Determining fixed wing aircraft AA and DF values

[cathar1244]

MiG-31: Aircraft modeled with:

* Four AA-9 missiles
* Sirena radar warning receiver
* Flares and other passive countermeasures assumed
* On-board radar
* Design modification factor of 1.0 (modern jet fighter)
* Construction factor of 0.88 (1970s construction)

Code: Select all

 
 Definition         Aircraft name         Anti-Air   Defense Factor
 
 Standard database  MiG-31 Foxhound       36         36
 
 My method          MiG-31                57         53
 

Big differences again. I don't understand the standard database in this case. This aircraft was an improvement over the MiG-25, yet it rates weaker on defense?

Cheers

Note: Data source for MiG-31 was again Greg Goebel: https://www.airvectors.net/avmig25_2.html

[cathar1244]

Mirage F1: I selected an F1CZ (South African service). Aircraft modeled with:

* Twin DEFA 30mm cannon
* Four Kukri V3A missiles
* BF radar warning receiver
* Flares and other passive countermeasures assumed
* On-board radar
* Design modification factor of 1.0 (modern jet fighter)
* Construction factor of 0.88 (1970s construction)

Code: Select all

 
 Definition         Aircraft name         Anti-Air   Defense Factor
 
 Standard database  Mirage F1             46         42
 
 My method          Mirage F1CZ           43         33
 

Big difference in DF. This aircraft has a solid punch, but not much bulk.

Cheers

Note: Data source for Mirage F1 was again Greg Goebel: https://www.airvectors.net/avmirf1.html

[cathar1244]

Kfir: I selected an Kfir C.2 . Aircraft modeled with:

* Twin DEFA 30mm cannon
* Two Shafrir-2 missiles
* radar warning receiver assumed
* Flares and other passive countermeasures assumed
* On-board radar
* Design modification factor of 1.0 (modern jet fighter)
* Construction factor of 0.88 (1970s construction)

Code: Select all

 
 Definition         Aircraft name         Anti-Air   Defense Factor
 
 Standard database  Kfir                  48         43
 
 My method          Kfir C.2              43         34
 

More DF drift. Another aircraft with not much bulk.

Cheers

Note: Data source for the Kfir was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAI_Kfir

[cathar1244]

Cheetah: I selected a Cheetah-C . Aircraft modeled with:

* Twin DEFA 30mm cannon
* Two Kukri V3B missiles
* radar warning receiver assumed
* Flares and other passive countermeasures assumed
* On-board radar
* Design modification factor of 1.0 (modern jet fighter)
* Construction factor of 0.88 (1970s construction, although a 1980s product)

Code: Select all

 
 Definition         Aircraft name         Anti-Air   Defense Factor
 
 Standard database  Cheetah               48         43
 
 My method          Cheetah C             45         34
 

Again, DF drift. Another aircraft with not much bulk.

Cheers

Note: Data source for the Cheetah-C was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Cheetah

[cathar1244]

Which "Lightning" do you mean?

P-38?
F-35?
English Electric?

Cheers

[josant]

Thanks for the clarification, I have asked you for these examples because for me these planes have wrong values, I think that the values of these aircrafts have been set arbitrary, perhaps because the designer of the game wanted to reflect the superiority of Western models over Soviet models in the Arab-Israeli wars.

The Lightning that I mean is the English Electric (This aircraft in the standard database have too high defence and AA values)

[cathar1244]

JosAnt,

Please note my first quote for the Atlas Cheetah.C was incorrect (I forgot to include the wing loading). It has been tamed to an AA value of 45.

EE Lightning: I selected a Lightning F.6, a 1960s version. Aircraft modeled with:

* Twin ADEN 30mm cannon
* Two Red Top missiles
* radar warning receiver assumed
* Flares and other passive countermeasures assumed
* On-board radar
* Design modification factor of 0.9 (1950s-1960s jet fighter)
* Construction factor of 0.66 (1950s construction)

Code: Select all

 Definition         Aircraft name         Anti-Air   Defense Factor
 
 Standard database  Lightning             46         42
 
 My method          Lightning F.6         35         38
 

Drift is more with the AA rating here. The database shows the intro date as 1959 (actually 1960), but the performance is IMO too hot, especially considering the earlier Lightnings had the less effective Firestreak missile. My rating assumes avionics of 1960's quality (upgraded for the F.6 version).

An interesting Lightning story is that in 1972, an RAF Lightning was used to shoot down an RAF Harrier over West Germany. The Harrier's pilot had bailed out, but the Harrier kept flying -- due east --, and was shot down to avoid an incident with the Soviet Union.

On the worth of aircraft in the Mideast wars. I am reminded of a quote by an Israeli general. About one war, he said the two sides could have swapped equipment, and the result would have been the same. I take that to mean a TOAW scenario should take care to rate the unit proficiency carefully. The Soviets were not supermen, but they had some good aircraft designs during the Cold War.

Cheers

Note: Data source for the Lightning was Greg Goebel: https://www.airvectors.net/aveeltg.html

ORIGINAL: josant

Thanks for the clarification, I have asked you for these examples because for me these planes have wrong values, I think that the values of these aircrafts have been set arbitrary, perhaps because the designer of the game wanted to reflect the superiority of Western models over Soviet models in the Arab-Israeli wars.

The Lightning that I mean is the English Electric (This aircraft in the standard database have too high defence and AA values)

[josant]

OK, many thanks for the help

One last petition; what would be the values of AA and defence for the state of the art F-22 ?

[StuccoFresco]

An interesting Lightning story is that in 1972, an RAF Lightning was used to shoot down an RAF Harrier over West Germany. The Harrier's pilot had bailed out, but the Harrier kept flying -- due east --, and was shot down to avoid an incident with the Soviet Union.

This is both interesting and hilarious. Why did the pilot bail out?

[VHauser]

There are a number of "hidden" factors to consider as well. For example, the Japanese naval aviators of 1941 were perhaps the best combat pilots in the world, and they flew in the A6M Model 40 which had significant advantages over every single Allied aircraft operating in the Pacific at that time. And yet the Americans (demonstrably inferior in fighting skill vs. Japanese naval aviators at that time) flying F4F Wildcats (demonstrably inferior to the A6M Model 40) managed to achieve a favorable kill ratio. How? In terms of raw numbers, on paper the Japanese should have the better aircraft as well as higher proficiency. The simple answer is that the Americans had radios, parachutes, self-sealing fuel tanks, and armored cockpits. And those "hidden" factors enabled the Americans to prevail in their F4Fs against the Japanese A6Ms.

In Europe, the Allies had 100- (and even 105-) octane gas, while the Germans typically had 87-octane gas (I don't have a clue what the Soviets had) and that gave the Allies an advantage.

Also, certain values are more important than others. For example, speed is more important than maneuverability. Each pilot sought to maximize his advantages. P-51D pilots had an advantage in visibility over Me 109s due to their bubble canopies. FW-190s had the best snap-roll capability in the world which gave them a big advantage in surprise situations. And so on.

I'm interested in seeing the results of your work. Keep going!

[cathar1244]

JosAnt,

Kind of interesting. F-22 itself is a 1990s design, but a long development meant it didn't reach squadron service until the mid 2000s. Below assessment rates it as having 2000's-era avionics. Weapons load is considered as one Vulcan 20mm cannon, 2 AIM-9X missiles, and 4 AIM-120C missiles. F-22 has radar warning receiver, missile approach warning system, and countermeasures available.

Code: Select all

                           AA   DF
 
 Standard Equipment DB     60   60
 
 My method                 54   67
 

A high DF, but if the Wikipedia article is correct, it is practically a stealth aircraft that gives a radar return equivalent to that of a steel marble. Interestingly, the standard database does not appear to credit that.

Cheers

Note on source of data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_ ... -22_Raptor

ORIGINAL: josant

OK, many thanks for the help

One last petition; what would be the values of AA and defence for the state of the art F-22 ?

[cathar1244]

StuccoFresco, the story apparently varies and may be mix of different stories (about par for the course for these kind of tales). But one version I saw was claimed to be written by the fellow who had been the pilot.

He said the Harrier "inhaled" a bird and the engine began to work erratically. Fearing he would crash, the pilot ejected and landed safely ... and watched his Harrier pick up altitude and continue on. He said what had happened is that the ejection seat launch cleared the mess off the entry to the engine and it then worked as it should. Per this version, the Harrier was not shot down but continued north until it impacted terrain in Denmark.

Cheers

ORIGINAL: StuccoFresco

An interesting Lightning story is that in 1972, an RAF Lightning was used to shoot down an RAF Harrier over West Germany. The Harrier's pilot had bailed out, but the Harrier kept flying -- due east --, and was shot down to avoid an incident with the Soviet Union.

This is both interesting and hilarious. Why did the pilot bail out?

[cathar1244]

Victor, yes, the devil is in the details with any of these ratings. When I have a set of revised entries for the equipment file, only use in scenarios will reveal if the new definitions are okay or not. At the least, anyone using the method I identified will know where the numbers for AA and DF come from.

Cheers

[mussey]

only use in scenarios will reveal if the new definitions are okay or not

Looking forward to it!

[cathar1244]

Brief update.

The heavy bomber equipment in TOAW apparently used a different rating method than the smaller aircraft. In keeping with my desire to not alter the current ratings too much, I will leave the heavy bombers alone until I gain a better understanding as to how they were rated. (The method I mentioned above generates a defense factor rating that is too high for the heavy bombers.) My sense at the moment is that the standard DB rates them as too weak, but they're typically not a critical element of scenarios, so no real harm in waiting a bit on those.

Our colleague Mr. Mussey has kindly offered to "host" air units rated by my method in an update of his Next War Expanded scenario, so that will be a great opportunity to see how 1960s and 1970s aircraft equipment interact in TOAW with the new ratings. Thanks, Mussey! Players may find Soviet aircraft have improved capability ...

As an aside, "converting" the ratings is a huge exercise in data collection and interpretation. I think now that it will be better to move in stages and provide equipment updates based on historical eras rather than trying to convert the entire air equipment DB at one go.

Cheers

[mussey]

ORIGINAL: cathar1244

Brief update.

The heavy bomber equipment in TOAW apparently used a different rating method than the smaller aircraft. In keeping with my desire to not alter the current ratings too much, I will leave the heavy bombers alone until I gain a better understanding as to how they were rated. (The method I mentioned above generates a defense factor rating that is too high for the heavy bombers.) My sense at the moment is that the standard DB rates them as too weak, but they're typically not a critical element of scenarios, so no real harm in waiting a bit on those.

Our colleague Mr. Mussey has kindly offered to "host" air units rated by my method in an update of his Next War Expanded scenario, so that will be a great opportunity to see how 1960s and 1970s aircraft equipment interact in TOAW with the new ratings. Thanks, Mussey! Players may find Soviet aircraft have improved capability ...

As an aside, "converting" the ratings is a huge exercise in data collection and interpretation. I think now that it will be better to move in stages and provide equipment updates based on historical eras rather than trying to convert the entire air equipment DB at one go.

Cheers

Absolutely! Many tweaks have been added since Beta and Cathar's new aircraft model, I believe, will make this scenario a more accurate depiction of modern land, air, and naval combat in the late 1970's. He has given me a generous amount of his time and expertise that has been indispensable in creating a better game. As we await this roll-out, I've been going over (yet again) some map and orbat modifications brought to my attention. We are in the final stretch...

[StreetF16]

A TOAW IV newbie question that may apply to this thread -- does the DF value apply to both air-to-air combat and defense against anti-aircraft weapons? If so then in many cases it will need to be a compromise.

Also -- while some modern SAMs are included in the game, there is no special antiradiation missile targeting capability (like torpedo bombers vs ships). Trying to lump an aircraft's defensive strength vs SAMs, AAA, and enemy aircraft into a single value seems a stretch even for an operational-level simulation.

[cathar1244]

does the DF value apply to both air-to-air combat and defense against anti-aircraft weapons?

Yes, it does.

Cheers