Supporting wingman's SARH ?

Yes pepin, if the cooperation and coordination for the timing of turning radars on/off etc is good between the two planes, it would work.

 

My argument is that by doing this, you have caused yourself the following problems:

 

1) You have dedicated yourself to a tactic that turns 2 weapons platforms into 1. If you think about a 2v2, the result is that you have left one enemy untargeted. He can do whatever he wants to now.

2) You have probably removed some ECCM capability from the missile because it probably depends on the radar tuning and receiving correct doppler information from the launching radar (this is an educated guess on my part, but it makes your missile immediately more susceptible to ECM and chaff). If the missile is using some form of APN guidance, then missing doppler information can cause a less optimal pursuit, while false/incorrect doppler information can cause premature fuzing and incorrect pursuit.

3) You cannot attack a target with RF missiles if both radars are looking at it.

4) Your radars will actually jam each other (mutual interference) when attacking the same target

 

The biggest problem with this tactic is #1; because in these older radars you cannot choose the radar channel from the cockpit AFAIK, you dedicate yourself to this tactic for the entire duration of your flight, or at least you have to attack widely separated targets. You basically take away part of the flight's mutual support capabilities. This is very serious in a real combat situation.

 

I understand what you mean, but I guess the tactic does not work like that. All depend in how work the R-27. There are two possible options.

 

Fighter Nr.1 guide his missile while the Nr. 2 hold down with radar off for a while. After some seconds Nr. 2 set his radar on with the right setting so this lock should be in a couple seconds. When Nr. 2 confirm target locked, Nr. 1 disengage and start defensive maneuvers. Is a matter of 2 or 3 seconds so is not that jamming.

 

The other way is Nr. 1 disengage at all and after a second Nr. 2 engage the target. In this case is a matter of the missile reaction for looking again for the right radar signal of Nr. 2

I've already said before there's a problem and it's not an R-27 problem. ( ... or a SARH problem ... though that's where you see it right now)

 

So, basically it's a much deeper and even more serious problem that hasn't been fixed yet (how long has it been there?). I'm honestly curious what exactly this problem is, why it's so hard to kill and where else does it manifest as well, aside from completely destroying any air-to-air dynamic on MP servers. Also, what priority for the team does this problem have in fixing (highest, lowest or somewhere around none-essential-we'll-get-to-it-someday).

 

EDIT: I haven't been following the forums on this topic much, so no, I'm not trolling and wanting something to be said that's been said 20-times before.

This tactic is even more dangerous when you use more than 2 missiles guidance. Mig-29S could do better because have Active, Semiactive, and IR. The dependence between Lead and wingman is not a problem when you use different head seekers.

 

Also the jamming is not that much when you are separate and towar to wide different radial.

Edited January 14, 2016 by pepin1234

It is a problem as long as both radars are illuminating the same target, even in search. 9.13S probably had even more channel safeguards to ensure is can guide those 77s to separate targets.

 

Not sure what you mean about the jamming ... It's a pretty big problem when you remove eccm capabilities.

Also the jamming is not that much when you are separate and towar to wide different radial.

 

 

Unless your flight elements are separated by several miles, in addition to never scanning the same sector of the sky, mutual-jamming will always be problematic if you have two radars operating on identical frequencies.

 

The problem here is not a limitation of the radar hardware, or of the missile seeker, or of the computer signal processors.

 

The problem lies in the fundamental physics behind how radio waves propagate. Two major effects will become problems here:

 

• The first is going to be side-lobe interference. All radio wave emitters, regardless of frequency or band, emit omnidirectionally. Various antenna designs are used to capture and focus much of this energy into the desired direction, but the elements used to do this will themselves radiate a certain portion of that energy back out into the environment. The end result is that your beam pattern does not look like a laser beam, or even a flashlight beam. Instead, it looks like this. Note that some of those side lobes are almost as long as the main lobe. If your flight elements are not separated by several miles, they will periodically be blasting radar signal directly into each others' radars, completely obliterating any return signal from the actual target.
   
  
• the second effect that gives you a problem is going to be phase-shifting. When two radio waves of the same frequency similar power arrive at the same location out of phase, some interesting things happen. If they arrive 180-degrees out (one is fully positive, and the other is fully negative), they will cancel each other out, and no energy will be reflected. In this scenario, your target will 'vanish' when the supporting aircraft activates its radar to find the target. If they arrive 90-degrees out (one is fully positive or fully negative while the other is neutral), they will add together, and the reflected signal will have twice the frequency of the two arriving signals. Again, the target will appear to vanish. If the phase-angle of arrival is neither 90 nor 180, the signals will subtract from each other in power while also modifying frequencies.
  

 

between these two effects, two radars transmitting the same frequency in the same airspace at the same time will never be able to accurately track and engage targets. One radar set will always have to be switched off.

You guys seem to be missing the point here. But I appreciate your thoughts. The two radars will not interfere because only one radar is on.

 

This is not a 4 vs 4 tactic. This is a 2 v 1 tactic, or 4 v 2 tactic. When the enemy is armed with F&F aim120.

 

Flight leader has radar on and designates target . Wingman goes forward using data linked target info combined with INS of his launch plane. The missile seeker head simply looks at the illuminated target and flies a course holding the target angle off boresight until impact. Just like it would if the launch plane was illuminating.

 

Now the launch plane can break off and run away immediately after launch which means much less exposure for than flying within radar gimbal limits toward the target.

 

When I thought of this tactic the other day it was like the penny dropped moment for me. I've been trying to learn BVR for SARH against AMRAAM. The flanker would in real life almost never work alone. It would always work in groups and use EVERY tool at their disposal to win. If the flanker has the numbers advantage then this tactic makes sense. If the same level of success can be reached by simply splitting the su27 pair and attacking the enemy from different directions then, fair enough, that is what they train for. But I would never know unless I asked and for all I know flanker pilots were trained to support each others missiles. When I think about it though. Splitting and attacking from two directions means that the F15 will launch an aim120 at both flankers and both or either of them will have to maintain lock with an incoming aim 120...

 

So your way both flankers in danger vs my way only one in danger, The one in danger is free to evade and the one holding lock is out of range.

Edited January 15, 2016 by Dirty Rotten Flieger

I think its just bad BVR, honestly...

 

Flank them, don't go North Korean Air Force on it.

 

Seriously, if you have numbers, get the heck out of his radar FoV and ET/Archer his, errm, butt.

You guys seem to be missing the point here. But I appreciate your thoughts. The two radars will not interfere because only one radar is on.

 

This is not a 4 vs 4 tactic. This is a 2 v 1 tactic, or 4 v 2 tactic. When the enemy is armed with F&F aim120.

 

 

The only reliable tactic with this idea is in 2vs1.

 

4vs2 also has the same flaws as for 4vs more, just one radar locking at time, you leave the other bandit free to kill any launching platform or at least gaining a better shooting position.

 

And in the worst case, you miss the shoot and the combat evolve to a close arena... then you are forced to use other missile type if you want to shoot at both at same time using your superior numbers.

 

If you have superior numbers I prefer other tactics for sure.

Buddy painting would be useful, hunting in pairs would become more effective...

I think 4vs2 mean 2vs1 twice but with diferent radar setting.

This is not a 4 vs 4 tactic. This is a 2 v 1 tactic, or 4 v 2 tactic. When the enemy is armed with F&F aim120.

 

Nothing makes this tactic superior to a good loose deuce concept (In fact, it is constantly inferior and relies on only engaging in 2v1 in all of your fights).

 

Flight leader has radar on and designates target . Wingman goes forward using data linked target info combined with INS of his launch plane. The missile seeker head simply looks at the illuminated target and flies a course holding the target angle off boresight until impact. Just like it would if the launch plane was illuminating.

Why is the wingman using a data-linked target? There's only one by definition, and the wingman needs to use his WCS (ie RADAR ON) to launch the missile.

 

A SARH missile 'simply looking at the illuminated target' without WCS tuning is very vulnerable to chaff and ECM.

 

When I thought of this tactic the other day it was like the penny dropped moment for me.

You should try dropping that penny on real mutual support tactics instead :)

 

I've been trying to learn BVR for SARH against AMRAAM. The flanker would in real life almost never work alone.

Neither would any AMRAAM platform.

 

If the flanker has the numbers advantage then this tactic makes sense.

No, it really does not.

 

If the same level of success can be reached by simply splitting the su27 pair and attacking the enemy from different directions then, fair enough, that is what they train for.

You get more success like that - it's called an un-targeted entry.

 

But I would never know unless I asked and for all I know flanker pilots were trained to support each others missiles.

We know they don't.

 

When I think about it though. Splitting and attacking from two directions means that the F15 will launch an aim120 at both flankers and both or either of them will have to maintain lock with an incoming aim 120...

So? Besides, there are ways to approach while denying a good, or any 120 shots on both targets. And you're not obliged to hold a lock (if he's defending against your missile, why are you holding that lock instead of defending against his? At this point your buddy can put the pressure on him. If you both got launched at, why were you both in the same place at the same time to begin with? Bad tactics)

 

So your way both flankers in danger vs my way only one in danger, The one in danger is free to evade and the one holding lock is out of range.

That is completely incorrect. There is not reason for both flankers to even be shot at - but you actually have to employ tactics and mutual support.

Dirty Rotten Flieger you are not wrong at all in what you say. You have your tactics, your skill make these tactics worth it. You can find pilots they do not fly the RU fighters and then they wanna say you which tactic is wrong or better.

I'm sure this tactic would be beneficial in certain circumstances. Unfortunately it can't be done in DCS, so it's irrelevant.

...

Flight leader has radar on and designates target . Wingman goes forward using data linked target info combined with INS of his launch plane. The missile seeker head simply looks at the illuminated target...

Here's where you lost me. One aircraft designates the target and sends the information to the 2nd aircraft via data link. So far so good. How does the information get from the data link to the missile? In other words, how is the missile cued to look at that particular target? The 2nd pilot has to do it but how?

You guys seem to be missing the point here. But I appreciate your thoughts. The two radars will not interfere because only one radar is on.

 

so, you would force two fighters to use only one radar between them for the entire flight?

 

 

This is not a 4 vs 4 tactic. This is a 2 v 1 tactic, or 4 v 2 tactic. When the enemy is armed with F&F aim120.

 

Which is fine, if you can guarantee that you always engage with that numerical advantage. You might have a problem with this against F-15s, though, since more Eagles have been manufactured than all variants of Flanker combined... If you broaden that out to all aircraft capable of carrying AIM-120, you get to add the 4,500 F-16s into the mix...

 

In short, it is impossible to guarantee a 2:1 engagement ratio against AMRAAM-capable platforms.

 

 

Flight leader has radar on and designates target . Wingman goes forward using data linked target info combined with INS of his launch plane. The missile seeker head simply looks at the illuminated target and flies a course holding the target angle off boresight until impact. Just like it would if the launch plane was illuminating.

 

This is actually not how SARH missile guidance works. What you are describing is how IR missile guidance works, and is called "proportional navigation".

 

SARH guidance is accomplished by the launching aircraft sending continual position updates to the missile over a missile-link (one-way datalink) until the missile is close enough for terminal guidance. This makes it possible to use advanced intercept paths, such as lofted trajectories, to vastly improve missile efficiency (and therefor, range).

 

M-link information (in addition to seeker tuning) is communicated to the missile at the time of launch from the launching aircraft. What you are proposing would require the supporting/controlling aircraft to broadcast his radar's guidance and m-link encoding information to the launching aircraft. This information could be intercepted by the enemy and used to jam the missile. It would be even simpler for the enemy to simply jam your datalink, making it impossible to ever launch the missile.

 

 

When I thought of this tactic the other day it was like the penny dropped moment for me.

 

It is a fairly clever idea, I'll grant you that much. It is, however, exceptionally impractical (at best) or even flat-out impossible. A2A missile guidance hardware simply is not complex enough to perform what you suggest. The only way to accomplish this would be to fit your fighters with laser-illumination pods and retrofit your missiles with laser seekers. However, since laser illumination is only practical at ranges of up to about 10 miles in ideal conditions, you would have to get both aircraft well within range of your opponent anyway.

 

I've been trying to learn BVR for SARH against AMRAAM. The flanker would in real life almost never work alone. It would always work in groups and use EVERY tool at their disposal to win. If the flanker has the numbers advantage then this tactic makes sense.

 

The problem is the flanker will -never- have numerical advantage on the strategic scale. If we ignore the physics and hardware limitations preventing this, it would only work once. The USAF has enough F-15s to ensure that they are never outnumbered, much less fully 2:1, by Su-27s. Add in the number of F-16s owned by the USAF, and it now becomes possible for the US to guarantee itself a 2:1 favourable ratio. Coordinate with the USN and get a couple carrier groups on scene with F-18s, and you will literally have more fighters in the theatre than the entire rest of the world can field combined. If you are interested in how that breaks down without combing through it all...

 

F-15:  192
F-15E: 257
F-16:  985
F-18:  314
F-18E: 342
F-22:  195
F-35A:  71
F-35B:  38

Total: 2395

 

 

If the same level of success can be reached by simply splitting the su27 pair and attacking the enemy from different directions then, fair enough, that is what they train for. But I would never know unless I asked and for all I know flanker pilots were trained to support each others missiles. When I think about it though. Splitting and attacking from two directions means that the F15 will launch an aim120 at both flankers and both or either of them will have to maintain lock with an incoming aim 120...

 

Yes, attacking an F-15C heads-up in a Su-27 is extremely risky business. If the F-15 driver is on point, there is no reason for him to be killed. Especially if he is flying properly as part of a multi-ship flight and his wingmen are covering their responsibilities.

 

So your way both flankers in danger vs my way only one in danger, The one in danger is free to evade and the one holding lock is out of range.

 

Ignoring the technical problems already discussed, you will never have the numbers to force "your way".

 

I'm sure this tactic would be beneficial in certain circumstances. Unfortunately it can't be done in DCS, so it's irrelevant.

 

It not only can't be done in DCS, it can't be done IRL, primarily due to limitations of radio wave physics already discussed.

I told you. Look above...

 

This tactic is not infallible. Is just one tactic the RU fighters can use in certain cases. Is possible do it and someday should be in the Sim. Or maybe someone don't like this happen?

I highly doubt you'll get it in the sim, ever - though it would be really nice to have for some SAMs.

 

In any case, focus on the good old fashioned loose deuce. There's a reason why it is the mainstay of BFM (and all BVR is extended BFM).

 

Loose deuce is highly effective if you can coordinate with your wingman effectively.

 

By comparison, 'buddy guiding' is a relatively simple thing to implement tactics-wise because it is relatively easy to grasp. It might be effective in a game because people lonewolf a lot.

 

But DCS isn't modeling a game, it's trying to model RL aviation ... so try focusing on tested and true RL concepts and tactics. You'll become a better combat pilot for it (FYI, there are some pages of RuAF tactics manuals out there ... not one of them suggests buddy guiding, but they certainly seem to prescribe attempting all the tricks in the world to fool an F-15 radar and attempt an un-targeted entry.)

I told you. Look above...

 

No, you have repeatedly re-stated a theoretical mode of engagement for which you have provided zero supporting evidence as ever having existed.

 

This tactic is not infallible.

 

Or even possible with any currently-fielded A2A radar sets.

 

Is just one tactic the RU fighters can use in certain cases.

 

No, they cannot, because there exists no such hardware which can be used in the manner you have described.

 

Is possible do it and someday should be in the Sim.

 

It is possible -only- in theory. In practice, it's a good way to turn your missile into a million-dollar fireworks shell.

 

Or maybe someone don't like this happen?

 

I would love for this to be possible. I prefer to fly the Su-27, and I would love for my wignmen to be able to support my missile after I am forced to defend.

 

But is it not possible.

This is not a pilot tactic. You don't gone find this in books. Your opinion for implement this tactic have nothing to do with ED team.

 

If they want balance the Sim and don't like implement certain options, then this is other stuff.

If they want to balance the sim, all they have to do is just make one plane, and everyone flies that one plane.

 

Same performance, same everything, maybe just different 3d model. ;)

 

And yeah you'll find tactics in the appropriate, wait for it, air force tactics books. Get over it.

This is not a pilot tactic. You don't gone find this in books. Your opinion for implement this tactic have nothing to do with ED team.

 

You have just neatly and concisely stated the three major reasons this will not be modeled by ED.

 

It is not a tactic.

It is not in books.

Your opinion that it should be carries no weight with ED, who is interested only in what is.

Wow how quick you both answer. Well take it easy guys.

 

Noop... I respect the hard opposition you both made in every Russian thread. Go and search more than 10 post made by me in the F-15 forum. The few I made have been respectful and never trying to put the F-15 in the worst.

Who the heck is putting anything 'in the worst'?

 

Do you not get it that this idea is well documented in REAL LIFE as one that does not work well at all both because of technical limitations and because it is a poor tactic?

 

This is a documented effect, not a capability. It is unwanted not because it is impossible to do, but because you can't make it work well. Engineers on both sides quite literally did a lot of work to ensure that those planes CANNOT guide each other's missiles because that 'capability' actually causes huge problems.

My god! I don't agree with you. You don't know what are you talking about, also you don't know the Russian hardware enough, this is sure.

 

Good night