Matrix Games Forums

Hi,

Just wondering which would be more effective, have planes tasked to A2A to escort strike package (set as escort in strike mission) or give them separate AAW Patrol mission with target area same as Strike mission?

Thanks in advance, I am experimenting with different options. [8D] Maybe I should do both... Have fighter sweep in front of Strike package having some escorts too...

I noticed that fighters set to escort land strike seem to strafe enemy units/installations... [X(] Not something I was expecting from Python 4/ AMRAAM - armed F-15s etc...

While it was irrelevant to scenario result, I lost couple of planes to that behaviour.

Not too keen on RTB behaviour of some strike planes either, they seem to have trouble defending themselves time to time, even when with only AA weapons left. Frustrating to watch F-16I to eat heatseeker from F7 Airguard etc. I guess pilots were busy updating their Facebook accounts, despite AWACS screaming at them to "wake up, there are bandits on your tail!" [:D]

But overall, game seems to work really well now.

Situational and threat level dependent Im sure. Personally I dont like to saddle the fast movers with the strike package; the only escort I would use would be SEAD birds. Keep the fighters separate and run them on MiG sweeps/OCA


/r
Mike

Fighter escort vs fighter sweep. Shaw characterized these escort types as Reception (meting the bombers on the way back), Remote (the fighter sweep ahead), Detached (positioned within visual or sensor range of the bombers along the likely threat axis) and Close (right there with the bombers providing "terminal" defense)

Strategists, air force leaders and tactical commanders have been arguing about which is best and when for the past 80 years. All can be used effectively depending o the circumstances. I don't believe you'll find any hard and fast preference for one over another (except from the aircrews themselves). As you can imagine, the fighter jocks tend to despise the apron strings, while the bomber crews are more comfortable when they can look out the window and see their little friends close by.

JD

Well, I've sat in on some briefings and attended Squadron Officer School, so I guess I'll weigh in here.

In modern terms, what does "close escort" even mean?

At best, it provides incoming missiles with more targets. Aside from that rather dubious "benefit", it makes much more sense to have your fighters ranging out ahead of the strike packages.

This isn't WWII, with bomber boxes and "little friends" darting in and out of the formation. There are no more formations. The speed and ferocity of the engagements have increased exponentially since then, and unless your fighters are out in front, sterilizing the approach path, all they can do is get some revenge on the interceptors that already wasted your strike package - either directly or via "mission kill" (forcing them to dump ordnance and bug out). Not acceptable.

This is USAF procedure I'm talking here, which presumes heavy AWACS/JSTARS support. Without that, we just don't go in. "If you find yourself in a fair fight, you screwed up somewhere". We will leverage our tech edge to the hilt, fly only at night, pick apart their IADS with TLAM's and drones, then club 'em like baby seals before they know we were there. That's the plan, anyway.

No way would we have the fighters hanging back with the bomb buses, like they were P-51's and B-17's. We'd be aggressively vectoring them towards anything that's moving out ahead and subsequently blowing the $hit out of it - Before it could do the same.

It's really information warfare now. What can be seen, can be killed. This has profound implications, and makes the AWACS perhaps the greatest force multiplier in the short history of aerial warfare.

Bottom Line: Close escort makes about as much sense today as living close to a cemetary in case you need one. By the time you do, it just doesn't matter any more. [;)]

I've found that setting escorts doesn't generally work, but putting an RP box around the strike group and setting the fighters to patrol there does.

I found that using mainly AAW Patrol, but putting some Escorts too, works decently. I just need to detach Escorts before arriving to target area. AAW Patrol to keep enemy occupied and couple of escorts to stop "leakers".

In this particular case, those escorted are actually more capable planes (F-16I/F-15I) than escorts/air superiority planes (F-15C/D Baz 2000). So, after they are free from A2G ordnance, they will be more than capable of taking care of themselves.

Great idea about RP box, I'll try that. I am still pretty new to this game

I want to thank Kondor999 for his short but sweet explanation of modern day fighter "escort". I am new to the game and I definitely had the old mindset of B-17/P51s as he described. In my playing the air tutorial I was looking at putting the fighters out front but thinking that an "escort" would be having the fighters sitting on the bombers. Then it occurred to me how out of touch that would be, that the fighters today don't need eyeballs to see the enemy, they don't have to worry about "coming out of the sun". They can see the enemy miles away, and can engage from miles away. I know now I definitely need to take some time to play a few scenarios and just play around with the options and not concern myself too much with victory, as I need to learn how the modern air/sea engagements work and how they are modeled in CMANO.

Looking at questions that get asked, the RP box is an under-utilized mechanic. It solves a number of issues with AI responses. The new option of hiding RPs has made my game a lot better. I built tons of RP boxes to manage patrols and response to threats and the RPs were really cluttering up the map in large scenarios.

Ok, I realize I sound like an idiot here, but what's an RP box? I could boot up the game and figure it out, but I'm feeling lazy

@Downtown - no problem, man. I was the same way before I went to the USAF. I was raised on stories of P-51's and B-17's. It's unbelievable how much things have changed. In a similar vein, I still can't quite "get" that a Destroyer is now a Capital Ship. I still subconsciously think of a Fletcher or Fubuki class when I hear the word "Destroyer".

Modern air warfare increasingly resembles that Rebel CIC they had at the end of the 1st Star Wars movie I saw as a kid. Not saying it's all push-button, but the current tactical advice is to avoid chaotic knife-fights if at all possible. I think it's fairly inevitable that drones are gonna be handling all the dirty work eventually - mainly due to politics. Nobody gives a $hit if a drone gets downed, and nobody is gonna stick a drone under a light, tied to a chair and have it read a bogus "confession" (beheading optional).

Often, real-world planning is all about political ramifications and "what-if's". If we ever find ourselves in a real air war with a truly competitive enemy, all that crap would go out the window and it'd (hopefully) be more like it was in WWII - where the overriding consideration was Winning.

A box/polygon built with reference points.

Oh jeez, OK that was too simple. In other words, assign some fighters an AAW Patrol mission defined by a box which encompasses the area in which you expect trouble for the strike package.

That sounds about right in terms of replicating real tactics, although we'd typically want to sterilize the area before went sent anyone in. Then again, that might not always be possible with a competitive enemy. These days, the loss of a few aircraft and crews is almost never worth whatever you're trying to blow up. Maybe that peacetime mentality has warped my tactical sense, but as of 2014 we want 100% Air Dominance before we start risking the bomb trucks.

Two comments... reminders actually.

1. Not everyone is the USAF... meaning not every country/side you may want to play in the game has those "indispensable" assets at their disposal.

2. This game spans 70 years.

Other than that... point(s) taken.

JD

Those are definitely good points. Like I said, my tactical sense is dominated by my experience. But at least I know it!

I think the 1950's and early 60's is probably the last time "close escort" might've been viable. The need for such an escort is inversely proportional to the quality of your communications and sensor capabilities - both of which have improved exponentially over the last 40 years. For those militaries who still have an overall tech capability at those earlier levels, then mixing in some close escorts might be the only way to ensure they do any good (ie at the right place at the right time).

Interestingly, it might be the case in the near future that all this high-tech crap cancels itself out, leaving both sides dumb and blind. In that case, we're right back to 1944. We never went over that possibility, which is why CMANO is so much fun to game this stuff out

IIRC, towards the end of ww2, didn't close escort kind of start to go away. Offensive fighter sweeps became more common. Maybe it was better communication that allowed it. Just wondering.

ORIGINAL: kondor999

defined by a box which encompasses the area in which you expect trouble for the strike package.

Or a box that is attached to a striker unit. Can be around him attached, but can also be somewhere in front of him, and either threat axis based or unit heading based (eg striker heading west initially, turns south, box stays west. Or: striker turns south, box pivots along)

See also the YouTube vid in my signature to see a (no audio, sorry) little click through of some options.