Missile hit ratio

[LuckyJim1010]

SPI's Air War - would have been easier to go fly the real thing [:)]

[Dimitris]

http://theaviationist.com/2014/01/29/f15-vs-mig-23/

Four AIM-7Ms fired, three misses and one hit, against a [probably] non-maneuvering, [certainly] no-ECM MiG-23. In a battle environment as close to a training range as possible (DS).

[navwarcol]

I would probably question why the opfor missiles do better against the -35 however. I would probably bet a lot of money on AMRAAM outperforming, or at least equally performing, anything on the other side, and the -35 is basically newer generation in every category, than anything on the other side as well(once it is fully operational at least).
That said however, Primarchx is correct I think. The key to that scenario-and many other ones, and real life often-- seems to be taking the airfield out of operation, rather than fighting them in the air.

[jtoatoktoe]

I think its hard to gauge real life performance as a2a combat has been limited to Desert Storm in 91 with closer modern weapons. One engagement against a Iraqi Mig 23 it took a 4th Sparrow shot to get a hit. That being said i've never been in love with the Sparrow. So that leaves us with the Sidewinder which has had some ok success and then the AMRAAM which hasn't seen a whole lot of action. Well all this is American gear, of course other countries have their own missiles.

[navwarcol]

I agree. I think my point was the OP mentioned BVR weapons being fired, missing (I am OK to this point) then the AI controlled a/c closing to the range of their next weapons system (still OK) then the missiles of the other side downing the F-35s, apparently much easier than the AMRAAM (here is where I have the problem, as the other side's missiles have been tested even fewer times, as well as their pilots in general).

[Maromak]

ORIGINAL: navwarcol

I would probably question why the opfor missiles do better against the -35 however. I would probably bet a lot of money on AMRAAM outperforming, or at least equally performing, anything on the other side, and the -35 is basically newer generation in every category, than anything on the other side as well(once it is fully operational at least).

There may be another factor here which others have already observed/reported. Perhaps the more distant F-35s in the formation were taking BVR shots while the closer F-35s with only AIM-9s remaining would not have fired due to the presence of other friendly missiles already being in the air. This seems to occur relatively often if the player does not have RTB on Winchester set to YES (which I currently do for SARH shots).

[Tomcat84]

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

http://theaviationist.com/2014/01/29/f15-vs-mig-23/

Four AIM-7Ms fired, three misses and one hit, against a [probably] non-maneuvering, [certainly] no-ECM MiG-23. In a battle environment as close to a training range as possible (DS).

If you read the full pilot's account in the book "Debrief" you will see that these were all pretty low Pk shots, high to low in a (near) tail chase. Hardly a training range kind of shot. Doesn't mean that missiles should be hittiles but this aviationist article leaves out some small but important details that illustrate that these were lower Pk shots, especially the first two.

[Yokes]

ORIGINAL: Maromak

Perhaps the more distant F-35s in the formation were taking BVR shots while the closer F-35s with only AIM-9s remaining would not have fired due to the presence of other friendly missiles already being in the air. This seems to occur relatively often if the player does not have RTB on Winchester set to YES (which I currently do for SARH shots).

This is my biggest problem with the AI's AAW logic. This makes WVR-only fighters (early F-16s, for example) useless. They hold on to their 'winders and close in for a knife fight because someone a long ways away took a low-probability BVR shot. Then they die because they brought a knife to a gun fight.

My suggestions for improved AAW logic:
1. When deciding who should take a shot at a target, pick the closest unit to the target. The AI currently picks the one farthest away. This causes the guys close to close within knife fighting range while those max-range BVR (low-probability of killing) shots close in.
2. Allow aircraft to shoot back while "engaged defensive". I hate when an F-15 is RTBing Winchester with Sidewinders and some crummy WVR-only fighter (MiG-21) comes in and puts an Atoll up the tailpipe (or guns!!) while the F-15 does nothing until it sees contrails. (And then only drops flares and beams.) For an initial improvement, I would like the AI to shoot back at someone within the range of its AAW weapons (except guns) if it goes defensive.
3. This one is more difficult, so I understand if this never happens. Right now we have the "RTB when Winchester" option, and that's a fine first step, but it is not a very good "one size fits all" tool. I would like to see the AI prioritize the targets based upon threat level. For example, if I have IDed a target as a BVR-capable fighter then I want my WVR-only fighters (MiG-21s, BVR fighters with no BVR missiles, etc) to stay away (unless they are the only option). If the target is WVR-only, then feel free to continue to engage offensive even when the BVRs are gone. If the target is defenseless (bomber) then continue to engage offensive all the way to guns.

As you can probably tell, I hate to micro-manage. It is tedious and it provides the player with a HUGE advantage over the computer.

Thanks for listening to my ramblings.

Yokes

[snowburn]

i would add another thing:
Jettison external stores (bombs, a2g missiles, drop tanks) when dodging enemy attack (yes/no/inherit)

im no sure if the game gives an agility penalty to attacked aircrafts when fully loaded with external weapons that causes drag.

[dillonkbase]

Feature Request:

So since a pilot may know his relative prob of hit in any given situation (the 4 sparrow guy says he did?)... Could you give us an idea before we launch our missiles of what "the pilot" thinks about our command(some sort of filtered or scrambled PH). Or better yet, do that, and then allow us to tell our AI to wait to fire until they have an estimated hit percentage of X. I know part of this is already happening in the pessimistic optimistic controls.

I guess What I am looking for is a way to improve my micromanagement... Should I fire as soon as able? If I close and extra ten KM with the opponent is that buying me PH?

[Maromak]

ORIGINAL: Yokes

ORIGINAL: Maromak

Perhaps the more distant F-35s in the formation were taking BVR shots while the closer F-35s with only AIM-9s remaining would not have fired due to the presence of other friendly missiles already being in the air. This seems to occur relatively often if the player does not have RTB on Winchester set to YES (which I currently do for SARH shots).

This is my biggest problem with the AI's AAW logic. This makes WVR-only fighters (early F-16s, for example) useless. They hold on to their 'winders and close in for a knife fight because someone a long ways away took a low-probability BVR shot. Then they die because they brought a knife to a gun fight.

My suggestions for improved AAW logic:
1. When deciding who should take a shot at a target, pick the closest unit to the target. The AI currently picks the one farthest away. This causes the guys close to close within knife fighting range while those max-range BVR (low-probability of killing) shots close in.

There was an earlier discussion on the logic behind this behaviour. IIRC something to do with which unit initially detected the hostile aircraft which may not have necesarily been the closest at that point in time.

ORIGINAL: Yokes
2. Allow aircraft to shoot back while "engaged defensive". I hate when an F-15 is RTBing Winchester with Sidewinders and some crummy WVR-only fighter (MiG-21) comes in and puts an Atoll up the tailpipe (or guns!!) while the F-15 does nothing until it sees contrails. (And then only drops flares and beams.) For an initial improvement, I would like the AI to shoot back at someone within the range of its AAW weapons (except guns) if it goes defensive.

You could try setting the mission logic to engage targets of opportunity but beware this may have unintended consequences such as attempting to engaging targets 100s of nms away. Also I have observed fighters with air-to-ground weapons under this doctrine bomb the nearest valid ground target rather than the designated target(s). The 'ultimate' method of control would be to set the friendly AI to Hold Fire although I note your final comment!

ORIGINAL: Yokes

As you can probably tell, I hate to micro-manage. It is tedious and it provides the player with a HUGE advantage over the computer.

[mikmykWS]

#1 The AAW Patrol and intercept logic is to first go for first detected and ID'd as hostile but will be retasked to closest target if there are multiples detected and ID'd as hostile. If there are numerous aircraft you will notice at least in the intercept mission they will switch and go after each. If you turn on opportunity fire they will take a shot at anything that is ID'd as hostile and in range.

I'm interested in what you're seeing though. Could you please post of save it of next to it happens.

#2 I think the problem is mostly in the enemy is approaching from behind and missiles are not rear aspect. You can actually unassign from an rtb and duke it out if you want.

[erichswafford]

Re: missile expenditure rates.

Please go educate yourself before saying your guys are firing "excessive" amounts of ordnance. Real war isn't a game where you sit there and gamble your life based on the expected pH of a missile on some test range in 1987, or a magazine article you once read.

One of the first things I learned at Squadron Officer School is that ammo usage will be at least 10 times the worst peacetime estimate. Look up any historical conflict and you will be stunned at how fast ammo is used when peoples' lives start depending on it.

Having been in a couple of combat situations, I can tell you this:

If I have to use 100 times as much ammo to increase my odds of surviving by just 1%, By God that's exactly what I am gonna do.

And after I smoke the bastard who was trying to kill me, the last thing I'll be thinking is "Gosh - I bet I could've done that more efficiently".

Only people who have never been fired at think this way. Everyone else knows that your main concern is something along the lines of "Did I $hit myself?".

Your guys are out there trying to survive until the next mission. Trust me when I say they truly, deeply do not give a $hit about the Operation, The Campaign, Peace in our Time, or Bringing Stability to the Region. They just want to live a little longer. Winning is normally the best way to do this. Hence, your interests are somewhat aligned with theirs. Somewhat aligned.

Just don't let it go to your head and expect them to act like accountants, getting all worked up about "expenditure rates" and other crap that seems to always fascinate those in the rear with the gear.

PS - Marines have the best fire discipline I have ever seen. As far as I'm concerned, they are Superhuman and a Breed Apart. So the above comments don't necessarily apply to them. [;)]

[jdkbph]

Kondor,

You sound like you're coming from a been-there/done-that place, and I wouldn't question that kind of wisdom-born-of-experience, because I haven't. Not for real anyway.

But it also sounds like your focus is infantry, small arms, etc, etc. True?

If so, do you see any difference between that - where you're faced with an immediate threat (eg, someone is shooting at you) - and a situation like the one described by the OP, where the SAM missile site is "sniping" at what might be described as an indirect threat, using assets that are far more limited and tightly controlled than a clip of 7.62?

Again, not having been there myself, I can only suppose that those entrusted with the employment of such assets would be far more judicious, and only resort to 10x worst case peace time estimate as a last resort when directly threatened.

Am I wrong?

JD

[Yokes]

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

#1 The AAW Patrol and intercept logic is to first go for first detected and ID'd as hostile but will be retasked to closest target if there are multiples detected and ID'd as hostile. If there are numerous aircraft you will notice at least in the intercept mission they will switch and go after each. If you turn on opportunity fire they will take a shot at anything that is ID'd as hostile and in range.

I understand the "going after the first contact detected" engagement logic, but what I am seeing is a bit different. Qualifier: I see this when I have a fairly large dogfight going on (6+ units per side). Here's an example in words: I have three fighters approaching a single target. Two BVR shooters at long-range, and a single WVR shooter within range and engagement parameters. (In other words, all three can shoot at the target.) Let's say there are currently two missiles headed to the target (everyone is holding fire). The first missile misses, so the AI has to pick someone to take the next shot. In my experience, the aircraft FARTHEST away takes the shot every time. Let's say the second missile misses as well. Again, the other BVR shooter will take the shot instead of the WVR shooter 3 miles away. Needless to say, those BVR shots will not arrive before the target gets in a shot on my WVR fighter. Again, I would expect the closest eligible shooter to take the first shot.

I'm interested in what you're seeing though. Could you please post of save it of next to it happens.

#2 I think the problem is mostly in the enemy is approaching from behind and missiles are not rear aspect. You can actually unassign from an rtb and duke it out if you want.

I will try to capture this in a save game.

For #2 I would like the AI to actually attempt to defend itself. In real life AWACS or GCI (if present) would notify a pilot that someone is approaching them from behind. I doubt the fighter would continue to just plod along for target practice. They would engage the bogey if at all possible. I'm not expecting HAL-level AI here, but it seems that something along the following would be feasible:

IF (engaged defensive) and (have AAW weapons other than guns) and (enemy contact within XX miles) - XX determined by weapon range? fixed value?
engage offensive with closest contact
end

I understand it could get tricky trying to manage a defensive and offensive engagement at the same time, but if it was easy everyone would do it, right? [8|]

Thanks for listening. I appreciate that the people who created this wonderful game are just as passionate about this as their fans. Your responsiveness and openness to the community is a breath of fresh air! [:D]

Yokes

[erichswafford]

All I can tell you is that this is how it has always been, in every conflict where you had some real competition. So, if you're going to bet that a hypothetical conflict would suddenly be a lot different, you need some pretty powerful evidence to indicate things have somehow changed.

Technology changes, but human nature stays the same. I was USAF. We looked at a lot of historical examples. Expenditure rates in SE Asia were tremendous, and this was hardly stiff competition. That was a "police action" and yet expenditure rates ran far above expectations for a full-blown WW3 scenario. Same thing happened in the 1st Gulf War. And, let's be clear - These were conflicts which were (militarily, anyway) complete Turkey Shoots. Most of the time, the poor bastards didn't even know we were there until their $hit started exploding around them.

There's a reason why, say, a tank platoon on the North German Plain would, at every single opportunity, refuel and rearm (or at least practice doing so). Also, pilots can tell you they spend a huge amount of time refueling at every available opportunity. Basically, every time they do something, they refuel ASAP. In a war, the same would apply to rearming. They do this because everything in war gets used up far faster than anyone could reasonably expect.

The reason is, like I said, people want to live. Not to next week or even tomorrow. They just want to live right now. So, would this apply to a SAM site "sniping" a lone intruder? It depends. If that intruder is on SEAD, then they might get trigger-happy.

Ordnance tends to get used up at a rate that is proportional to the perceived threat.

Anyway, I thought this thread was more about how many missiles were getting used up in things like dogfights? Frankly, I'd be extremely surprised that, after a dogfight, any of the planes did not come home with empty racks.

"Use it or lose it" tends to be the motto when faced with imminent death.

ORIGINAL: jdkbph

Kondor,

You sound like you're coming from a been-there/done-that place, and I wouldn't question that kind of wisdom-born-of-experience, because I haven't. Not for real anyway.

But it also sounds like your focus is infantry, small arms, etc, etc. True?

If so, do you see any difference between that - where you're faced with an immediate threat (eg, someone is shooting at you) - and a situation like the one described by the OP, where the SAM missile site is "sniping" at what might be described as an indirect threat, using assets that are far more limited and tightly controlled than a clip of 7.62?

Again, not having been there myself, I can only suppose that those entrusted with the employment of such assets would be far more judicious, and only resort to 10x worst case peace time estimate as a last resort when directly threatened.

Am I wrong?

JD

[Yokes]

Mike,

Here's a save game with an example of the farthest capable fighter taking the shot. Fireball 3 (a Kfir) is going nose-to-nose with a MiG-21. It is holding fire because there are currently 2 Sparrows inbound on the MiG. If the first Sparrow misses, the BVR shooter (F-15) takes another shot. I would much rather see the Kfir take the shot since it is the closest fighter.

Yokes

[Apocal]

ORIGINAL: kondor999

Re: missile expenditure rates.

Please go educate yourself before saying your guys are firing "excessive" amounts of ordnance. Real war isn't a game where you sit there and gamble your life based on the expected pH of a missile on some test range in 1987, or a magazine article you once read.

One of the first things I learned at Squadron Officer School is that ammo usage will be at least 10 times the worst peacetime estimate. Look up any historical conflict and you will be stunned at how fast ammo is used when peoples' lives start depending on it.

Having been in a couple of combat situations, I can tell you this:

If I have to use 100 times as much ammo to increase my odds of surviving by just 1%, By God that's exactly what I am gonna do.

And after I smoke the bastard who was trying to kill me, the last thing I'll be thinking is "Gosh - I bet I could've done that more efficiently".

This line of reasoning is understandable until you realize that expend 100 times (exaggerated, I know) the estimated rate leaves with absolutely nothing (zero, zilch, nada) to fight tomorrow for everything except small arms ammo - which you can move piles and piles of until the barrels physically melt. In air and naval war, weapons are limited, the USN has a total Tomahawk inventory less than 1500 birds, your typical surface action group might have six Harpoons between them. The enemy is not stupid and if he can induce you to launch ineffective attacks with your most effective weapons, he will do so and win by of being virtue of last (armed) man standing while you either a) run off to reload or b) die.

Only people who have never been fired at think this way. Everyone else knows that your main concern is something along the lines of "Did I $hit myself?".

Your guys are out there trying to survive until the next mission. Trust me when I say they truly, deeply do not give a $hit about the Operation, The Campaign, Peace in our Time, or Bringing Stability to the Region. They just want to live a little longer. Winning is normally the best way to do this. Hence, your interests are somewhat aligned with theirs. Somewhat aligned.

Just don't let it go to your head and expect them to act like accountants, getting all worked up about "expenditure rates" and other crap that seems to always fascinate those in the rear with the gear.

As for the idea that only "accountants" care about expenditure rates: professionals do as well. Why do you think there was so much heartache and gnashing of teeth over US performance vs. MiGs in Vietnam? They considered it their utmost priority to get kills for their expenditures. And they got them, once they got better training, better gear and a clearer idea of what needed to be done.

[guanotwozero]

ORIGINAL: Apocal
As for the idea that only "accountants" care about expenditure rates: professionals do as well. Why do you think there was so much heartache and gnashing of teeth over US performance vs. MiGs in Vietnam? They considered it their utmost priority to get kills for their expenditures. And they got them, once they got better training, better gear and a clearer idea of what needed to be done.

There's an interesting account of COIN warfare here, where gunship helos armed with MGs & 20mm cannons flew low and always fired small, controlled bursts due to a shortage of ammo.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: Yokes

Mike,

Here's a save game with an example of the farthest capable fighter taking the shot. Fireball 3 (a Kfir) is going nose-to-nose with a MiG-21. It is holding fire because there are currently 2 Sparrows inbound on the MiG. If the first Sparrow misses, the BVR shooter (F-15) takes another shot. I would much rather see the Kfir take the shot since it is the closest fighter.

Yokes

Thanks for grabbing this. I see exactly what you're talking about.

Logged and we'll definitely take a look.

Mike