Hello!

 

Situation: I have an airfield where are present both ground (and air) attack aircraft and tankers aircraft.

 

The target is over the attack group range so it needs the support of the tankers and this is my question:

 

the tankers should be launched as a part of the attack group, or it better to to launch them before and to station them loitering in a convenient location and make the attack group joining, refueling and splitting from them?

 

Thanks!

 

Roberto

I usually do the later, send out the tankers and their CAP first, then launch the other aircraft. Though when the tankers and supported aircraft are of the same type, I can see why you want to launch them in one group.

 

Does anybody know what the military standard operation is?

I pretty much always launch the tankers separately from the strikers, both because of the different speed characteristics and because this makes for smaller groups, which in turn means less fuel wasted loitering about waiting for a large group to launch. From what I've read, military SOP varies according to the situation. Tactical aircraft usually seem to fly to a rendezvous point to meet their tankers, which are usually housed at a separate base anyway. However, in the case of a long-range deployment, say from Alaska to Okinawa, where the fighters will need multiple refuelings en route, sometimes the tanker flies with the fighters. Strategic bombers and large transport aircraft take quite a while to refuel, so the tankers wind up traveling with them for a fair distance regardless. Carrier ops are another special case; either technique may be used, depending on circumstances.

For me, it very much depends.

 

Keep in mind that, in HCE, when you combine multiple aircraft types in a 'group', the group always travels at the speed of the slowest aircraft.

 

For many of the jet engine tankers, this may not be a huge deal as they can probably come close to fast jet cruise performance at higher altitudes.

 

For strike missions, if the 'tanker' is simply a fast jet capable of buddy-buddy refueling, and moreover, of the same type (or of similar cruise speed capability), then that tanker is probably going into hostile airspace along with my strikers.

 

But if the tanker is a dedicated tanker/transport type, like the venerable KC-135 for example, then I usually set up rendezvous points outside of hostile airspace (or in a less hostile part of it) where a strike package can link up the tanker, get gas and then proceed on to the objective.

 

For ferry or long range patrol missions, I might just tag the tanker along with the rest of the group for convenience sake.

I also believe it's standard SOP for there always to be a base for any fuel requiring aircraft to divert to if they can't refuel. An aircraft should not be required to make the refuel or have to ditch.

A minor semantic quibble:

 

The Harpoon airplane groups have nothing to do with any real life grouping.

 

For example, it may be standard doctrine to fly fighters in pairs. But Harpoon does not deal with the scale at which such things matter, so you can group your planes in pairs or not, and it will not affect the outcome in any way, except that the player needs to do more or less work.

 

Personally, I consider the following factors (in addition to what the previous posters have mentioned):

 

1) A given group can only be in one place at a time. In how many places do you need your airplanes to be?

 

2) A given base can only launch as many airplanes at a time as it has runways. That affects my group size. If the group is larger than the runway number, then the first-launched planes waste 30 s (or more) worth of fuel.

 

3) I almost never use 1-unit groups for common planes. Why not? Because I don't feel like it.

 

Those are the scientific principles.

Hi Roberto,

In Harpoon using aero tankers can be a bit fiddly so one thing I sometimes do is to put some tankers in the formation about the attack groups home base out in the outer sector in the direction of the attack. (use a 255 mile outer radius for the formation).

With the attack group on their way out I select the attack group and use the "join" command (F7) to join to the base (which contains the tanker in the formation). In the 'transfer window' 'move' one or more tanker from the base group to the attack group and execute, check that the attack group (now with tanker) is heading at an appropriate speed, use the refuel command (alt R) to start refuelling (and top up the attack groups fuel tanks), then let the tanker land back at their base. I do a similar thing on the way home.

Now this is nice and easy BUT is open to cheating as you can do this type of joining with the tankers and attack groups being a considerable distance apart - so its up to you not to cheat by only doing it with the planes in close proximity.

It does though I think allow a fairly automated way of carrying out a refuel operation in something like a realistic manner. Fully loaded planes use quite a lot of fuel taking of so by having a drink about 250 mile out from base (and another one 250 mile before reaching base) makes quite a big difference to their operating range without putting the tankers too close to enemy fire. Also by having it in the base formation you can put a CAP fighter near the tanker available for intercept if necessary.

Don Thomas

But Harpoon does not deal with the scale at which such things matter, so you can group your planes in pairs or not, and it will not affect the outcome in any way, except that the player needs to do more or less work.

 

A rather broad statement that isn't entirely true. For one thing, larger groups will mean a larger radar return. But on the other hand, you might benefit from multiple sensors and weapons.

I usually do the later, send out the tankers and their CAP first, then launch the other aircraft. Though when the tankers and supported aircraft are of the same type, I can see why you want to launch them in one group.

 

Does anybody know what the military standard operation is?

 

I don't know if it has much -if any- bearing on playing Harpoon, but I recall that it used to be that planes would be launched with minimal fuel on board, so that their ordnance load (weight) could be maximized. Then, the planes would need to rendezvous with (a) tanker(s) in short order to get their fuel supply in-flight. I presume that the tanker(s) were launched first in these cases, but I don't really know... nor do I know whether this would be represented in Harpoon as having the tanker(s) in a separate group or as part of the same group.

I don't know if it has much -if any- bearing on playing Harpoon, but I recall that it used to be that planes would be launched with minimal fuel on board, so that their ordnance load (weight) could be maximized. Then, the planes would need to rendezvous with (a) tanker(s) in short order to get their fuel supply in-flight.

 

Yep, and still the case. I understand that somewhere around 60% fuel is fairly typical.

 

I presume that the tanker(s) were launched first in these cases, but I don't really know... nor do I know whether this would be represented in Harpoon as having the tanker(s) in a separate group or as part of the same group.

 

Not represented in HCE, as fuel is expressed more as a function of 'range' than actual kg or liters of fuel.

But Harpoon does not deal with the scale at which such things matter, so you can group your planes in pairs or not, and it will not affect the outcome in any way, except that the player needs to do more or less work.

 

A rather broad statement that isn't entirely true. For one thing, larger groups will mean a larger radar return. But on the other hand, you might benefit from multiple sensors and weapons.

 

Sorry, Brad, my statement was unclear.

 

"For example, it may be standard doctrine to fly fighters in pairs. But Harpoon does not deal with the scale at which such things matter, so you can group your planes in pairs or not, and it will not affect the outcome in any way, except that the player needs to do more or less work."

 

Here is a better expression of what I was referring to.

 

Consider the Thach Weave. This was initially developed to allow a pair of (WW II) Wildcats to deal with the much more maneuverable Zero. There is no way to simulate this in Harpoon (except by giving the Wildcat a much higher ATA rating than the Zero, which would be incorrect).

 

Consider the (WW II) Flying Tigers. Using P-40s rejected by the RAF as being inadequate, in Burma and China they inflicted heavy casualties on the nominally much superior Japanese fighters. But it was purely a question of tactics, where the strengths of the P-40s (armor and better dive performance) were maximized. Again, there is no way to simulate this in Harpoon.

 

The Thach Weave shows why you might want to operate fighters in pairs. In Harpoon, it doesn't matter.

 

Interesting comment on radar signatures. Now we have to deal with the follow-up question:

 

Is it better in Harpoon to operate two fighters as a group of 2 or 2 groups of 1 w.r.t. detection? I suspect it's too complicated to make a decision.

 

Consider the (WW II) Battle of Midway after the first American airstrike. With only one carrier left, the Japanese finally located American ships. But the Americans were operating in 2 groups, with the Yorktown separated from the other 2 carriers by about 10 miles. The Yorktown was attacked and wrecked, and since the other American ships were elsewhere, the Japanese for a while thought that all the American carriers were sunk. Point is, by spreading your forces out, it is more likely that some of them will be found AND that some of them will not be found.

 

Of course, the total weapons and sensors are the same for 2x1 as 1x2.

 

Why am I describing all this WW II stuff here? Because I just picked up a bunch of WW II books real cheap.

I usually do the later, send out the tankers and their CAP first, then launch the other aircraft. Though when the tankers and supported aircraft are of the same type, I can see why you want to launch them in one group.

 

Does anybody know what the military standard operation is?

 

In real life, there would be all possible permutations. What do you need to do? What is the best way to do it? Each situation has its own answer.

 

Same in Harpoon. Same questions. Same answers. Bottom line is, you probably need to do a calculation each time as opposed to just winging it, especially if you want to maximize efficiency. Just like staff officers do in real life.

I don't know if it has much -if any- bearing on playing Harpoon, but I recall that it used to be that planes would be launched with minimal fuel on board, so that their ordnance load (weight) could be maximized. Then, the planes would need to rendezvous with (a) tanker(s) in short order to get their fuel supply in-flight.

 

Yep, and still the case. I understand that somewhere around 60% fuel is fairly typical.

 

I presume that the tanker(s) were launched first in these cases, but I don't really know... nor do I know whether this would be represented in Harpoon as having the tanker(s) in a separate group or as part of the same group.

 

Not represented in HCE, as fuel is expressed more as a function of 'range' than actual kg or liters of fuel.

Which I guess is partially replicated by the multiple loadouts that have short and long range versions with more and less weapon load??

Or is this usually done on weapon pylon basis??

Don

Which I guess is partially replicated by the multiple loadouts that have short and long range versions with more and less weapon load?? Or is this usually done on weapon pylon basis??

 

Yes, I use a percentage of the maximum payload (as determined by the particular loadout) to calculate range.

Which I guess is partially replicated by the multiple loadouts that have short and long range versions with more and less weapon load?? Or is this usually done on weapon pylon basis??

 

Yes, I use a percentage of the maximum payload (as determined by the particular loadout) to calculate range.

Just another reason why Harpoon is the ultimate simulation and not merely a 'game'

Don