Attacking a fighter plane with superior range?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Attacking a fighter plane with superior range?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Attacking a fighter plane with superior range?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Attacking a fighter plane with superior range? - 5/18/2019 11:51:45 AM

goldfinger35

Posts: 93
Joined: 1/1/2009
Status: offline

I need an advice:
I have AWACS, Harriers and F-18s, equipped with AMRAAM (range 40nm)
Enemy has AWACS and F-16s with Sparrow (range 55nm).
If enemy didn�t have AWACS, I would bait him with Harrier with radar on and approach him from the side/rear with F-18 with radar off and attack with F-18 when in missile range.
But how to solve this when enemy has AWACS and range advantage?

Post #: 1

RE: Attacking a fighter plane with superior range? - 5/18/2019 1:28:00 PM

AndrewJ

Posts: 2015
Joined: 1/5/2014
Status: offline

It's a tricky situation.

Are they firing Sparrows at the full 55nm?

If they are, I'd try to get them to commit to an engagement on some of my aircraft at extreme range, and then turn and run with those. If you time it right you may actually be able to outrun their missiles, or get low enough that their missiles lose range and run out of fuel in the dense atmosphere (caution: not always very effective against a lofting missile). Additionally, if you're low you put yourself in the most agile position while the enemy missile is suffering range penalties. While the Sparrows are guiding in on your first planes, the other F-18s can try and make a high altitude burner dash into range and make their own engagements.

If they're holding fire to wait for better hit chances at closer range, then you may be able to get an AMRAAM into the air at about the same time they launch their Sparrows. If you've both shot at about the same time, immediately cut throttles and crank, to reduce your rate of closure. If they're auto-evading, then you will have the advantage, as a single missile inbound will often make them flinch as they turn to beam the incoming missile. Try and steer so that when they turn away from your missile, you are heading outside their illumination arc. If that works then their missile loses lock and goes ballistic, while your active radar missile is still inbound and effective.

Depending on the terrain, you might also look at opportunities to approach under cover of an escarpment or mountain range.

If you have noise jammers (OECM) that might give you a few extra miles of free approach, but you have to be right on the line between the jammer and the illuminator. The jammer doesn't have to be in an airplane. Sometimes you can pull this off with a jammer on a ship.

(in reply to goldfinger35)

Post #: 2

RE: Attacking a fighter plane with superior range? - 5/18/2019 1:47:43 PM

DismalPseudoscience

Posts: 53
Joined: 10/10/2014
Status: offline

I agree fully with AndrewJ's answer, with only a couple things to add (or maybe just say differently):

1. This isn't true in all matches, but specifically for enemy F-16s with Sparrows, your F-18s will probably have superior radar performance. I am pretty sure (though you should check for your specific case) that all Sparrow-armed F-16s have mediocre ~60nm headline range radars. This means (as AndrewJ alluded to above) that they probably cannot employ Sparrow at max range, because they need to be somewhat closer than the headline range to successfully lock and illuminate for the Sparrow. I ran a quick test of Egyptian F-16 (1989? model) vs Australian F-18 with 40nm AMRAAM, and the Egyptian plane only illuminated the Hornet successfully at 40nm.

2. Bringing ARH (AMRAAM) vs SARH (Sparrow) gives you a huge advantage even if absolute range is shorter. SARH missiles tend to lose illumination when aimed at low-altitude targets, especially if there is a large altitude difference between shooter and target. The need for SARH to maintain guidance means an ARH opponent can always win the game of "BVR Chicken" when both shoot at close to the same time. If you manually control (turn off auto-evasion) you (with ARH) can fly straight at the incoming SARH missile, and the SARH plane will evade and lose lock when your missile gets within ~10-15 miles of him. So as long as you shoot within a couple seconds of your opponent, you should always win the exchange.

(in reply to AndrewJ)

Post #: 3

RE: Attacking a fighter plane with superior range? - 5/18/2019 8:29:51 PM

goldfinger35

Posts: 93
Joined: 1/1/2009
Status: offline

Thank you for the advices. I also went for their AWACS to increase my odds.

(in reply to DismalPseudoscience)

Post #: 4

RE: Attacking a fighter plane with superior range? - 5/19/2019 11:09:04 AM

slimatwar

Posts: 52
Joined: 1/20/2017
Status: offline

All these info for A2A combat is useful guys.My personal opinion is that all this micromanagement of air fighting, limits somehow the strategic character of the game and makes it look like a combat flight sim game,but CMANO shouldn't be such a game.

(in reply to goldfinger35)

Post #: 5

RE: Attacking a fighter plane with superior range? - 5/19/2019 3:08:30 PM

ARCNA442

Posts: 155
Joined: 4/7/2018
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: slimatwar

All these info for A2A combat is useful guys.My personal opinion is that all this micromanagement of air fighting, limits somehow the strategic character of the game and makes it look like a combat flight sim game,but CMANO shouldn't be such a game.

I would argue that despite the marketing CMANO is almost entirely a tactical game. Scenario times are measured in hours and many key strategic/operational actions like managing fuel/munitions or maintaining/repairing aircraft and ships are barely modeled, while tactical actions down to things like dropping individual sonobouys or controlling defensive machine gun fire are highly detailed.

(in reply to slimatwar)

Post #: 6

RE: Attacking a fighter plane with superior range? - 5/19/2019 3:34:43 PM

Dimitris

Posts: 12796
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: ARCNA442
I would argue that despite the marketing CMANO is almost entirely a tactical game. Scenario times are measured in hours and many key strategic/operational actions like managing fuel/munitions or maintaining/repairing aircraft and ships are barely modeled, while tactical actions down to things like dropping individual sonobouys or controlling defensive machine gun fire are highly detailed.

I have to disagree on this.

* Detailed turn-around times and surge/sustained settings.
* Weapon management & replenishment (all units).
* Fuel management & replenishment (all units except aircraft on land bases).
* Withdrawal & redeployment doctrine settings for ships/subs/land units.
* Detailed mission settings for long-running missions (repeated strikes, patrols, ferry/shuttle, support missions like AEW, tanker etc.)
* Global-scale navigation/pathfinding
* Satellites (incl. strategic SIGINT/IMINT) and strategic-range weapons
* Scenarios can last months or even years IIRC. (Whether that's a good idea is another matter altogether)
* Large number of sides with complex alliances & postures possible (again not always a good idea but it's there).
* Powerful scripting API allowing modelling higher-level strategic/political factors & events affecting ops (lots of examples in the Command-LIVE series and numerous community scenarios).
* Theater-level ISR (e.g. recon on airbases/ports).
* Operational repercussions of tactical actions (e.g. disrupt airbase ops by knocking out specific facilities, or punch a hole in an IADS which will be exploited by follow-on strike missions).

Few if any of the above (and others) are present or necessary in a purely tactical game.

CMANO starts from low-level tactical and steadily builds up in scale. That's a large part of its appeal to both civilian and professional customers.

< Message edited by Dimitris -- 5/19/2019 4:55:05 PM >

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to ARCNA442)

Post #: 7

RE: Attacking a fighter plane with superior range? - 5/19/2019 3:42:07 PM

Dimitris

Posts: 12796
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: slimatwar
All these info for A2A combat is useful guys.My personal opinion is that all this micromanagement of air fighting, limits somehow the strategic character of the game and makes it look like a combat flight sim game,but CMANO shouldn't be such a game.

Micromanagement is an option but should not be a mandatory path to victory. Plenty of scenarios out there where a properly-configured AI puts up a good fight, even with less-than-topline hardware.

CMANO's concept is "give broad outlines via missions (and scripting if you want to super-tweak), sit back, watch stuff happen, and still be able to jump in wherever you want to micromanage".

Let's say you play a theater-scale engagement, and you slow down time for a few mins to personally manage a dogfight that for whatever reason picks your interest. Then you accelerate time again, until conclusion. Did your personal intervention in that dogfight diminish Command's overall theater scale? I think not.

< Message edited by Dimitris -- 5/19/2019 5:19:45 PM >

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to slimatwar)

Post #: 8

RE: Attacking a fighter plane with superior range? - 5/19/2019 5:39:09 PM

ARCNA442

Posts: 155
Joined: 4/7/2018
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

CMANO starts from low-level tactical and steadily builds up in scale. That's a large part of its appeal to both civilian and professional customers.

I may be using a somewhat broader definition of the tactical level than you are, but I think this line actually reflects my position. CMANO is an incredible game and has the potential to model even a full scale global war. But 90% of the focus is on the tactical level and trying to push into the operational and strategic levels requires exponentially more effort from the scenario designer. Even the most ambitious large-scale campaigns recognize this fact, and are divided into numerous short tactical scenarios rather than attempting to build a single strategic scenario.

I've been thinking about trying to build a limited US-China campaign - now I'm considering seeing if I can push CMANO and build a month long scenario.

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 9