CVW-11 Intercept Geometry Presentation

[vctpil]

I think this is only useful for a non-maneuvering target.

 

 

 

IIRC there's a Jetstream episode where the students run thru this type of intercept, fighting for their gates etc. (I cant remember if the gate numbers are the exact same, but i assume they are.) In that episode they referenced using this in NORAD intercepts of Bear bombers, or to intercept airliners.

 

 

I think if the bandit is putting his nose on you, then you're into a whole new set of tactics. I'd put my nose on him and close until I'm within fox3 range. at that point its whatever BVR tactics you want to use (f-pole maneuver etc).

 

Answer from collegue (former F-16 pilot) : this is useful in case 2vs1 intercept. The covering aircraft may take a position to intercept the adversary from behind. The principle of the stern conversion is exactly the same, the problem become the precise moment to turn toward the target.

 

Cheers,

[bonesvf103]

I would like to see the YouTube video in better resolution. It just isn't clear enough in the video of the intercept examples to see things like what is on the radar and HUD and the bandit itself.

 

 

Apparently this video is meant for non-maneuvering targets. However at the end of the video they do an intercept v. hostile bandits that have fired on you. So doesn't this lesson imply that it is to be used against maneuvering targets? And if so, then I pose my question again. What do you do if the bandit maneuvers...reset and start again looking for the next gate to make sure you get the TA such that you have 40000 ft of LS?

 

 

v6,

boNes

[Switch625]

Also, f-pole is a thing, specifically a distance, not a tactic (I know its used to describe a maneuver of sorts here)

 

 

Haha... i knew as soon as i wrote it, that someone would point that out. I was trying to use the forum colloquial term, but as you point out thats an inaccurate and possibly misleading term. :thumbup:

 

 

 

Also, i breifly checked out the P-825... wow! A tone of awesome info! As mentioned they have an entire timeline sequence for intercept along with info on when to employ etc... I gota get reading!:smartass:

[sk000tch]

Answer from collegue (former F-16 pilot) : this is useful in case 2vs1 intercept. The covering aircraft may take a position to intercept the adversary from behind. The principle of the stern conversion is exactly the same, the problem become the precise moment to turn toward the target.

 

Cheers,

 

Wait what is now? I missed something.

 

I like when people cite things their fighter pilot friends said

 

 

.

[sk000tch]

Haha... i knew as soon as i wrote it, that someone would point that out. I was trying to use the forum colloquial term, but as you point out thats an inaccurate and possibly misleading term. :thumbup:

 

 

 

Also, i breifly checked out the P-825... wow! A tone of awesome info! As mentioned they have an entire timeline sequence for intercept along with info on when to employ etc... I gota get reading!:smartass:

 

btw no worries, I was just playing with ya. That's why i referenced how its used here. It is the equivalent of an American Football play called "I can throw ball 55 yards" though.

 

The f-16 should/will display f and A poles on its dynamic launch in hud and helmet. Not sure how much we will get, but we should get a series of data cycling through F-pole, A-pole, loft angle at current range, the degrees bogie would be required to turn angle off to defeat the missile at current range (once within Raero)...

 

Also, those primary manuals are good sources of info but again, they are skills training. Not tactics. Those numbers are not accurate, both because DCS 120s perform differently than the Navy thinks they do, and because the T-17 isn't an F-18. The VMTS (i think that's right), is modelled on the apg-73 though, which is pretty good teaching aid. Formation and brevity is good, advanced BFM, CAS and strike as well, SEM is very good too but too much without some help especially at first. Enjoy reading ;)

Edited October 29, 2019 by sk000tch

[bonesvf103]

Also, i breifly checked out the P-825... wow! A tone of awesome info! As mentioned they have an entire timeline sequence for intercept along with info on when to employ etc... I gota get reading!:smartass:

 

 

is there a PDF version?

 

 

v6,

boNes

[Outlaw24]

Thanks for sharing the video and pdf outstanding job, eye opening.

[Strikeeagle345]

Great stuff, but very basic. Additionally, that particular intercept timeline doesn't really work in dcs (and I doubt it works irl as well).

 

We use it quite often and works just fine. :thumbup:

[Strikeeagle345]

Good luck. :thumbup:

 

Luck isn't needed. This basic intercept geometry presentation is a great intro and works very well at teaching the basics. :thumbup:

[IceFire]

Agree, its purpose is just that, teaching basics. And it's really good. When you employ it online pvp, you will die miserably.

 

Online PVP never uses proper tactics, because nobody is afraid of death or losing aircraft when they get to respawn with little to no penalty.

 

That's why we don't fly airquake :smilewink: Our server/missions if you get shot down, that's it. You're done till the next mission.

[Strikeeagle345]

Agree, its purpose is just that, teaching basics. And it's really good. When you employ it online pvp, you will die miserably.

 

Yeah, the online PvP is not realistic. It's basically the Call of Duty of DCS. Tactics are out the window as there is not penalty for poor choices.

 

You can still use intercept geometry against a live player, but will require a lot more work from you as the interceptor, but it does work when you do it correctly. Especially when employed as a section.

[IceFire]

I beg to differ,

 

When you train for two weeks for a single mission during one of our deployments and you get shot down, you're out until you get rescued the next mission. That's enough of an incentive to not get shot down and take your virtual life/aircraft seriously enough not to do some airquake nonsense.

 

We limit airframes, ordinance, drop tanks etc to what the boat actually has and whatever unreps it would receive during any one time. There is no "spamraam" or any of that nonsense here, because there is a limited supply.

 

Enjoy your air quake, I don't begrudge anyone what they like, so how about not begrudging what we like eh?

[SFJackBauer]

No one begrudge what you do. You are the one looking down on people that do not play the game same as you do. It's quite obvious by using phrases like "air quake", "spamram", "improper tactics" in derogatory context.

 

Anyway, "air quake" server or not, good luck with sorting at 25NM while burn through distance is 20NM. Missed your gate :laugh:

 

These guys did a great job making public something they wouldn't have to as it was originally for internal consumption within their own group, with the intention of helping newbies coming to DCS who have no idea the very basic concepts of intercepts and BVR combat.

 

How about instead of just criticizing (which is fair), offer your own contributions on how to approach A2A combat in multiplayer so we could retain more new players and keep growing our entire community?

[sk000tch]

These guys did a great job making public something they wouldn't have to as it was originally for internal consumption within their own group, with the intention of helping newbies coming to DCS who have no idea the very basic concepts of intercepts and BVR combat.

 

How about instead of just criticizing (which is fair), offer your own contributions on how to approach A2A combat in multiplayer so we could retain more new players and keep growing our entire community?

 

 

Nuh Bro...

 

Your context is a bit wonky

 

I was nice, fwiw, even spent a bunch of time to draw that shitty picture. I do think more time how to fly less time specific,kdu,e is good for most players. But without question they took the Primary flight all weather intercept publication, and represented it as their own. The pictures were straight cut and paste from CNTATRA, and they represented it as like "look at this cools shit we do" to recruit. the fact that they did not refer to the source a single time reeks of intent, as every single slide required attribution tbh.

 

I'm all for the education of fellow users,. Like I said, my original response made a few references to the source material and filled in some gaps - nicely. (Btw I'm always afraid to post links but this is OK now???) We are all better off if CAP knows what a triangle is.

 

Here's where they lost me.... Get off the soapbox. Any elitist crap bugs me here. There are legit heroes amongst us, most anon. Given the amount of shit talked, it's a good thing to keep in mind. Spamraams and quake con w/e... DCS works fine if you fly proper section tactics, it does not perfectly mirror reality, But it's fun. Some guys might choose to work through that material rigorously and practice bfm perch sets, other will prefer something different. My flying is very diverse, I end up flying with a group of four that's got a combined at least 8k hours in 15, 16 and 18s. 2 sections dominates a server if being serious (less so if 12 hour bottle to throttle rule not in effect. Other times I'm by by myself, just checking out patch or whatever. But the elitist shit just has no place, especially when you're plagiarizing the Navy.

 

BVR tactics are taught FRS, not in 37s, there's no secrets there. Just work. Worthwhile work, but work. Taking the work of actual servicemen without attribution to recruit is not cool. Had it felt more honest if it was "hey guys, we put in a bunch of time and effort distilling all of this SNFO training into something manageable for sim players, and we are willing to teach you if you've got the right dedication" or whatever... Well, that would have been much different

 

But whatev. Maybe I misread it. I'm a grumpy Ol bitch that just happens to be a good stick, so to speak, full of opinion and salt, prone to message board rants

[bonesvf103]

<sigh>

 

 

I hate when a thread gets hijacked by bickering. Can we just get back to the intercept geometry subject at hand please, as I'm still trying to apply these tactics properly and would like answers not mudlsinging. They must work to some extent because in "Fighter Combat" by Shaw, those tactics are in there as well from what I recall (havent' finished reading it and it's been a while since I looked through it and I got the book in the 80s, haha).

 

 

 

 

StrikeEagle345 and Icefire:

can you give me your thoughts on how to employ intercept geometry on a hostile maneuvering target? Here is my original question:

 

 

Question: The concepts demonstrated and taught in the intercept geometry video are being used against what appears to be a non-maneuvering target (ie, forming up on an aircraft in formation, a tanker), but what about a maneuvering target?

 

For instance, let's look at the low TA example. If his TA at 40 miles is less than 10 deg, you kick and build by going 50 ATA cold. Then you fly your gates...if at 30 miles he is 20-30 TA, then you turn to bandit reciprocal and fly it all the way at that heading until you get to 40 ATA hot in which case you turn to collision. But what if during that time, when you are flying bandit reciprocal, he changes heading or he continually puts his nose on you (TA=0)? Do you start the process all over again when you get to the next gate and re-evaluate?

 

Also, there used to be a tick mark on the contact in the radar when you go PDSTT. It is now gone and although other people have let ED know, they can't seem to reproduce it or do anything about it. So the only way to get TA is to look at your HUD and look at his nose position in the NIRD circle it seems. Is anyone else doing it a different way?

 

 

v6,

boNes

[majapahit]

This subject is supposed to be military above top secret,

 

soon men in black will come to abduct the fool that you are and start waterboarding you in an unknown highly secured prison in Utah, as if you were a disposable Russian.

[bonesvf103]

Thanks Nikola.

 

 

OK, I can understand the beginning part of the video being for cooperative target. The 2nd half of the video however shows them applying the technique to a hostile maneuvering target. I guess the difference is though that they end up with a conclusion that, yes, they can ruin your turning room and your intercept, but you will make it very hard for them to do so and you will do it "on your own terms." So....I guess just try to apply it as much as possible and improvise, modify, adapt from there based on the myriad of other factors..your aircraft's strengths, their weaknesses, weapons, ROE, altitude, airspeed, etc.

 

 

Fun!

 

 

OK...another situation. Let's say that you've sorted. You are also wingman to lead. You are covering himbut you're also supposed to be attacking who you've been sorted.

 

 

What happens if you get attacked by someone else (snuck up on your six or whatever)? You are supposed to be covering lead, and attacking/monitoring your sorted bandit. Do you leave lead to defend yourself? An F-16 guy I know said that his wings were pretty autonomous and they would be able to, but of course that depends on the context of the situation. What would you do?

 

 

I mean there is the old adage of never leaving your wingman...how and when does it still apply today?

 

 

v6,

boNes

[Strikeeagle345]

Nuh Bro...

But the elitist shit just has no place, especially when you're plagiarizing the Navy.

 

A good chunk of vCVW-11's members are veterans, have served in the squadrons we represent, or are currently underway with them. We have a few real world Aviators, even some within CVW-11, that roam our group when they have some free time.

 

As a veteran, I (as well as the rest of us) see zero issue with how vCVW-11 represents itself within the community. Nor do any of the other vCarrier Air Wings. :thumbup:

[sk000tch]

A good chunk of vCVW-11's members are veterans, have served in the squadrons we represent, or are currently underway with them. We have a few real world Aviators, even some within CVW-11, that roam our group when they have some free time.

 

As a veteran, I (as well as the rest of us) see zero issue with how vCVW-11 represents itself within the community. Nor do any of the other vCarrier Air Wings. :thumbup:

 

That's kind of you... But its not really the point. Should ask your NFO members how the academy handles plagiarism, and whether the fact that its non-copyrighted government publication obsolves the author of their obligations. Similarly, selectively quoting someone is fine but you should do so in way that preserves the message in the post. My first post was encouraging, made some references to the source document gently suggesting credit be given but didn't call it out. SFJack in the post before mine was slightly more.... direct.

 

It was two weeks prep for single mission, and "proper tactics" "air quake" and "spamraam" post was what I thought was irritating. The goal of BVR is to kill the adversary as quickly as possible, while denying an enemy WEZ. That's it... Whether A 40nm Phoenix shot or the sexiest 2-ship weave outnumbered 2:1 and flanked -Kill the bad guys, go home.

 

I'm by far the lowest time guy in our group of RL friends, and the viper driver to this day is usually loaded up with 10 amraams in a 18 because he thinks it's hilarious. He did his time in Allied Force and Enduring Freedom so I figure he knows what he's doing, improper tactics and all.

 

So again, I'm glad people are trying to educate others. I wish someone who make a campaign because i think it would improve online play and help people enjoy the product more. But, when something is clearly the work of others, attribution should be given. Especially when it's friggin cut and paste job. If it was plagiarizing an author other than the Navy would you feel differently about it?

 

Like I said, I found the "Just a peek into the cool things we have goin on!" only to present, word for word, illustration for illustration, the primary flight AWI PUB a rather transparent effort to represent someone else's work and knowledge as their own. But the soapbox judgmental attitude is what i'm criticizing, so i'd be a hypocrite to do the same. So by all means, if that's how you all want to represent yourself (and now, evidently, a carrier wing too)... then be my guest