ANW Fighter DATA question?

[Amono]

Hi,

I was playing HUD 3 database scenario Fish in a barrel, Cold War Battleset. Noticed that my Phoenix and Sparrow missiles had difficult time downing Russian Flankers, while their Alamos were splashing my Tomcats and Hornets easily. Flankers are tough enemies but I can't be that bad[8D] so decided to check AALog and see what's going on. Noticed that Flankers were using unloaded DATA 4.5 when evading missiles while my fighters F14&18 used loaded DATA 2.0? Is this right? I'm still quite a newbie with ANW so maybe I haven't understand rules correctly[&:] AALog included.

-Anssi

[Amono]

Little manual and wiki reading solved the problem[;)] RTFM!

[Little Beavers]

If you're having some trouble with how some weapons operate, it's always a good idea to look up the history of the weapon in question.  The Phoneix for example, was always designed to take down large and not-so-nimble Soviet bombers.  Naturally you're not going to see the weapon do as well against fighters....of course the Sparrow missile IRL wasn't all that hot to begin with so the trade off might not be worth it.  The F-14 never was cleared for AMRAAM.

Likewise with Soviet era carriers.  It's a common misconception to use them in a manner similar to US carriers.  This is a mistake since Soviet carriers were never meant to be power projection tools but rather to enable local air superiority so they could launch missiles.  Kuznetsov carrying SS-N-19s re-enforces this.

[cchiang]

Amono, what did you find out from the manual?

Also, how does one evade a Phoenix missile (or 2)?
I found myself having a hard time evading one, especially in darkness (not sure if ANW calculate darkness with missiles into it).
I know that Phoenix is intended for Bombers, like Little Beavers had mentioned, but it is shooting down my Su-30s like flies on the wall.

This is how I evade a Phoenix missile (maybe I did it wrong the whole time), fly the same direction as the missile, afterburner (re-heat), and change altitude : )

[Amono]

cchiang,

I learned that aircraft DECM also affects missile evasion calculations and other things. There's so much happening behind the scenes so I decided to turn of the AALog and just concentrate improving my tacticts[:)]

Any tips how to defeat Flankers with Sparrows( and Phoenixs)?

[Little Beavers]

In that particular era?  Jamming and SAM traps.  Setting up a SAM equipped ship and drawing the fighters into it is a good idea.  Unless you are going up against Backfires with AS-4s in which case you may want to save your SAMs.....
;
Of course, the ship you send out is going to be missile bait but that's a risk you have to be willing to take

Later
D

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: cchiang

Amono, what did you find out from the manual?

Also, how does one evade a Phoenix missile (or 2)?
I found myself having a hard time evading one, especially in darkness (not sure if ANW calculate darkness with missiles into it).
I know that Phoenix is intended for Bombers, like Little Beavers had mentioned, but it is shooting down my Su-30s like flies on the wall.

This is how I evade a Phoenix missile (maybe I did it wrong the whole time), fly the same direction as the missile, afterburner (re-heat), and change altitude : )

If its the C variant of the Phoenix it may just be more capable against smaller more maneuverable targets. Was in real life and expect the Pok is higher in this db to reflect that.

Best tactic in harpoon is to hunt in pairs.

[Bucks]

ORIGINAL: Amono

Hi,

I was playing HUD 3 database scenario Fish in a barrel, Cold War Battleset. Noticed that my Phoenix and Sparrow missiles had difficult time downing Russian Flankers, while their Alamos were splashing my Tomcats and Hornets easily. Flankers are tough enemies but I can't be that bad[8D] so decided to check AALog and see what's going on. Noticed that Flankers were using unloaded DATA 4.5 when evading missiles while my fighters F14&18 used loaded DATA 2.0? Is this right? I'm still quite a newbie with ANW so maybe I haven't understand rules correctly[&:] AALog included.

-Anssi

Anssi,

You've almost found the answer yourself in your description of what you've observed in the AALog.

The reason the Flankers are using a DATA of 4.5 and the USN fighters are only using a DATA of 2.0 is related to the aircraft's loadouts. Both USN fighters are loaded with drop tanks and these reduce the DATA value of the aircraft based on the reduction in performance of hanging several tonnes of fuel under a fighter aircraft, they are classed as "fully loaded".

The Flankers however are only carrying AAMs and no external fuel tanks. Therefore they are classed as "lightly loaded" and suffer no DATA penalty during combat.

Now how do you regain the missing DATA values for the USN fighters? Select the aircraft and use the "J" key and you'll suddenly get the missing DATA value back for the Tomcats and Hornets. Of course you also lose the fuel in the tanks you've just sent crashing to the sea/earth... I've attached the message you'll receive when you drop the tanks, which also displays the fuel each aircraft has lost with the relevant tanks jettisoned.

Btw Thanks for the post, I just double checked the Decoys on the Su-27S Flanker B and I've just reduced the Decoy generation from 3 back to 2. That makes the Flanker's 5% easier to kill. That edit will be available in the next HUD3 release.

Note: The "J" - Jettison hotkey is only functional when applied to individual aircraft.

Cheers

Darren



Note difference in lost fuel. This is based on the launch order of the aircraft. Unit 10 has burnt 60kg of fuel waiting for Unit 11 to launch.

[Bucks]

ORIGINAL: cchiang

Amono, what did you find out from the manual?

Also, how does one evade a Phoenix missile (or 2)?
I found myself having a hard time evading one, especially in darkness (not sure if ANW calculate darkness with missiles into it).
I know that Phoenix is intended for Bombers, like Little Beavers had mentioned, but it is shooting down my Su-30s like flies on the wall.

This is how I evade a Phoenix missile (maybe I did it wrong the whole time), fly the same direction as the missile, afterburner (re-heat), and change altitude : )

cchiang,

Harpoon3 ANW does take the light level into account when resolving combat. For example an aircraft/pilot who is unaware of an incoming SAM, will lose the DATA value of the platform concerned. You might also want to check your fighters for drop tanks as well. [;)]

Example from AALog:

----------------------
Weapon W324 S-300PMU [SA-10b Grumble] is resolving its attack against F141 Super Hornet [2007+]
Attacking aircraft with base pK: 90%
Incoming Missile wasn't detected. Plane lost DATA evasion bonus.
Plane evading with a DATA of 0.0
Countermeasure effectiveness halved due to suprise
Total countermeasures: -10%
Final pH: 80%
Roll: 88 (Miss)
----------------------

Bad or good luck saved the Hornet in this case depending on your perspective. From memory the night/darkness visual range is approximately 25% of daylight visual range.

When it comes to avoiding missiles with I/TARH guidance, the method you've described will reduce the missile's chance of gaining/maintaining a lock on your aircraft. Attack geometry is modeled to some degree as the TARH missiles have a limited seeker range and a low power rating when compared to airborne search sets. SARH missiles present a different problem and the best way to survive these is kill the launching aircraft before his incoming missiles reach your aircraft.

By running toward the missile you're also presenting its seeker with almost the smallest radar cross section. That, combined with a sudden change in altitude will provide an increased chance of survival. In the case of a Su-27S Flanker B when being attacked by an AIM-54C, presenting a frontal aspect to the Phoenix rather than a side aspect, will reduce the detection range of the Phoenix's seeker from 9.7nm back to 7.8nm, almost a 2nm difference on a radar with a 12nm seeker range. Rear aspect is even better, however in the case of IR homing missiles, presenting the rear aspect of your evading fighters is a big no no...

Hope that helps explain the mechanics of whats happening a little better.

Cheers

Darren

[Bucks]

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

If its the C variant of the Phoenix it may just be more capable against smaller more maneuverable targets. Was in real life and expect the Pok is higher in this db to reflect that.

Best tactic in harpoon is to hunt in pairs.

Correct,

The AIM-54 is a much more capable weapon.

HUD3 AIM-54s

AIM-54A
- ATA = 4.0 (70%), Rate of Climb = 897m/sec, Range 48.3nm, Speed 2467kts

AIM-54C
- ATA = 5.5 (85%), Rate of Climb = 1043m/sec, Range 80.0nm, Speed 2869kts

Darren

[Anonymous]

ORIGINAL: Bucks

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

If its the C variant of the Phoenix it may just be more capable against smaller more maneuverable targets. Was in real life and expect the Pok is higher in this db to reflect that.

Best tactic in harpoon is to hunt in pairs.

Correct,

The AIM-54 is a much more capable weapon.

HUD3 AIM-54s

AIM-54A
- ATA = 4.0 (70%), Rate of Climb = 897m/sec, Range 48.3nm, Speed 2467kts

AIM-54C
- ATA = 5.5 (85%), Rate of Climb = 1043m/sec, Range 80.0nm, Speed 2869kts

Darren

AFAIK one thing especially nasty is that the Phoenix has an unique flight profile: After launching, it starts a sharp climb and later dives with exorbitant high speed on its victim.

Does anybody now why the program was stopped? Wasn´t there a possibility to refit modern Hornets with this wonderful missile?

[Bucks]

Ralf,

There was a follow-on to the AIM-54C. The AIM-54C++ Phoenix ECCM/SEALED was intended to enter production/service in 1990, although it was seemingly more of a electronics update as the missile's flight characteristics and combat capability were the same as the AIM-54C.

The "unique flight profile" you mentioned was a characteristic of the AIM-54A model. The Phoenix's raison d'etre was basically as a long range bomber killer (Tu-16 Badgers, Tu-20 Blinders & Tu-22 Backfires). The AIM-54A would climb to 103,500 (31547m) feet on launch. The "look down" geometry this presents, provides the missile's seeker with a planform view/cross section of the target and hence increased "lock on" capability.

The AIM-120D is starting to give the AMRAAM the range capability of the AIM-54. It reaches out to 60nm has a 9.5 (125%) ATA rating, two way datalink and I&GPS/M/TARH - Inertial&GPS/Mid-Course Updates/Terminal Active Radar guidance. The Tomcat couldn't carry 10 Phoenixes, the Super Hornet can get aloft with 10 AMRAAMs. AMRAAM wins on weight as well; AIM-54 comes in at 463kg (1021 lbs) while the AIM-120 is "lightweight" at 152kg (335 lbs).

Cheers

Darren

[Bucks]

ORIGINAL: Little Beavers

<<EDIT>>

Likewise with Soviet era carriers.  It's a common misconception to use them in a manner similar to US carriers.  This is a mistake since Soviet carriers were never meant to be power projection tools but rather to enable local air superiority so they could launch missiles.  Kuznetsov carrying SS-N-19s re-enforces this.

I hate playing Devil's Advocate (Not!) [;)]

Of course if you blindly tie yourself to the flagpole of Doctrine, you may find yourself hoisted on your own petard...

I always point to the Japanese failure at Midway. The USN's victory was more a case of individuals displaying initiative rather than following their doctrine. This works both ways of course, as a side following a given doctrine or operating procedure leaves itself open to tactics exploiting that doctrine and a side that, "throws the book away" becomes an unknown quantity in combat.

Cheers

Darren

[Amono]

Thanks Bucks. Very informative posts! I still have so much to learn(more manual reading[8|]) Keep up the great work!

-Anssi

[CV32]

ORIGINAL: Bucks
The AIM-120D is starting to give the AMRAAM the range capability of the AIM-54.

Careful, Darren. (While I agree with you) You just might turn this into a "Long Live the F-14" thread. Some of those folks lurk around here. [:D]

[TonyE]

110nm loft all the way FTW baby!&nbsp;

[Bucks]

ORIGINAL: CV32

ORIGINAL: Bucks
The AIM-120D is starting to give the AMRAAM the range capability of the AIM-54.

Careful, Darren. (While I agree with you) You just might turn this into a "Long Live the F-14" thread. Some of those folks lurk around here. [:D]

Brad,

I haven't seen anybody named "Pappy" around here lately; I thought I was safe... Then Tony chimes in, maybe it's time for a F-14 appreciation thread?

I must admit that, recently working on current timeline scenarios has really made me appreciate the massive change the retirement of the F-14 has "inflicted" on the USN's Carrier Air Wings. I suppose the one way we'll have to examine the issue is through HC/ANW as soon as I start releasing some of the scenarios I've been developing.

Cheers

Darren

[Anonymous]

Darren,

ORIGINAL: Bucks

[...]

I must admit that, recently working on current timeline scenarios has really made me appreciate the massive change the retirement of the F-14 has "inflicted" on the USN's Carrier Air Wings. I suppose the one way we'll have to examine the issue is through HC/ANW as soon as I start releasing some of the scenarios I've been developing.

Cheers

Darren

That´s exactly why I wrote "Atlantic Clash": to find out how the Hornets and their amraams perform versus Adder and Amos-armed Flankers and Fulcrums. And, yes, I too, really miss the F-14 and the Phoenix missiles.

The world is somewhat grey without the Tomcat.

I´d instantly join this "We love the Tomcat!" - group

One of my Harpoon Classic scens is named "F-14 Fleet Defender" - that is self-explaining I think

Regards,
Ralf

[Little Beavers]

I was talking to Jedi Master Paffhausen last week about the Su-27 family.&nbsp; He is lacking a proper computer/connection [figures] and has to communicate through his phone.&nbsp; This thread will be reported to the proper authorities and you will be presently 'pwned.....maybe.....sometime next week....hopefully....I think

[Bucks]

iPh y0U'r3 N0T c4refUl y0u'LL 83 pWN3D L1kE +He Re5T...

CH33R5

DaRr3n [8D]