Late cold war BVR duel (with SARH)

[KungPao]

I noticed that in CMO an American 4th gen fighter is very likely to lose a BVR duel with a Soviet 4th gen fighter.
I am not sure if it is a bug or game feature, so I decide to post it here as an observation, and present a possible tactical solution.


You can try quick battle “Iraq 91” , a 4 x F-18A vs 4 x Mig-29A . Set up an Air Intr mission or an AAW Air Patrol mission, let AI decide the outcome.
I can tell you, 80% of the time US side will suffer a defeat. Many defeats are an astonishing 0:4.
And looking closely to the battle/combat log, the outcome has been decided before R-73 flying, US Side is losing the BVR fight.
Based on the database the R-27 is Datalink mid course, SARH at terminal phase.
The Soviet A/C can take a defensive posture while keep R-27 flying to the target, so that it will force American A/C to terminate their guidance to AIM-7.


As the below pic shows, this is a godview of 2 light armed Su-27s vs 2 heavy armed F-15s
The F-15s took first shot, but that is useless. As soon as the R-27 get close enough, F-15s will take defense posture and lose the guidance for their AIM-7s.
Now the Su-27s have the initiative

[KungPao]

But here is another screenshot, it seems that R-27 can be guided by RWR signal , is that realistic?

[KungPao]

And you can see from next screenshot, after AIM-7s lost guidance for more than 7s, they self destruct/ disappeared. Now the Su-27s can turn back and finish the terminal guidance

[KungPao]

Of course US side is not hopeless
If the player is taking US side and facing a Soviet AI. a possible solution is to disable auto evasion. After seeing the Soviet A/C take a defense posture, manually change the altitude , it will cause the R-27 missiles overshot.

[KLAB]

Or from memory there is an R27P load for that era of SU-27 which uses a passive only homing head?
What's the loadout ID?

[thewood1]

Can you at least put up a save so we can see how everything is set up? Otherwise, its guess work.

[KungPao]

ORIGINAL: KLAB

Or from memory there is an R27P load for that era of SU-27 which uses a passive only homing head?
What's the loadout ID?

No, they are armed as DECM Pods, light version. 2 x R-27R + 2 x R-73. They don't have R-27T under this loadout


Attached is the save/scenario

[Gunner98]

I believe tactics have a lot to do with this - but that is a guess.

Whoever shoots first in a SARH vs SARH battle is likely to be at a disadvantage as they will lose lock while they evade and their missiles are closer to the enemy, leaving them less time to re-acquire.

Best choice here is to split your 4 AC into 2 pair and try and set up a 90* approach. Ratchet your WRA back ~30% and play chicken-- have one pair make themselves a target for the bad guys, once the bad guys have missiles in the air, engage with the 2nd pair while pair #1 runs. Rinse and repeat, until the enemy numbers are down and he is out of BVR. Hopefully you still have a couple BVR to finish the job. You do not want to get into a knife fight with Su-27s and AA-11s as they are better than your Aim-9s

Going up against an Su-27 with Hornets in the first place is a bit of a risk. F-18 vs Mig-29 is OK, but for Su-27s you want to have F-15s if at all possible.

B

[Dimitris]

The radar variants of R-27 have a feature absent from the AIM-7 (except for AIM-7P): They can be BOL-launched without illumination, receive midcourse updates via datalink, and require terminal illumination only near the endgame.

While in theory this could allow multi-target engagements (as in Aegis), Su-27s have a very limited number of datalink channels. The main objective of this guidance mode apparently was to overcome "unable to launch because no positive illumination because enemy OECM too strong" situations that can arise in pure-SARH setups. Of course it can also help in "recovering" guidance after evasive maneuvers.

[Dimitris]

On a broader historical context: There was, indeed, a "Red AAM scare" period in the mid-90s, as the experience from the ex-GDR MiG-29s (basically that they could eat any western fighter for lunch in WVR) disseminated through NATO, and as more details on the R-27 & R-77s families (particularly the long-burn Alamo variants) become available. Still got the aerospace mags with the "Russians 10 feet tall!" articles.

(Incidentally, the Flanker 1.x sim, DCS' grandadddy, is very much a child of this era. Talk to the "old hands" of those days and they'll tell you exactly how they dominated F-15s in both BVR and WVR)

The reaction to this threat evolution was two-fold: In the short term, leveraging western advantages in numbers, support assets, EW and OCA-tasked PGMs (see how the Kosovo airwar was fought), and in the longer term investing in significantly improved or outright new systems like AIM-9X, HMDs, AIM-120D, Meteor and Link-16 as well as VLO platforms. (The Flanker family, together with "triple digit" SAMs, was the best sales aid ever for the F-22)

[thewood1]

"Best choice here is to split your 4 AC into 2 pair and try and set up a 90* approach"

It took me a long time to figure out these types of tactics in CMO.

[KungPao]

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

The radar variants of R-27 have a feature absent from the AIM-7 (except for AIM-7P): They can be BOL-launched without illumination, receive midcourse updates via datalink, and require terminal illumination only near the endgame.

While in theory this could allow multi-target engagements (as in Aegis), Su-27s have a very limited number of datalink channels. The main objective of this guidance mode apparently was to overcome "unable to launch because no positive illumination because enemy OECM too strong" situations that can arise in pure-SARH setups. Of course it can also help in "recovering" guidance after evasive maneuvers.

That's my thought. In other word in CMO, R-27 is a better missile compare to AIM-7.
From database:
R-27: Datalink mid course, SARH at terminal phase.
AIM-7: SARH

but can the data from RWR be used in mid-course update?

[KungPao]

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

I believe tactics have a lot to do with this - but that is a guess.




B

I would say both Tech spec and tactics impact the result. Technology part, as mentioned by Dimitris , makes a difference

AIM-7 will self destruct after lost guidance for more than 7s, so as soon the shooters lose the track, they are in trouble. In a very short period of time, their missile become useless.
R-27 does not self destruct in the middle of the flight, it will keep mid-course update then re-acquire target.


Tactics are also important, I am always advocate that coordinate attacks from two or even three different directions.
However, on the other hand, "no plan survives the first contact" as Moltke the Elder says. A complicate plan could falling apart, then it comes to the individual pilot decide the outcome of the battle.
Also, understanding what will happen in a 1vs1 scenario can help the player to realize what he/she is facing , then make a plan to avoid the problem.

Whoever shoots first in a SARH vs SARH battle is likely to be at a disadvantage as they will lose lock while they evade and their missiles are closer to the enemy, leaving them less time to re-acquire.

I disagree on this, that is different from common practice. If it is true then Mig-23 will be the best BVR fighter because of it's short BVR range [:'(]

F-18 vs Mig-29 is OK,

right now F-18 also need a lot of tactics , planning and micromanagement. If you totally leave F-18s to AI, then they will get in trouble in the face of Mig-29. Like I mentioned, in CMO quick battle Iraq 91. if you setup a air battle mission then let AI handle your flight. 80% of the time your F-18s will be eliminated by Mig-29.

[deepdive]

Why does the Sparrow selfdestruct? isn`t it capable of reaquiring the target? i did read somwhere that it was so extreme important that during the first Gulf war no missile should hit an unintended target and it must not ever end up in enemy hands. is that true? if so wouldnt that selfdestruct mode be removed if WW3 broke out?

[stww2]

I dread seeing SU-27s* when I have only SARH equipped fighters. In my experience, the best course of action (aside from running away) is to set automatic evasion to off once the Sparrows have fired and then fervently pray to the RNG Gods. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't.

(also, having multiple groups of fighters attacking from different angles helps, as previously mentioned).

*still not as scary as Mig-31s, though

[SeaQueen]

The F-15s took first shot, but that is useless. As soon as the R-27 get close enough, F-15s will take defense posture and lose the guidance for their AIM-7s.

Now the Su-27s have the initiative

Independent of context, this whole setup strikes me as a little bit contrived and academic. Who is attacking? Who is defending? What are they defending? Are there strikers? Is there GCI or AWACs involved? What about jamming support? Russian missiles are pretty scary that is beyond a doubt. They can kill you.

Even so, the real question in my mind is why are you putting the Eagles in a position so they they have to defend against a missile before their own missiles strike the MiGs (or at least force them to defend)?

Tactics matter a lot in this sort of thing, so let's think about the problem. From what you said, the MiGs enter the Eagle's WEZ first. That's good, but the missiles still doesn't have enough flyout time to do its work before the Eagles are forced to defend. What do you think you can you do to buy more time for the missiles to fly out? You want to either avoid detection long enough so that by the time they spot your missiles they're defending or make their missiles take longer to fly out by dragging them while someone else shoots. You only need to buy enough time to get your missiles to their targets.

Just a thought.

[KungPao]

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen

Independent of context, this whole setup strikes me as a little bit contrived and academic. Who is attacking? Who is defending? What are they defending? Are there strikers? Is there GCI or AWACs involved? What about jamming support? Russian missiles are pretty scary that is beyond a doubt. They can kill you.

Even so, the real question in my mind is why are you putting the Eagles in a position so they they have to defend against a missile before their own missiles strike the MiGs (or at least force them to defend)?

Tactics matter a lot in this sort of thing, so let's think about the problem. From what you said, the MiGs enter the Eagle's WEZ first. That's good, but the missiles still doesn't have enough flyout time to do its work before the Eagles are forced to defend. What do you think you can you do to buy more time for the missiles to fly out? You want to either avoid detection long enough so that by the time they spot your missiles they're defending or make their missiles take longer to fly out by dragging them while someone else shoots. You only need to buy enough time to get your missiles to their targets.

Just a thought.

Good question, no one is attacking and no one is defending, it’s a meeting engagement.

In fact I put these two in the arena and let them fight like gladiators. We can sit aside and enjoy the show , while having constructive discussion just like “which one is better? M-16 or AK-47?”[;)]

On the other hand , I pose a problem to everyone, let people be aware of what will happen in certain situation. Then it is the player's decision on what to do. One can change the evasion doctrine, increase EW support, use simple tactics to attack from different directions simultaneously, or micromanage everything.

I will build up EW support before the battle. Try to initiate simultaneously attacks from different directions. Change the evasion doctrine to off before SARH missiles fly , change back after get into WVR engagement. That is my answer to this problem.

[DWReese]

I have a similar "gripe" (if you will) when it comes to "AUTOMATIC EVASION" and the "SPIRAL OF DEATH." If you aren't familiar with these terms, then I suggest that you try having some strikers flee from the area after an attack where SAMs are present. Rather than make a beeline to the perimeter of safety, planes with AUTOMATIC EVASION set to ON will instead begin a series of turns in an effort to "get away from" the incoming missile. In theory, it works. But, in reality, the plane keeps turning back TOWARD the direction of the SAM. Each new missile sent in the direction causes the plane to perform the same maneuver. Before long, the plane has almost reached the area where it was when it released its ordinance. The ONLY way around it is to turn AUTOMATIC EVASION to OFF, and sprint as fast as possible, and hope that the first volley doesn't get you. Turning back toward the SAM only gives the shooter more chances to kill the plane.

As a second. but similar issue, when one missile is fired, ALL of the planes in the area with AUTOMATIC EVASION set to ON perform the turn. So, everyone plane is now turning back into harm's way, rather than fleeing. It would seem as if the ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE could use a little more intelligence. <lol>

In any case, this is one area that REALLY needs improvement. The AI does not do a very good job with this.

Doug

[KungPao]

thank you and yes, I know there is a lot of discussion on this topic---"stupid evasion bring the A/C closer and closer to the shooter" & " one SPSAM brought the several flight groups down to NOE, then they were greeted by the entire NK's AAA firepower"

Without a dedicated doctrine setting , the player has to take the role of a flight commander. set Automatic Evasion on/off at the right moment. That's a lot of micromanagement (but it is still less burden compare to play StarCraft or Warcraft)

[boogabooga]

I've made some quick battles to study this BVR problem, if anyone is interested:
fb.asp?m=4923202

I have a couple of observations:

1) The Soviets had something going back to the 1970s that the Americans in particular did not: IR-guided BVR missiles. How useful these are depends a bit on how they are modeled in CMO. For example, the CWDB models the R-23T as rear-aspect, while the DB3000 models the same R-23T as all-aspect. I'm not sure which is "correct", but I'm finding the concept of all-aspect IR-guided BVR missiles in general to be quite effective. The IR-guided AA-6 and AA-10 variants in particular seem to perform almost like AMRAAMS, but much earlier.

2) In a SARH vs. SARH joust, there is some game theory going on with the auto evasion doctrine. If you know for sure that the enemy only has SARH missiles, and that they are definitely going to auto evade, then you should NOT auto evade, so that they break their radar locks, but you do not. It's basically a game of chicken. Actually, this seems like a bit of a cheat that the human player has over the AI, which isn't going to have the flexibility to alter the doctrine based on the situation, unless someone specifically addresses that in LUA. Anyway, food for thought for scenario designers.