[FIXED] How to prevent wingman from speeding ahead to enemy air?

[maverick3320]

Perhaps I missed it in the settings, and I'm not exactly what to search for in the manual.

When I send out a pair of interceptors and both are within range to fire their AAWs, how do I prevent one of the pair from speeding far ahead and inevitably dying?

[FMBluecher]

I think we're going to need more information to help you, as I'm not sure I understand exactly what the problem you're trying to solve is:

1) I assume they are both part of a group--is this correct?

2) What kind of aircraft are you using, with what loadouts?

3) What are the targets?

4) What is the threat environment? (Put another way, why does the wingman "inevitably die?")

5) Exactly what is the behavior you're seeing? It sounds like the wingman is breaking formation, but by how much?

Attaching a save file is probably the best way to help, as it will answer all of these questions immediately.

[Swant]

I think this is a problem also.

The issue is that in a flight of two or more, the only aircraft that will start cranking is the one firing the missile. The rest will continue full speed ahead, and as a result often get themself killed.

The only solution I can think of is to make flights with only one aircraft

[Dimitris]

maverick3320 : So basically, when any of the group is cranking/dragging (due to having fired a BVR missile), you want everyone else in the group to follow the same behavior even though they have not fired a weapon. Am I understanding it correctly ?

[Dimitris]

It would help if we had an example scenario at hand, so that we are certain we are using a common frame of reference.

[Zanthra]

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

maverick3320 : So basically, when any of the group is cranking/dragging (due to having fired a BVR missile), you want everyone else in the group to follow the same behavior even though they have not fired a weapon. Am I understanding it correctly ?

Generally their WRA will prevent them from employing their own weapon against a single target due to 1shooter per salvo, so they should at least not be flying straight in against it. Following their wingmen is reasonable unless they have another target to engage.

I think in general, whether an aircraft is guiding the missiles or not, they should crank if they don’t have any targets they can fire missiles against due to all weapon allocations being filled, otherwise you defeat the purpose of cranking.

[thewood1]

What's the real world SOP for that? DOes anyone know?

[Zanthra]

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

It would help if we had an example scenario at hand, so that we are certain we are using a common frame of reference.

Here is a scenario where the lead F/A-18 fires 2 AIM-120s at the target and starts cranking[1], but the wingman continues on afterburner towards the target. Due to WRA limits the wingman cannot fire it's missiles at the target until the first salvo expires.

[1] Usually. Trying it a few times on occasion the wingman fires instead, and when that happens neither aircraft cranks which may be an issue as well.

[Swant]

An option to make each aircraft in a flight fire one missile each against one target would help.

[ronmexico111]

ORIGINAL: Swant

An option to make each aircraft in a flight fire one missile each against one target would help.

I'm not exactly sure but can't this be set up in the WRA with Shooters Per Salvo?

[maverick3320]

ORIGINAL: FMBluecher

I think we're going to need more information to help you, as I'm not sure I understand exactly what the problem you're trying to solve is:

1) I assume they are both part of a group--is this correct?

2) What kind of aircraft are you using, with what loadouts?

3) What are the targets?

4) What is the threat environment? (Put another way, why does the wingman "inevitably die?")

5) Exactly what is the behavior you're seeing? It sounds like the wingman is breaking formation, but by how much?

Attaching a save file is probably the best way to help, as it will answer all of these questions immediately.

1. Yes, both aircraft are part of a group - I use almost exclusively two-ship formations for CAP missions or just manual intercept purposes to supplement the CAP when needed.

2/3/5. Really any. In my most recent case, I directed a pair of Mig-31 Foxhounds (AA-9 Amos SARH) to intercept a pair of F-4E Phantoms (AIM-7M Sparrow IIIs) over the Sea of Japan in the "Closing the Kurile Gap" Scenario. Immediately upon the "auto engage" order, one aircraft started getting out ahead of the other aircraft (both still heading directly toward the enemy); while the initial volley of AA-9 Amos AAMs was outside the engagement range for the Sparrows, the lead Mig-31 rapidly closed into Sparrow range (1300+knots will get you places quickly!) and entered a cycle where the F-4 fires an AAM, the Mig-31 turns perpendicular to avoid the missile, avoids the missile, but since the Mig-31 is running perpendicular trying to avoid missile after missile, it gets stuck in a loop where it never gains any distance from the Phantoms until a missile finally hits. I can delay this a bit my manually setting the throttle, but both aircraft still continue to head directly toward the enemy, even after firing. I do understand that most missiles are not "fire and forget", but there is no "cranking" whatsoever. The AI Phantoms will crank and drag, however. I also understand I can turn off auto defensive/evasive maneuvers but this is something I think would be beneficial most of the time and tedious to micromanage.

4. Threat environment is over the Sea of Japan, AWACs coverage on both sides, 2vs2 Mig 31s vs F-4E Phantoms, at least in this case. The circumstances don't seem to matter, really.

This happens so frequently (basically always) that I just assumed this was a feature, not a bug.

[maverick3320]

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

maverick3320 : So basically, when any of the group is cranking/dragging (due to having fired a BVR missile), you want everyone else in the group to follow the same behavior even though they have not fired a weapon. Am I understanding it correctly ?

That's correct. To put it simply: how do I get both of my aircraft in a group to fire missiles, maintain the same speed as each other, and both crank and drag?

[Battelman2]

100% agree that the current behavior is super annoying. Whenever I have a two-ship group engaging a single bogey BVR where only one shooter is authorized, the non-shooter will frequently fly straight in full-afterburner and often times needlessly end up dead- especially if the first BVR from the shooter misses in which case the same shooter will fire again even though they are 50nm further than the wingman who is now in spitting distance if not dead yet. This makes having wingmen more trouble than they're worth- which should not be the case. This has been the behavior of CMO and CMANO for as long and I can remember and I usually end up setting the group size to 1 in the mission editor to avoid the massive wingman micro. Isn't the point of wingmen to reduce micro by only commanding the flight leader?

IDK what the exact protocols are for wingmen IRL, but I highly doubt it involves flying 50nm off station to give the bogey a kiss while your flight-lead fires from behind you. My expectation would be that the wingman, having no authorization to engage, would remain at their station next to the cranking unit- as visible in the Fleet Formation window (F4).

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: maverick3320

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

maverick3320 : So basically, when any of the group is cranking/dragging (due to having fired a BVR missile), you want everyone else in the group to follow the same behavior even though they have not fired a weapon. Am I understanding it correctly ?

That's correct. To put it simply: how do I get both of my aircraft in a group to fire missiles, maintain the same speed as each other, and both crank and drag?

What happens when only one of the aircraft is able to fire a missile? Does the entire group crank/drag even though only a single aircraft is firing?

[Dimitris]

Also: What happens when the lead has AMRAAMs (and thus can shoot immediately) but the wingman has only AIM-9s (and thus must actually close with the enemy more in order to fire) ?

One needs to consider the various cases of this predicament.

[Swant]

ORIGINAL: ronmexico111

ORIGINAL: Swant

An option to make each aircraft in a flight fire one missile each against one target would help.

I'm not exactly sure but can't this be set up in the WRA with Shooters Per Salvo?

Don't think it works. At least I have never been able to make it work

[SeaQueen]

What's the real world SOP for that? DOes anyone know?

It depends. (I know it's completely unhelpful, but it's true).

[SeaQueen]

ORIGINAL: maverick3320
That's correct. To put it simply: how do I get both of my aircraft in a group to fire missiles, maintain the same speed as each other, and both crank and drag?

Just an FYI, one of the things CMO/CMANO gets massively wrong is fighters flying in essentially fingertip formation all the time. Depending on a variety of factors, it's probably wiser to spread them out A LOT more than is commonly done. One of the purposes of spreading the aircraft out is to avoid more than one aircraft being in the bad guy's WEZ at any time. Given the range of today's weapons, comms and sensors, mutual support can be maintained at much more extended distances, so it's not necessary for an element of aircraft to be so close as it's portrayed in CMO/CMANO by default. If you spread them out, you'll find you achieve a more realistic result than what you're describing.

[p1t1o]

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen

ORIGINAL: maverick3320
That's correct. To put it simply: how do I get both of my aircraft in a group to fire missiles, maintain the same speed as each other, and both crank and drag?

Just an FYI, one of the things CMO/CMANO gets massively wrong is fighters flying in essentially fingertip formation all the time. Depending on a variety of factors, it's probably wiser to spread them out A LOT more than is commonly done. One of the purposes of spreading the aircraft out is to avoid more than one aircraft being in the bad guy's WEZ at any time. Given the range of today's weapons, comms and sensors, mutual support can be maintained at much more extended distances, so it's not necessary for an element of aircraft to be so close as it's portrayed in CMO/CMANO by default. If you spread them out, you'll find you achieve a more realistic result than what you're describing.

Still though, that'd be lateral seperation, I cant think of many scenarios where you would want one aircraft out of a number, to charge ahead into a furball alone. At least none that arent highly specific.

[Zanthra]

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

Also: What happens when the lead has AMRAAMs (and thus can shoot immediately) but the wingman has only AIM-9s (and thus must actually close with the enemy more in order to fire) ?

One needs to consider the various cases of this predicament.

If the doctrine wants aircraft to crank for BVR shots, have the group crank together. A group can’t launch with mixed load outs, so often the weapon state would be RTB due to being out of BVR missiles anyways. If It’s desirable for the group to close for AIM-9 shots, the BVR doctrine for the group can be set to not crank, and thus the lead and wingman would close distance together for AIM-9 shots.