Excellent! That certainly is encouraging to us folks back on the big target…err…carrier.
That would be realistic. Soviet doctrine evolved fighting in an ECM environment.
It certainly would be a good test. As @near_blind mentioned, the ranges would need to be shorter. Also you were doing this all over land. I don’t know how DCS models terrain clutter, but that might be another factor. The most likely scenario of AIM-54 employment against Backfires wold be over water.
If you like you can set up a similar test with a couple of added “historic realism” features.
Using the Caucasus or PG map, out over the water, place a small career battle group (CVBG)–CVN, CG, FFG–in the “middle of nowhere”, a few hundred Nm from a coast. Start your 4 x Backfires about 300-350 Nm from the CVBG, each with an AS-4 KITCHEN, and set up to attack the CVBG group as soon as they can.
Start the F-14 about 150 Nm from the CVBG, aligned roughly down the threat axis between the ships and the Backfires, same load out as before.
The max range DCS gives to the AS-4 KITCHEN is the range from the ships by which you want to stop the Backfires. It isn’t likely they would shootout max range and there are other targeting considerations they would need to take into account, but max range is a good rule of thumb.
That said, the idea is to protect the CVBG. So if one of the Backfires gets off a shot…what to do?…Go after the missile (and answer @MBot 's question)? Or leave it to the CG and continue after the bombers? (Real world you would have some specific ROE).
If you still have a carrier to land on when the dust settles, you win!
Yeah…in real life we would be talking about a couple regiments of Backfires…with a regiment or two of Tu-16s thrown in for good measure. Not to mention the surface and submarine ASCM shooters like the KIROV CGN and OSCAR SSGNs…
…and the CVBG all tucked up in Vestfjord, with spectacular views of the mountains and islands…
…ah, those were the days…(sniff)…sorry…I’m getting a bit misty with the nostalgia.
I flew missions like that in F-14FD. Max burner to try and knock the Backfires down before they launch, usually you’d get 3 of them, then the remainder would launch their missiles and break. Now you switch to missile intercept, invariably leading to you chasing 1 or 2 in a tail engagement, hopefully getting it down to 1 that the CVBG takes out with a SAM or CIWS.
You had zero time for error, though, it was max burner from cat launch till the last missile was splashed, pretty much.
Oh, and the jammer Badgers were always major PITAs.
In watching this video today, two things struck me. 1.) The buffeting caused by objects (airplanes and missiles) is fantastic for immersion and really would benefit the sim as a whole if it could be applied to all aircraft. 2.) Even for folks flying the kitty sans a human RIO, they could have quite the advantage in a dogfight when it comes to picking up bogeys . Especially when that bogey is against the ground and hard to see.
I think there’s a real possibility for #1 because I’m pretty sure ED implemented their RWR limits in other aircraft now, after Heatblur talked about doing it for the F-14.
For #2, I think that’d actually be pretty realistic. It’s one of the key advantages of having two crew. I bet if you were to try it with two people, they’d probably be a lot better at spotting contacts than just one.
We have already “simulated” that when we flew Blue Sky - by sharing our radar data by voice, we got everyone to have the same picture on their scopes. That did well to limit our pilot work too, as we didn’t have to figure out where to go. Definitely not the same as a proper two seat crew, but you can start to see where the results would be.
Working the Bug’s radar takes some practice and not all of us know the little tricks just yet. It’s kind of been part for real and part training. Also, in some cases, I’ve been in a Mirage, and its radar is comparatively weaker than the Bug’s. Dat IFF tho…
Only thing I’m curious about, mostly to kill time, is the TID continues to update contacts as they leave the scan zone. I’m curious if that’s TWS continuing to extrapolate the track, or if the AWG-9 and or Jester are adjusting the scan zone and it’s just not being reflected visually yet.
