Better Bullets - AMRAAMS

[SeaQueen]

This scenario depicts an exercise over the east coast of the United States, near the Delmarva Peninsula and the National Capital Region. The goal of the exercise is to demonstrate the utility of the AMRAAM. It's relatively uncomplicated with only F-15Cs and AWACS to worry about on the friendly side and aggressor F-16s, F-20 Tigersharks, and F-111s in opposition.

I set up my four CAPs, with 2 F-15s each. Behind them I had an AWACS orbit. I set the WRA to shoot 3 missiles at 35NM against fighter and attack aircraft, and 2 at some of the less capable ones. The reason is, from experience, the Pk/engagement is a little unexciting, so by shooting more missiles, I tend to do a better shooting down the bad guys. The down side is that I tend to Winchester out, which isn't so bad in my mind, because it's always better to fight again. I also set everyone on a surge posture, because I expected to have to turn my aircraft around quickly if I'm shooting off almost all their missiles on one target.

My aircraft took up their stations, and shortly the fight was on. The aggressor fighter sweeps began descending on my center-west CAP. Seeing him outnumbered, I redirected the fighters from the neighboring CAPs into the center-west CAP. Soon the sky was filled with Sparrow missiles and aggressor aircraft going down in flames. That one CAP turned into a deathtrap with almost all the aggressor aircraft attempting to penetrate it, and me redirecting aircraft to it in order to keep it filled as the F-15Cs would fire off their complement of Sparrows almost as soon as they were on station. By the end of the first wave, almost all my aircraft ended up being directed to the western most two CAPs, in order to feed the meat grinder. Eventually I'd pushed them back, though, and F-20 and F-111 attack aircraft began to follow on. They were mostly easy targets, but in order to prevent them from getting their bombs off I needed to push my CAPs forward some. That let me strike them almost as soon as they were off the ground.

I ended up having an over all exchange ratio of 2.6:1, which is okay. I'd prefer to do better. I failed to defend 7 buildings including a power plant. Once I pushed forward a bit no bombs got off the rack, though. A few other buildings were damaged. My overall score was 213, a "Triumph" according to the computer.

I'm a little puzzled by the stated purpose of this scenario. If the goal of this scenario was to justify the AMRAAM, I'm not sure it succeeded, as his AMRAAM-armed hypothetical Air Force was easily defeated with me shooting down almost three of their aircraft for every one of mine. I did this on the first try. I suspect with practice and thought I could do even better. I think that this scenario really illustrates how it's very rare for a single "super-weapon" to dominate a battle. The AMRAAM certainly conferred some advantages on the aggressor forces, but it was not a game changer. I was able to successfully offset it with superior tactics in the form of shot doctrine, reduced shooting range ensuring my missiles arrived with an energy advantage, and the way that I set up my CAPs allowed me to easily redirect forces where they were needed so they arrived in an advantageous position. I'm surprised that none of his bombers were directed at my air bases, and were instead directed entirely at targets that had no impact on my ability to put up a defense. It was a fun scenario, but it wasn't the demonstration the author claimed it to be. I suspect it could be improved by assigning smarter WRA settings to the aggressor side and attacking the US air bases.

[Coiler12]

As the scenario creator, let me say thanks for the AAR. Glad you liked the scen.

The AMRAAM justification is more in-universe than anything else. To me, it was just "hold an air battle" and "hold a slightly different air battle". [:'(]

For the airbase attacks-I'll be honest, I was using single-unit airfields for convenience, and wanted to use a different target set. I do see your point on the WRA, it's something to keep in mind the next time I make an advanced air combat scenario.

[SeaQueen]

For comparison, I just finished the SARH version. I ended up with almost the same exchange ratio (actually slightly worse) using similar tactics and lost one more building. While it's not scientific, it does make one ask, what does the AMRAAM really bring to the fight over the Sparrow? Are the advantages really that decisive?

[Gunner98]

I haven't played this one in a couple years but from my experience building and testing the Northern Fury series, the AMRAAM makes a huge difference. The moment you put up some Bear Jammers behind the A2A shooters. Sparrow fall from the sky blind much more often. The other trick is to shoot at the Sparrow shooter, he evades and the missile goes wonky. Mig-31's with AA-9 Amos are great for that.

B

[SeaQueen]

That's the thing I think was interesting, though. While the scenario did not take into account jamming, and fighters did sometimes have to break lock to evade missiles, the numbers would suggest that on balance it didn't make much of a difference. I can't help but wonder if it's a case where things that matter on a one on one fight stop mattering when it's a many on many fight, because the disadvantages end up being mitigated by other things (e.g. sensors, numbers, tactics).

ORIGINAL: Gunner98
The moment you put up some Bear Jammers behind the A2A shooters. Sparrow fall from the sky blind much more often. The other trick is to shoot at the Sparrow shooter, he evades and the missile goes wonky. Mig-31's with AA-9 Amos are great for that.

[Gunner98]

because the disadvantages end up being mitigated by other things

You may have a point - once a general 'Fur-Ball' erupts where things aren't going to test range standard - it may be simply a case of more missiles is better -no matter the type. I do recall cursing when a pair of F-15s were battling a pair of Su-27 and one got hit from a Mig-23 who was in its own fight and took a pot-shot.