon, mine has the energy advantage the whole way. If you've played it, think of the F-15 anti-Mainstay single mission from FC1/FC2. You're looking up at a flock of Floggers. Sure, they're Floggers, but their Apex have better range than your Sparrow or AMRAAM since they're shooting from 30/40k, whereas you've been on the deck and having to pickle off as soon as you pop.

 

Now think of the inverse of this with the F-15C in the high position with the beastly APG-63 look down capability peeking into those gaps. There's no delay like the Floggers have waiting for you to come out of the ground return- he's shooting you as soon as you round the last hill.

 

If you're OCA and having to go into the terrain area, you need more than just altitude; you want your flight to have good return area overlap and significant separation between the aircraft to make the angular math work. You're going to fly your route along the main body/bodies of the terrain as much as you can, and if you've got three or four ships, you're going to have one guy remain in a massive wide/tall setting to grab everything above the terrain while the others look in the nooks and crannies. You run down the channels of the terrain because that's where *he's* got to fly. Thus, you can then have back most of your altitude advantages from the prior method.

 

There are other aircraft specific techniques, but that's the gist of it.

 

Flipside of all this is that if you're flying *in* that terrain intentionally, you're running silent. No radar, not even comms until the point where you're in position to fire. If you've got EOS, you can use that (signal active state with wing rock if you're in a group), but the horn needs to be powered down. It's been a long while since I've signed onto a server, but I've caught a lot of people with their pants down for that. See a signal on the RWR, look at your kneeboard, and you can check turn into a profile that lets you look down the valley, put your radar on him, and ruin his day.

 

You need to be fast, and you need to also pay attention to what GCI is feeding you; better, more constant updates would be useful here (as they were employed in real life, especially on the Soviet side- this is gained through reading many of their materials- A&K, PVO Herald, Military Affairs, etc), since a well versed flight lead could choose to break out early if his prey were turning away based on apparent changes in range, allowing you to get to altitude and take the long IR shot, or even the radar shot if you hold the horn till deep in chase.

 

But being in terrain can be just as difficult, or even more so, than for the guy up high, because you're always trading detection for effective launch range. And you always want the range. You have to lie, cheat, and steal to get it back.

[Frostie]

Every tactic has a counter-tactic, and whether it works of fails depends on battle management, training, and equipment capability, none of which is represented in DCS.

 

The first two you can achieve to a certain extent using DCS, but we are yet to see a commercial sim that even comes close to representing the full scope of modern A2A combat, hopefully we can get somewhere near in the not too distant future.

[GGTharos]

Fair enough.