Aircraft won't refuel but reason not correct

[jarraya]

See attached save file. I have an group of aircraft that I want to refuel but I get a message saying doctrine doesn't allow for refuel, however the doctrine is set to allow refuel.

[jarraya]

Save file attached

[Andrea G]

Check the doctrine of the single aircrafts in the group

[stilesw]

I've seen the simulation sometimes override the settings.

Once I had set up a long range B-2 strike mission with refuel "ON" for the side, mission and individual aircraft - all set through inheritance. When the mission kicked off I lost some B-2's that ran out of fuel. When I re-ran it I checked the individual aircraft and found that their refuel option had been turned to "OFF". After digging around for a while I found that the simulation had made a determination that the aircraft (B-2A's) should have enough fuel for the mission and therefore did not need to refuel and reset the option. Go figure. Anyway, the only way I could force the refueling was to manually set the option for each aircraft while they were inflight..

-Wayne

[jarraya]

ORIGINAL: Andrea G

Check the doctrine of the single aircrafts in the group

Does this imply that an all four individual aircraft in my group are set to "no" but the group still shows "yes"?

Surely this is a mistake. Setting the group should set all individual a/c. I tried setting the group to no, then yes again, but still no result.

[stilesw]

Test scenario added to illustrate my above comment.

[Andrea G]

ORIGINAL: jarraya

ORIGINAL: Andrea G

Check the doctrine of the single aircrafts in the group

Does this imply that an all four individual aircraft in my group are set to "no" but the group still shows "yes"?

Surely this is a mistake. Setting the group should set all individual a/c. I tried setting the group to no, then yes again, but still no result.

Not every aircraft, maybe only one is set to "no"
Changing the group doctrine doesn't suffice, you have to check every single aircraft doctrine.
It's a good practice to set all the aircraft while still aground to "allow" via the airbase aircrafts windows.

[TyphoonFr]

ORIGINAL: stilesw

Test scenario added to illustrate my above comment.

There may be a problem with your B-2 equipped with nuclear weapon

When you do not allow the use of nuclear weapons in doctrine, your planes equipped with nuclear weapons (even those equipped with ALCM Nuclear) go to the target, wait until a critical point or they will dump their weapons then RTB (Called off)

When only throwing (without allowing nuclear weapons) your Strike Complex(B-52)(N) mission, the B-52 Lemay#2 will fly to target and return .It could come back because it dropped automatically his weaponry to save fuel.

When he drops his weapons you have these types of messages:

22:49:00 - 22:49:00 - Lemay # 2 (B-52G Stratofortress) had to jettison its air-to-ground ordnance or else it would not have enough fuel to get back to base from the increased fuel burn rate caused by the payload weight and drag. To avoid this situation, change the mission 'Fuel / Ordnance' to 'Bring A / G ordnance back to base if target can not be struck'. The extra payload weight will be taken into account when estimating Bingo Fuel. Note that this will reduce the maximum strike radius, since the flight plan generator will take over the fuel burn rate.

22:49:00 - 22:49:00 - Lemay#2(B-52G Stratofortress) has jettisoned external blinds (12xAGM-86B ALCM[200kT Nuclear])

22:49:00 - 22:49:00 - Lemay#2(B-52G Stratofortress) has not completed its attack but is getting dangerously low on fuel. Calling off and returning to base at optimum altitude and speed.

On the other hand, there may be a problem with your B-2 mission STRIKE-Complex(B-2)(N), which they do not drop their weapons like the B-52, they consume more than expected and s 'crush. Take the test by launching the mission without allowing nuclear weapons. You have the message but the B-2s do not drop their weapons, maybe because they are in the ammunition bay.

[stilesw]

My fault, I should have been more specific. This sample was cut from a full size scenario and in that one nuclear authorization was granted (through Lua) at the time of mission launch. Of course you are correct if it is not authorized.

However, I was specifically referring to the non-nuclear B-2 strikes with AGM-158A JASSM and GBU ordinance. Those aircraft will launch with side and mission set with refueling allowed. But after launch each individual aircraft reverts to not allowed.

The B-52s seem to have no problem when there are tankers assigned in mid route. It is possible I've missed something but I've experimented with all the settings I could find and this happened with the B-2's every time.

-Wayne

[michaelm75au]

A quick way I have found to ensure all planes in the group are on the 'same' page, is to pull up the group ROE, and use the buttons on the bottom of the page. This should update the individual planes of the group.
"Reset affected units (inherit settings from above)" should make all the group units adopt the settings.

How the layered ROE works has been around for awhile. Sometimes depending on how the group is formed (lassoing them, auto mission flight, etc) individual planes might not carry over the group's setting, and sometimes players want to change the individual planes in a group to be different.

[michaelm75au]

ORIGINAL: stilesw

I've seen the simulation sometimes override the settings.

Once I had set up a long range B-2 strike mission with refuel "ON" for the side, mission and individual aircraft - all set through inheritance. When the mission kicked off I lost some B-2's that ran out of fuel. When I re-ran it I checked the individual aircraft and found that their refuel option had been turned to "OFF". After digging around for a while I found that the simulation had made a determination that the aircraft (B-2A's) should have enough fuel for the mission and therefore did not need to refuel and reset the option. Go figure. Anyway, the only way I could force the refueling was to manually set the option for each aircraft while they were inflight..

-Wayne

When I run the test, I get a message telling me refueling is disabled?




Ah. I see. It disabled AAR, but based on actual flight details it is running low on fuel compared to some of the other planes on same mission.

[TyphoonFr]

ORIGINAL: stilesw

My fault, I should have been more specific. This sample was cut from a full size scenario and in that one nuclear authorization was granted (through Lua) at the time of mission launch. Of course you are correct if it is not authorized.

However, I was specifically referring to the non-nuclear B-2 strikes with AGM-158A JASSM and GBU ordinance. Those aircraft will launch with side and mission set with refueling allowed. But after launch each individual aircraft reverts to not allowed.

The B-52s seem to have no problem when there are tankers assigned in mid route. It is possible I've missed something but I've experimented with all the settings I could find and this happened with the B-2's every time.

-Wayne

Wayne

I understand your approach, but what I think your B-2 should not crash.
AAR was deactivated to prevent aircraft from refueling when it was not necessary.
A KC-10 takes off with 155,270 kg of Fuel, a thirsty B-52, needs 145,450 kg of Fuel.
But I think there is a 'backup system' that prevents the aircraft from dying of thirst, for example, planes drop their weapons and RTB like the B-52 (look at the picture attached in my previous post). And that without no action on your part, so that just planes do not crash. With the B-2, there is the message that he will drop his weapons and RTB, but he does not drop his weapons.
He could have RTB sooner ....

[stilesw]

When I run the test, I get a message telling me refueling is disabled?

Ah. I see. It disabled AAR, but based on actual flight details it is running low on fuel compared to some of the other planes on same mission.

Michael, yes that is the message I would also get for each of the B-2's in the mission. The initial scenario setup:
Side = "Allow, but not tankers refueling tankers"
Mission = "Inherited, Allow but not tankers refueling tankers".
When I noticed the issue I did as you mentioned and used the "Reset affected units (inherit from above)" at both the side an mission levels.

In every case, upon take off each B-2's Refuel/UNREP doctrine setting was changed to "Not allowed" and I would get the "...As suche AAR is disabled for all waypoints...". I can turn it back on manually for all the B-2's in question but why does it make the player do that?

So, I guess it comes down to why is the AI making this decision to turn off AAR? Seem kind of like some intermediate level commander overriding the mission orders set up be the theater and mission strike commanders. Maybe the budget got cut and some fuel austerity measure has to be used. [:)] Reminds me of the Navy's WWII Bureau of Ordnance's declaration that the torpedoes are working fine, it's the sub's commanders fault that they don't detonated! [:-]

I'm still open to the fact that I'm doing something incorrectly but it sure seems like the simulation is overriding decisions when it shouldn't. I appreciate you looking into this as it has been frustrating to me and I had just decided to live with it until this thread opened.

-Wayne

[stilesw]

AAR was deactivated to prevent aircraft from refueling when it was not necessary.

Hi Christophe,

Yes, that seems to be what is happening (as shown above). However, it is still my contention that the simuliation's AI should not be making decisions that override the developer's requests. In theory, the B-2's should be able to make the trip without refueling. But, what about aircraft damage that causes fuel loss or drag that consumes fuel faster. Then, with AAR off, the poor crew is going down and have to swim home!

-Wayne

[TyphoonFr]

If the distance(shortest) between the base and the target is less than the Strike radius distance you find in the DB, the AAR is disabled.
If you drag yourself too long above the target or if you make a detour (to avoid a country or a SAM) and changed the flight plan must change everything.

In Wayne's scenario, the target is at 2100nm and your B-2s have a 3325nm Strike radius for loading with B61et 2275mn with B83.
But if the plane has no target or is the A/C not allowed to shoot, it goes round and round to statut RTB (Called off) but it happens too late for B-2s .

AAR is disabled for all waypoints (WP) in this flightplan,so, if you change the doctrine of aircraft, each time it will reach a WP, refueling will be disabled again.
The personal doctrine of the aircraft must be changed if there is no WP before the refueling zone and you must modify the doctrine of the WP located before the refueling zone with Click Right on the selected WP then 'Doctrine,EMCON,WRA'(do not use Ctrl+F9).

If you do not adjust the 'Tanker Planner', the aircraft often refuel on return.
If you change the doctrine of planes after takeoff, they do not refuel to go because 'Tanker Planner' does not allow them (60% mission fuel) and they will not refuel because they have passed WPs that have deactivated refueling.

But I think the status 'RTB(Called off)' blocks the AAR

When you change the doctrine it works,the B-2 refuel to go, but on return "(in status 'RTB (Called off)') it does not work unless you ask them to do it. They go into status 'RTB(Called off)' so late that I had to get the Tanker closer to the target too.

Here is a video, I spare you comments in French:
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/426981648

In Wayne's scenario (see the save joint),I launched the mission 'Strike-Complex(B-52)(N)' with the B-52s, without activating the nuclear clearance and with in-flight refuelers, the B-52 Lemay#2 armed with ALCM will be able to return to the base but not the B-52 Lemay # 1 armed with B83 that will crush.
Yet the supply of the B-52 Lemay # 1 is activated until WP4 ​​(from which it is deactivated) then it is reactivated after the WP7 but the status RTB (Called off) seem blocked AAR.Vous can save him giving him the order to refuel with 'Unit Orders/Refuel(if possible)/ ...'


I think the status RTB(Called off) blocks the AAR and I think it's not normal (But I told you already)