A2A Tanker Support advice

[HalfLifeExpert]

One aspect of Command that I'm pretty weak on is setting up tanker support for aircraft flying long range missions, particularly strike missions.

What's a good rule-of-thumb/technique to determine how to set up Tanker support missions (i.e. if an aircraft's unrefueled Strike or Intercept Radius is "X" approximately where between the airbase and the target should I set up the tankers?).

To have an example from an official scenario, take "Commerce Raiders" from the Red Tide campaign. In that scenario, there's a setup for French aircraft in Cameroon to strike targets in Angola upon that nation engaging in hostilities on an off-shore French task group. There's tankers available for them, but I've found myself usually struggling to set up an efficient support using them for the French attackers to comfortably get to the targets.

Any advice/sources would be welcome.

[Nikel]

In case is useful, C Schmitz recreated a flight plan for the B-2s strike in Iran.

No scen though, just the pics.







That was after the event, because he has predicted the possibility some days before.





Or from Diego Garcia/Guam.

[lumiere]

Although I have no idea best disposition of tanker after years of play, here are my thoughts...
-for obvious reason you cannot place tankers where enemy can spot/attack them. Somewhere back of SAM or fighter CAP zone, or at least outside of enemy surveillance area (radar).
-if you fly multiple tankers at the same time, flight size must be 1 = DO NOT group them ( receivers gather at just one tanker in group)
-In Tanker planner window (in strike/patrol mission editor), adjusting "Receivers start looking for tankers when down to X percent of mission fuel" and "Airborne receivers can book tankers within…" will avoid fighter/attackers flee to tanker in face of enemy. Aslo check refuel-related doctrines

IMHO Wooden Leg standalone scenario is best tutorial to learn AAR. your F-15 cannot go and back from Israel to Tunisia without refueling, but just setting tanker at the middle of Mediterranean without any thoughts results in F-15 endlessly back and forth tanker and target, or they do not refuel in egress run and crash off Tel Aviv

https://forums.matrixgames.com/viewtopi ... 0#p5214440 (or, if you search forum "Wooden Leg" and "refuel" or "tanker") keyword you will get some interesting posts)

[thewood1]

I have a sordid and poorly executed history with AAR. But this comment from above "Receivers start looking for tankers when down to X percent of mission fuel", plus tanker positioning and REALLY knowing the detail of the flight plan of the aircraft is immensely important. In the current CMO environment, planning around those details is a top priority. It took me realizing I had to practice AAR in a bunch of different configurations to get to the point I can plan a mission reasonably well.

A simple patrol mission extension using tankers is not that hard. But as soon as you get to multiple flights, multiple tankers, complex flight plans, etc., I use a spreadsheet and a practice scenario to get close enough to let it run. I still make a lot of mistakes. It makes very much respect people that do this in real life. At least my mistake doesn't cost lives.

And one more critical parameter...load outs. I think most player way underestimate how critical it is to know the impact of loadout and altitude/speed defaults of each loadout.

[SunlitZelkova]

And one more critical parameter...load outs. I think most player way underestimate how critical it is to know the impact of loadout and altitude/speed defaults of each loadout.

This is probably the most important. A lot of (perhaps all) strike loadouts, for example, will have the aircraft conduct the attack at military or afterburner, sometimes at very low altitude. This of course eats into fuel massively. I learned this the hard way when trying to attack some ships in the East China Sea with F-2s based in Kyushu; they began their attack run and then broke off to refuel before launching their weapons.

Personally, nowadays in that kind of case I will just micro-manage everything and watch the "time to bingo fuel" very closely. I'm not savvy enough with math or spreadsheets to figure out the exact parameters I would need to set to automate the whole thing, and the red team has so few tankers it's not something I have to worry about when setting up their behavior.

In a recent long-range strike scenario I did make, I just set up the tankers as close as possible to the combat zone and counted on aircraft refueling on their own in a reasonable way, hopefully with as few as possible disruptions given their proximity to the battlefield. This worked pretty well, but I was only able to do it because the red team was North Korea... in a high-end scenario, I wouldn't have (give myself) such an advantage.

[bsq]

I guess following the real world would be the best option.

Tankers sit in AAR areas (or Towlines, if you're a Brit like me). Multiple tankers serving the same towline at the same time should be stacked in altitude. Unless there is a reason to go high, don't, most tanking occurs between FL 120 and FL 240. Think the only times we got pushed higher was over higher ground where there was a credible MANPADS threat.

Calculate your PNR (Point of No Return) then tank before it not after it (unlike once when we accidentally pushed past PNR and nearly ended up at a fairly agricultural alternate when the tanker had an issue). Allow enough time to take all the fuel you need, not sure how this is modelled but 500 - 2500 kg/min would be about right. Then add in the time to RV and then form up post tanking. All of this should be at a relatively low speed, but again, I am not sure the sim forces you to do that.

Unless you are supporting a patrol area, allocate tankers and chicks beforehand, do not leave it to chance. Buddy launch with your tanker, if possible, then form up with it to the first refueling RV. IRL, this always happens, unless plans change in which case it is prudent to have reserve tankers either airborne (no tasking) or on alert close enough to the routes to help.

Don't allow the chicks to drag the tankers into harms way, they will do it, they don't care (I bet the real crews would care very much). I know it's the tankers that drag the chicks, but its the flight path of the chicks that cause it.

A detailed flight plan which includes the tankers you will use will save much heartache. The one posted above looks to be the part, the only issue I would have with it is that the tanking is too high. Can't remember the max height for boom refueling, but as I say in the first paragraph, the norm is 12000 to 24000 feet, where the plane is more responsive and the boom 'flies' better (don't forget you are 9 to 17 feet behind a mobile gas station, flying at around 265 to 295 knots)

[thewood1]

The altitude pattern is one I never thought of or heard mentioned. While you can force tankers to altitude, I'm not sure if it makes an operational difference in the game. But its at least worth testing out and learning.

btw, form up, queuing, and feed rates seem to be a significant factor and is one of the complications in complex missions.

[SunlitZelkova]

It would be interesting to know if the game's flight model is detailed enough to portray that.

At first glance I would think it currently isn't, as while fuel consumption changes at different altitudes, the various throttle settings have identical speeds at every altitude. Maybe this is sufficient for modern aircraft, but a lot of early aircraft in the CWDB would fly at different speeds at the same throttle setting depending on altitude, alongside having different degrees of maneuverability and handling. The game also seems to assume that every fixed wing aircraft has airbrakes... I've seen some aircraft that don't have them doing an evasive dive that would push the plane to an unacceptable speed in real life, but they hold their throttle setting perfectly.

IIRC I think one of the things they said they would need to do if they were to add a WW2DB is to improve the flight model, because WWII-style dive bombing (like Ju 87s did, from near vertical angles) currently isn't possible.

[thewood1]

The same throttle settings do have different speeds at different altitudes. But its in wide bands. The lowest band stops at 12k ft and the next one up I think stops at 24k. So the abstraction level might make it moot.