weren't you saying that the interceptors were undetected because the AWACS couldn't see them at Low or VLow altitudes... and fighters stationed at Low altitudes would not detect them, either?

 

I said:

 

The air search radar covers all altitudes low and above (iirc). If the AEW unit also has a surface search radar, that covers VL and surface targets. One AEW does it all, assuming it has those radars.

 

The only additional hiding the AI planes do is to travel at low altitudes to benefit from horizon effects.

My assumption (previously) had been that an aircraft such as a Hawkeye or Sentry has both air and surface radars (along with other sensors) and so when it is at its normal altitude it should pretty well cover anything that approaches at any altitude (well, except for subs of course)... and that there would be variation in the detection range based on factors such as size, speed, altitude, and RCS of the "subject". I also had assumed that the normal (high) altitude of these types would provide at least some degree of over-the-horizon coverage.

 

But, then it was postulated that the various non-stealthy aircraft that were sneaking up on my AEW and EW assets from time to time were doing so by approaching at Low or VLow altitude, and that picket groups such as fighters at Low altitiude are of little use in detecting these "sea-skimmers". Hence, my new assumption that the only viable way to counter these "sea skimmers" would be to deploy the long-range air radars of AEW types at all altitudes... not that it's practical to do so, but it sounded like there was no other way to detect those.

 

I haven't been aware of intercepts being launched from formation patrols.

 

The computer does it all the time. You can do it too. Select an enemy group. Order an intercept. If your base formation planes have the range and weapons to do the job, they will volunteer.

Whenever I've tried it, I just get the "We are out of range" message.

 

the interceptors ... would have been well within the radar range of various "pickets" arrayed near the AWACS (within about 100 nm, at various bearings).

 

Picket ships out in front with radar energized are not long for this world. Ditto for picket fighters. Are you doing this with your fighters? If the picket fighters are trying to hide, they won't see much. Which one are you doing?

I typically place fighter patrols, air recon patrols, and even ships at times, in the areas of expected routes of ingress by these sneak-attack AI interceptors. I think I described this previously, but typically, these are arrayed in (and/or are patrolling) the area roughly within the range of the AEW's air radar, but are mainly at low altitude - for two reasons: First, on the hope of reducing their detectability by AI bases and groups, and second, in an attempt to detect "sea-skimmers", on the theory that my groups' air search radars may detect only within their own altitude band - so to detect low-fliers, my patrols ("pickets") must be at Low altitude. Sometimes, these groups have their radars off - but that is usually only when they are waiting in ambush for some detected target. Normally, I set them up with intermittant radar at assorted cycle times - in the hopes of confusing/surprizing any approaching enemy.

 

 

OK, first off let me clarify that I'm not speaking to the case where the RA-5Cs or Hawkeyes (or other groups for that matter) were anywhere near the indicated radar range of the ground radar... I mean, perhaps 2x or more away. That's why it is so puzzling that the MiG-17s showed up "unannounced": It's a "double whammy" puzzle, where on the one hand, the AI could detect the RA-5Cs and other groups at spots well beyond any AI radar, and on the other hand, the friendly units could not detect the MiG-17s until they opened fire. There seemed to be some gross inconsistency there.

 

I think that's just wrong. The Vietnamese radars extend well out into the Gulf of Tonkin. And a Vigilante is quite large. The Hawkeyes, with radar energized most certainly are seen. There is no inconsistency. The Hawkeyes are the least stealthy units in the scenario. The MiG-17s are the most stealthy.

I dunno: Although the Hawkeyes and RA-5Cs and such may stick out like neon signs, it seems to me that some AI unit or base still would have to be close enough to see those "signs"... and as far as I can tell, they are well out of range. On the other hand, the AI units remain undetectable by any means (air- or ship-borne radar, ESM, visuals) even when player's units are virtually tripping over them.

 

But the thing that's particularly puzzling are the cases where a detected AI group is on course to engage a particular player's group that is well beyond any AI radar range. I see them coming 100-200 nm out, so I turn off the target's radar, drop it to Low or even VLow altitude, then send it on an evasion course. Meanwhile, I'm watching the AI's group via other nearby player's groups, and can track it when it's radar is active. It is always able to track its target, despite the target going Low and quiet and taking an evasive course. This really seems inconsistent considering that my units can't track the AI unit unless it is using its radars, even when they are quite close to each other. And in many cases, the player's groups presumably have superior radar and sensors. It's all very puzzling.

...

 

Regarding the bridge scenario specifically, I would say that all Ameerican planes were detected even well beyond (2x or more) the indicated radar range of the Viet Namese radars... and it appeared that the only times the MiG-17s would be detected - at any distance - was when they activated their own radar, or when they opened fire.

 

The only way for the American planes to get 2x outside the Vietnamese radar range is to fly SE from the carrier! Just look at this screen shot:

 

http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww33/Vi...ridge/brdgA.png

I was referring to 2x the radius of the AI bases' range circles. In the game I played, I distinctly recall that I placed a stationary Hawkeye between the carrier group and the AI bases, as well as patrolling Hawkeyes, one about 150 nm directly North of the carrier group, and the radar range circles for the Hawkeyes did not reach the radar range circles for the bases, and thus my "territory" seemed to be at least 2x the radius of the AI bases' range circles. I also placed RA-5Cs near the Hawkeyes, to augment the recon, as well as to triangulate any detected AI units. The AI regularly vectored MiGs to attack the RA-5Cs, and sometimes the Hawkeyes, in these locations. My assumptions were:

 

1. The AI should not be able to "fix" these groups due to the distance involved.

2. The MiGs should not be able to track these groups due to their distance away from the AI's ground radars (at least not without revealing themselves).

3. Radar or ESM detection should trump visual detection.

4. The Hawkeyes ought to be able to detect the MiGs via radar and/or other sensors.

5. Short-range visual detection by each side should be at least in the same ballpark.

 

Apparently, none of these assumptions were valid... but I remain puzzled about why.

 

Mig-17Fs have no radar whatsoever.

Which makes me wonder how they were so adept at finding and attacking my air groups, under the circumstances.

Based on the discussions we have been having here over the past several days, and speaking specifically about the Thanh Hoa Bridge scenario, I can confidently make the following statements:

 

1) I humbly state that I am an expert on that scenario.

2) The Americans should be able to win that scenario and lose nothing at all, except perhaps a maximum of 2 ground attack planes.

3) I describe the scenario in gory detail in my AAR.

(http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2104380)

4) Harpoon functions exactly as intended.

5) There are certain difficulties in that scenario, none of which is insurmountable.

6) Joe, all of the effects that you have described that suggest to you that there is something wrong with Harpoon or the way Harpoon works on your computer merely show that Harpoon is working correctly, and (don't take this the wrong way) that you are either misinterpreting some game information or using your assets in risky and inappropriate ways. If you don't believe me, study my AAR, and using it as a walkthrough, try to duplicate what I did. If you cannot duplicate my results, then either take some screenshots or save some games and send them over for us to analyze. But I am confident that you will get the same results as me.

I have played that scenario several times, including one time when I generally followed your AAR - although I admit that I experimented with some various deviant tactics when I got some unexpected results.

 

The difficulties that I experienced in playing that particular scenario fell into these general categories:

1. The AI detected virtually every air move I made, at any range, while it was extremely difficult (near impossible) for me to detect the AI's air assets (except when they activated their radars) even at close range.

2. The Sparrows were generally ineffective against the MiGs, so the best result I could achieve was to drive them off by lobbing missiles at them. But if they didn't chicken out, then all the Phantoms could do was turn tail. This made the Phantoms generally useless in the scenario. Fortunately, the Sidewinders were more effective, but still allowed the MiGs to get close enough to inflict damage.

3. Although I was able to detect surface AD units fairly well with the aid of the RA-5Cs, it was very costly to actually knock them out because I was unable to attack AD units without hard fixes using the allowed weapons, and I could get hard fixes only at suicidally close ranges.

4. The B-52s were suicidal unless the MiGs had been wiped out and all nearby AD units had been destroyed... so it was less costly to attack the bridge with A-6s and A-7s.

Going back to an earlier topic of this discussion I have difficulty in utillizinf HARM missles. My greatest problem was in the Backyard scenario. I could have a exact fix on a AD unit by ESM and if I attacked with an exact fix I had a good chance of sucess with the attack. If the fix degraded by the smallest amount, the unit map showing the slightest uncertany, the HARMs were guaranteed to miss. I have worked around this issue by only launching with an exact fix. I am puzzled however because it was my understanding that the HARMs are designed to home on on an operating radar, which the AD units still seemed to be radiating in this case. It seems to me that I should have a fair chance of hitting the target if the target continues to radiate. Is my assumption of the real world functioning of these weapons incorrect? Are they not designed to function this way in the game, or is the game not functioning correctly in this area.

Going back to an earlier topic of this discussion I have difficulty in utillizinf HARM missles. My greatest problem was in the Backyard scenario. I could have a exact fix on a AD unit by ESM and if I attacked with an exact fix I had a good chance of sucess with the attack. If the fix degraded by the smallest amount, the unit map showing the slightest uncertany, the HARMs were guaranteed to miss. I have worked around this issue by only launching with an exact fix. I am puzzled however because it was my understanding that the HARMs are designed to home on on an operating radar, which the AD units still seemed to be radiating in this case. It seems to me that I should have a fair chance of hitting the target if the target continues to radiate. Is my assumption of the real world functioning of these weapons incorrect? Are they not designed to function this way in the game, or is the game not functioning correctly in this area.

 

The AD units in question are cycling their radars on and off. When you have a solid lock red icon, the radar is on and your HARMs can track. When the icon goes yellow and your lock goes fuzzy, it's usually because you were only holding the lock by ESM, not hard detection, and the AD unit has just shut off its radar, leaving nothing for your HARMs to track. Only launching with the exact fix is the right thing to do, because that's probably the only time your chosen target is actually radiating. Your understanding of how HARMs work is correct, I think where you are having trouble is your assumption that the AD units are continuously radiating. They aren't. The nearby search radars are generally always on, but the AD units themselves only radiate intermittently, to make SEAD harder. Since the AD units themselves are so small, they are virtually impossible to detect directly at more than 5 or 6 miles. Almost all detections at more than that range will be by ESM ONLY. So, no, your understanding of HARMs is correct, and as long as they have a radiating target they do fairly well, but unless you've got that solid red icon with no uncertainty, you don't have a radiating target, which is why your HARMs miss.

Going back to an earlier topic of this discussion I have difficulty in utillizinf HARM missles. My greatest problem was in the Backyard scenario. I could have a exact fix on a AD unit by ESM and if I attacked with an exact fix I had a good chance of sucess with the attack. If the fix degraded by the smallest amount, the unit map showing the slightest uncertany, the HARMs were guaranteed to miss. I have worked around this issue by only launching with an exact fix. I am puzzled however because it was my understanding that the HARMs are designed to home on on an operating radar, which the AD units still seemed to be radiating in this case. It seems to me that I should have a fair chance of hitting the target if the target continues to radiate. Is my assumption of the real world functioning of these weapons incorrect? Are they not designed to function this way in the game, or is the game not functioning correctly in this area.

 

Your understanding of real life HARM function is correct, but there is a limitation in the current GE code that prevents anti-radar missiles (ARMs) from working effectively in the BOL mode.

The key piece of information I need is whether radars are air search or surface search. I just went through all the battlesets and it turns out that all of them give me this information via Platform Display, except the 4 EC'03 Battlesets and Westpac. There, that information has been removed, and because i cannot possibly remember it for all the units or even a small fraction of them, my only recourse is to load a scenario, launch all the planes, look at their range circles, write it all down, and reload the scenario.

 

Most of the radars and their platforms are fairly intuitive ...

 

Fighters generally have air search radars, with many modern types also having surface search modes

Reconnaissance and strike aircraft generally have surface search radars

Airborne early warning aircraft generally have both

 

... but if you need a lot of detail, then look to the Platform Editor or maybe Google.

 

It's the ambiguity that's the problem: fairly ... generally ... many

 

Detection is arguably the most important aspect of the game. When you're reviewing your assets at the beginning of a scenario and formualting a plan, or in general at any time, you need to know what they can do. Radar range is,of course, crucial. But the third dimension is also crucial.

 

Now most of the people reading this are experts in the military systems in question and/or the game. You know this stuff inside out. But there are other people as well, noobs you might call them, and people like me who are somewhere in the middle. And I think you are trying to reach these people as well. Yes, in principle, we could go research all the units to figure out what they can do. But it is not reasonable to expect us to do so. We are talking about a crucial piece of information here, not a minor detail. This information needs to be available in-game, with just a few mouse clicks. It's a question of playability.

 

And here's the rub: it used to be available. Every radar used to have AS, SS, or something more complicated written beside its name in the platform display. At some point, someone decided to remove it. I think that this was a mistake.

A few questions:

 

1. What is the actual function/purpose of ALT-3 "Nuke 'em"? Is that a general override for nuclear release, or...?

 

2. What is the purpose of the O command, and when can it be used? (I couldn't see that it did anything).

 

3. Is there any difference between I and ALT-I? (They are listed as though they do the same thing, and it appears that they do, so I am curious if there is some subtle reason for the two forms).

 

ALT-3 allows you to launch your nukes without authorization, Captain Ramsey.

 

O doesn't appear to do anything in most scenarios. It only applies if the victory conditions require you to keep units "on station" somewhere. Try it in one of those scenarios (eg. WestPac 11 Oubliette).

 

I, ALT-I do exactly the same thing. Don't ask me why, I just work here. There are several of these multiple-choice commands.

Now, maybe I'm wrong, but my assumption is that the MiGs ought to be detectable via radar when they approach the US air groups - especially the Hawkeyes - even when the MiGs aren't using radar.

 

Detectable, yes. Always detected or always detectable at a safe distance, no.

OK, but what circumstances would cause them to remain undetected consistently until they get within their gun range?

 

I'd also assume that the RA-5Cs' SS radar would be able to detect the MiGs, even though the MiGs are approaching at lower altitudes... or that the MiGs would be detectable via some other of the "magical" sensors of the RA-5Cs... yet they weren't.

 

No, surface search radars will not detect airborne targets unless they (the targets) are flying at Very low (Vlow) altitude. ...

I thought the thesis in this case was that the MiGs were not detected by the Phantoms and Hawkeyes because the MiGs were approaching at Low or VLow, which I assumed would mean that the RA-5Cs S-S radar would be able to detect them?

 

In any case, the bottom line is the question of how they can regularly fly by ships, Phantoms (at various altitudes) and a Hawkeye or three, and yet still track and approach an RA-5C totally undetected by any of those player's platforms. It just doesn't seem plausible.

 

Let me be perfectly plain.

 

I don't believe they're doing this. Not when I play the game. Not when anyone plays the game. If you think you're observing these effects, then I say plainly that you're probably doing the measurement wrong.

 

We are speaking specifically about the Thanh Hoa Bridge scenario.

 

I have said that the MiG-17Fs behaved as though they had the Romulan cloaking device. Now obviously, this is an allegory. I have also offered an explanation. Without repeating myself again, I will point out that proper positioning of the American assets in the air superiority phase of the scenario has the Phantoms about 40 nm in front of the Hawkeyes along reasonable bearings. The Phantoms are low and radar silent. The Hawkeyes are high and actively radiating. The Vietnamese fighters move towards the Hawkeyes. If they have radars, they will typically activate those as soon as they believe that they are observed. Then they become visible, and usually this is well away from the Phantoms, which then get easy kills. Of course, the Phantoms need to activate their radars to use the Sparrows, and what happens then, class? But the MiG-17Fs don't have radars to activate, so they quite frequently are detected by "stumbling over" a Phantom. The surprise may be mutual, but as long as the Phantom doesn't try to dogfight, it will win the encounter.

 

Please don't imagine that a Phantom has any significant capacity to detect radar-silent enemy planes. It just ain't so. Confusion may arise due to a lack of appreciation of the game scale. Those tiny icons, and the small screen, represent miles and miles of empty space.

 

As far as Hawkeyes go, the E-2B is the least capable of the lot. Brad has very usefully given us a whole swack of actual and theoretical detection numbers. Maybe your Hawkeye fails to detect a whole bunch of enemy aircraft. Be certain, it's doing the best it can, and actually, it's doing a very good job for the time period in question.

 

You can be fairly certain that none of the Vietnamese planes was ever at VLow. That would be suicidal for them.

 

To summarize, the Vietnamese fighters are regularly flying by Phantoms and Vigilantes simply because these planes, operated properly, have to rely on visual detection. The Vietnamese fighters never come close to an American ship because they never knew it was there in the first place, and if they did, they don't have the range to get there.

My assumption (previously) had been that an aircraft such as a Hawkeye or Sentry has both air and surface radars (along with other sensors) and so when it is at its normal altitude it should pretty well cover anything that approaches at any altitude (well, except for subs of course)... and that there would be variation in the detection range based on factors such as size, speed, altitude, and RCS of the "subject". I also had assumed that the normal (high) altitude of these types would provide at least some degree of over-the-horizon coverage.

 

But, then it was postulated that the various non-stealthy aircraft that were sneaking up on my AEW and EW assets from time to time were doing so by approaching at Low or VLow altitude, and that picket groups such as fighters at Low altitiude are of little use in detecting these "sea-skimmers". Hence, my new assumption that the only viable way to counter these "sea skimmers" would be to deploy the long-range air radars of AEW types at all altitudes... not that it's practical to do so, but it sounded like there was no other way to detect those.

 

Low approach: almost always; VLow, almost never (because it's suicidal for most planes). If you claim that the non-stealth enemy planes are closing within 50 nm of any AEW plane, let me plainly state that I don't believe you. If you can provide evidence to the contrary, please do so. As far as your picket ships and planes go, you should probably look at the actual maximum detection ranges (available in the manual). They are much smaller than you probably imagine. I have to admit, if you put your picket planes up high, this will not apply, but if you're doing this, I'm guessing that your picket fighters are being picked off. Picket ships without active radars don't see much. Picket ships with active radars get picked off.

 

I haven't been aware of intercepts being launched from formation patrols.

 

The computer does it all the time. You can do it too. Select an enemy group. Order an intercept. If your base formation planes have the range and weapons to do the job, they will volunteer.

 

Whenever I've tried it, I just get the "We are out of range" message.

 

It's not completely trivial; took me a while to find one that worked before I wrote that comment. Here's one: WestPac-Pirates. Start by putting an Apache in your base formation. A few seconds after scenario start, an enemy ship is detected. Select that group, and intercept away! (Militarily speaking, this is a poor choice, but we are only demonstrating the process here.)

 

I typically place fighter patrols, air recon patrols, and even ships at times, in the areas of expected routes of ingress by these sneak-attack AI interceptors. I think I described this previously, but typically, these are arrayed in (and/or are patrolling) the area roughly within the range of the AEW's air radar, but are mainly at low altitude - for two reasons: First, on the hope of reducing their detectability by AI bases and groups, and second, in an attempt to detect "sea-skimmers", on the theory that my groups' air search radars may detect only within their own altitude band - so to detect low-fliers, my patrols ("pickets") must be at Low altitude. Sometimes, these groups have their radars off - but that is usually only when they are waiting in ambush for some detected target. Normally, I set them up with intermittant radar at assorted cycle times - in the hopes of confusing/surprizing any approaching enemy.

 

All of this picket stuff doesn't work. Whatever you do to give the picket a decent chance to locate enemy units will result in the rapid demise of the picket unit. If the picket unit acts for self-preservation (radar silent, low altitude), it won't be seeing much. The exception is if you're looking for subs. Then the picket is fairly safe.

 

The whole point of a picket ship is to draw enemy fire. The group gets warning of an attack, but it's hard on the picket!

 

Incidentally, one of the reasons the Americans did so well in the (WW II) Battle of Midway was that they had radar on their ships and were able to detect incoming enemy planes early enough to prepare. The Japanese were typically unaware of attacking planes until they started their attack runs.

 

OK, first off let me clarify that I'm not speaking to the case where the RA-5Cs or Hawkeyes (or other groups for that matter) were anywhere near the indicated radar range of the ground radar... I mean, perhaps 2x or more away. That's why it is so puzzling that the MiG-17s showed up "unannounced": It's a "double whammy" puzzle, where on the one hand, the AI could detect the RA-5Cs and other groups at spots well beyond any AI radar, and on the other hand, the friendly units could not detect the MiG-17s until they opened fire. There seemed to be some gross inconsistency there.

 

I think that's just wrong. The Vietnamese radars extend well out into the Gulf of Tonkin. And a Vigilante is quite large. The Hawkeyes, with radar energized most certainly are seen. There is no inconsistency. The Hawkeyes are the least stealthy units in the scenario. The MiG-17s are the most stealthy.

 

I dunno: Although the Hawkeyes and RA-5Cs and such may stick out like neon signs, it seems to me that some AI unit or base still would have to be close enough to see those "signs"... and as far as I can tell, they are well out of range. On the other hand, the AI units remain undetectable by any means (air- or ship-borne radar, ESM, visuals) even when player's units are virtually tripping over them.

 

But the thing that's particularly puzzling are the cases where a detected AI group is on course to engage a particular player's group that is well beyond any AI radar range. I see them coming 100-200 nm out, so I turn off the target's radar, drop it to Low or even VLow altitude, then send it on an evasion course. Meanwhile, I'm watching the AI's group via other nearby player's groups, and can track it when it's radar is active. It is always able to track its target, despite the target going Low and quiet and taking an evasive course. This really seems inconsistent considering that my units can't track the AI unit unless it is using its radars, even when they are quite close to each other. And in many cases, the player's groups presumably have superior radar and sensors. It's all very puzzling.

 

Joe, the bottom line is, based on what you have said so far that I have understood in detail, that for this last comment, I feel that I don't need to understand it in detail to know that you're either doing the measurement wrong, misunderstanding it, or misreporting it.

 

As far as I know, and one of the experts can confirm this, if your Hawkeye has its radar on, the enemy base will detect it well outside the base radar range. As a rule of thumb, if the Hawkeye radar circle touches the base radar circle, the Hawkeye is detected. So there is nowhere in the scenario to hide the Hawkeye if it is actually doing its job. Same for the Vigilante. On the flip side, the Hawkeye sees planes only within a certain distance and the Vigilante sees planes almost never.

...

 

Regarding the bridge scenario specifically, I would say that all Ameerican planes were detected even well beyond (2x or more) the indicated radar range of the Viet Namese radars... and it appeared that the only times the MiG-17s would be detected - at any distance - was when they activated their own radar, or when they opened fire.

 

The only way for the American planes to get 2x outside the Vietnamese radar range is to fly SE from the carrier! Just look at this screen shot:

 

http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww33/Vi...ridge/brdgA.png

I was referring to 2x the radius of the AI bases' range circles. In the game I played, I distinctly recall that I placed a stationary Hawkeye between the carrier group and the AI bases, as well as patrolling Hawkeyes, one about 150 nm directly North of the carrier group, and the radar range circles for the Hawkeyes did not reach the radar range circles for the bases, and thus my "territory" seemed to be at least 2x the radius of the AI bases' range circles. I also placed RA-5Cs near the Hawkeyes, to augment the recon, as well as to triangulate any detected AI units. The AI regularly vectored MiGs to attack the RA-5Cs, and sometimes the Hawkeyes, in these locations. My assumptions were:

 

1. The AI should not be able to "fix" these groups due to the distance involved.

2. The MiGs should not be able to track these groups due to their distance away from the AI's ground radars (at least not without revealing themselves).

3. Radar or ESM detection should trump visual detection.

4. The Hawkeyes ought to be able to detect the MiGs via radar and/or other sensors.

5. Short-range visual detection by each side should be at least in the same ballpark.

 

Apparently, none of these assumptions were valid... but I remain puzzled about why.

 

Mig-17Fs have no radar whatsoever.

Which makes me wonder how they were so adept at finding and attacking my air groups, under the circumstances.

 

There definitely appears to be some misconceptions here.

 

Joe, I'm going to ask you a bunch of questions and I want them answered immediately!

 

1) What is the distance from the Kitty Hawk to the nearest Vietnamese airbase?

2) What is the range of the Vietnamese base radar?

 

Regarding your assumptions:

1) incorrect

2) incorrect

3) correct if radars are on; otherwise incorrect

4) correct if they are close enough

5) correct but irrelevant (question of luck)

 

All Vietnames planes are guided primarily by ground radar.

A radar emitter is easily detectable by ESM far beyond its detection range.

 

If you're still running the demo, you may not have seen enough scenarios to really know a lot of things instinctively. There is something to be said for playing some scenarios from both sides, like the old GIUK ones. If you play Fortress Keflavik (the old original one) a few times, you get a feel for just how far you can see a Kamov AEW helo with ESM, or from the RED side, you can see just how far away you can pick up an E-3 or E-2 from way out of detection range. I've picked up an E-3 at high altitude at 500 miles or more before. Sure, I didn't have a good fix on it, but I sure knew which direction to go if I wanted to go after it! (Hint: just like in Debt of Honor, a 'Blinder Flight' of F-14s can really help out. Send them after the AEW bird with Phoenixes!) Of course, a Ka-25 AEW bird with a ship-like speed, and a course is a dead giveaway of where to find the Soviet ships.

 

Once you can 'see' them, it's just a simple matter for a Mig-17 or other fighter, even w/o radar, to run down the ESM bearing, and, an E-2 or E-3 is not hard to find visually, of course. And the AI *will* go after the AEW birds if it has anything with the range to get to it, or with range to where it *thinks* the AEW bird is.

 

Also, fighter radars are directional. That F-15C can't see that fighter that's behind it, after all, no matter how wonderful the radar in the nose is, and the F-4's radars in the Thanh Hoa scenario, compared to newer ones, just plain suck. There's a reason the old Sidewinders work better than the old Sparrows.

 

I'm not as patient as Victor, but I can beat the Thanh Hoa scenario with minimal losses, too. It's all about knowing how everything works together. Having said that, I've lost a lot of fleets, airbases, and air wings learning how, so don't expect to win immediately.

I have played that scenario several times, including one time when I generally followed your AAR - although I admit that I experimented with some various deviant tactics when I got some unexpected results.

 

The difficulties that I experienced in playing that particular scenario fell into these general categories:

1. The AI detected virtually every air move I made, at any range, while it was extremely difficult (near impossible) for me to detect the AI's air assets (except when they activated their radars) even at close range.

2. The Sparrows were generally ineffective against the MiGs, so the best result I could achieve was to drive them off by lobbing missiles at them. But if they didn't chicken out, then all the Phantoms could do was turn tail. This made the Phantoms generally useless in the scenario. Fortunately, the Sidewinders were more effective, but still allowed the MiGs to get close enough to inflict damage.

3. Although I was able to detect surface AD units fairly well with the aid of the RA-5Cs, it was very costly to actually knock them out because I was unable to attack AD units without hard fixes using the allowed weapons, and I could get hard fixes only at suicidally close ranges.

4. The B-52s were suicidal unless the MiGs had been wiped out and all nearby AD units had been destroyed... so it was less costly to attack the bridge with A-6s and A-7s.

 

There is a reason why I keep saying "read/study my AAR"

 

1) no further comment is warranted at this time

 

2) I quote:

"After using 16 Sparrows and 12 SideWinders, we only have 3 kills. This is a rather pathetic start."

 

I quote:

"Our fighters completely outclass the opposition. Our Phantoms carry 8 missiles, all of which outrange anything the enemy fighters carry. Even some of our attack aircraft can do a job on the enemy fighters. The Vietnamese have MiG-17Fs, which only have guns, MiG-19s, and MiG-21MFs. Their maximum missile range is 4 nm. Each Phantom should be able to safely shoot down 2 (maybe 3) enemy fighters,"

 

The first quote describes an anomaly. If you can't get the results from the second quote, then Thou Art Doing It Wrong!

 

Fire at 10-15 nm with Sparrows (radar must be on) and 5-7 nm with Sidewinders.

 

3) read my AAR

 

4) True. There's no particular reason to the Stratofortresses in this scenario.

Going back to an earlier topic of this discussion I have difficulty in utillizinf HARM missles. My greatest problem was in the Backyard scenario. I could have a exact fix on a AD unit by ESM and if I attacked with an exact fix I had a good chance of sucess with the attack. If the fix degraded by the smallest amount, the unit map showing the slightest uncertany, the HARMs were guaranteed to miss. I have worked around this issue by only launching with an exact fix. I am puzzled however because it was my understanding that the HARMs are designed to home on on an operating radar, which the AD units still seemed to be radiating in this case. It seems to me that I should have a fair chance of hitting the target if the target continues to radiate. Is my assumption of the real world functioning of these weapons incorrect? Are they not designed to function this way in the game, or is the game not functioning correctly in this area.

 

The AD units in question are cycling their radars on and off. When you have a solid lock red icon, the radar is on and your HARMs can track. When the icon goes yellow and your lock goes fuzzy, it's usually because you were only holding the lock by ESM, not hard detection, and the AD unit has just shut off its radar, leaving nothing for your HARMs to track. Only launching with the exact fix is the right thing to do, because that's probably the only time your chosen target is actually radiating. Your understanding of how HARMs work is correct, I think where you are having trouble is your assumption that the AD units are continuously radiating. They aren't. The nearby search radars are generally always on, but the AD units themselves only radiate intermittently, to make SEAD harder. Since the AD units themselves are so small, they are virtually impossible to detect directly at more than 5 or 6 miles. Almost all detections at more than that range will be by ESM ONLY. So, no, your understanding of HARMs is correct, and as long as they have a radiating target they do fairly well, but unless you've got that solid red icon with no uncertainty, you don't have a radiating target, which is why your HARMs miss.

 

What really sucks is if you launch the ARM with a red fix and THEN the fix goes yellow. Wasted missile!

What really sucks is if you launch the ARM with a red fix and THEN the fix goes yellow. Wasted missile!

 

No, in fact you're okay there. As long as you have a solid fix at the moment of launch.

 

If you lose the fix after launch, the ARM will still actually work as it is supposed to (in real life).