OK. While quoting a Mirage 2000 in my AAR, it seems i was using Mirage IIIEA stats taken from Sth Atlantic War. Very different aircraft, but this likely explains the many errors i appear to have made. Depending on how you look at it i either;

 

1) made one mistake by labelling the IIIEA and 2000, or

2) i got all my calcs wrong.

 

While i made mistake 1 above, the discussion about jammers and decoys working on some missiles and not others has been great. As soon as i read that i thought "yeahhhh". My second thought was "but how do i (a non techno-file) know which ECM affects each missile when i dont know what sort of seeker each missile even has?". But chapter 5.0 probably covers what sort of missile each is (for example terms like IRH, SALH etc) probably will tell me what type of seeker a missile is. So maybe i should be able to account for this correctly in future. Great pickup.

 

6.7.1 and 6.2.4 noted.

 

 

Also 6.7 last paragraph is interesting "ECM actions must be ordered in plotting stage". Using engagement turns (30 seconds) for ATA combat, the "move" action comes before "fire" options, meaning an aircraft has to "fire chafe" for instance before knowing if a missile has been fired (or if the range is long enough that the defending plane has time to see it coming.

 

If a dogfight situation exists, after the order of fire is determined for those able to fire, i guess the defending aircraft can choose an "ECM" action before the attacking aircraft can fire and "to hit" chances calculated. But since "ECM's" are not limited in number like AtA missiles may be, maybe its best to assume the defending aircraft always chooses ECM when fired on even if its not "called". Only if the aircraft is attacked "by surprise" would ECM not count.

Also 6.7 last paragraph is interesting "ECM actions must be ordered in plotting stage". Using engagement turns (30 seconds) for ATA combat, the "move" action comes before "fire" options, meaning an aircraft has to "fire chafe" for instance before knowing if a missile has been fired (or if the range is long enough that the defending plane has time to see it coming.

 

If a dogfight situation exists, after the order of fire is determined for those able to fire, i guess the defending aircraft can choose an "ECM" action before the attacking aircraft can fire and "to hit" chances calculated. But since "ECM's" are not limited in number like AtA missiles may be, maybe its best to assume the defending aircraft always chooses ECM when fired on even if its not "called". Only if the aircraft is attacked "by surprise" would ECM not count.

 

KC, for what it's worth, I agree with you in that the final paragraph in 6.7 "...exact employment tactics are not necessary as it is assumed the countermeasures are used correctly."

 

Also, on a tangent, what may be of interest to this discussion is 6.3.3.2.1 Evading Attack. May apply more to your ground attack scenario.

Set-Up: 2x F-15C (data from High Tide) are on CAP, at Medium Altitude and cruising at 493kts. 2x Mirage IIIEA (Data from SAW2) are at Low Altitude and cruising at 625kts.

 

I would have to presume that the Mirages are being sent to a known point such as an airfield – reason for the CAP – so no huge need for AEW or GCE support although it would be nice.

 

While Radar Line of Sight is 135nm for an observer at Low and a “target” at Medium, and vice-versa, the Mirage IIIEA’s CyranoIIbis radar (data from Smarter Radar article) will only detect a medium-sized F-15C at 16nm. Things get worse for the Mirages when you look at the performance of the F-15C’s APG-63’s performance against the small Mirages – detection at 45nm. With platforms at VLOW and Medium altitudes the RLOS is now 108nm, neither aircraft has ESM.

 

So at about 50nm from the target area, the Mirages drop down to Very Low Altitude. Still traveling at 625nm calculates to 2.6nm per Engagement Turn Movement Phase, the Mirages must roll on the NOE Crash Table, an 8% chance of crash (Optional Pilot Quality 6.3.7 could modify that chance).

 

29.2nm from the target area Mirage #1 crashes into the ground, the pilot suffering “rapid decoration syndrome”.

 

At 13.6nm Mirage #2 crashes into the ground.

 

 

Any other suggested tactics?

 

Time to re-set and try again.

 

More to Follow.

Upon further review, since RLOS for a Medium platform to Low and VLow platform is 135 and 108nm respectively. The F-15C's APG-63 is a Look Down/Shoot Down capable AI radar and will detect the Small Mirages at 45nm, at either altitude band.

 

To give the Mirages any relative chance in this scenario would be to impose some ROE on the F-15C's such as having to visually identify the intruding Mirages.

So considering the ROE element, since a Large aircraft at medium altitude or below is spotted, by another aircraft, at 5nm, small aircraft at 3nm, and vsmall at 1.5nm. I guess extrapolation leads us to 4nm for a medium sized aircraft at medium alititude or below.

 

Let's say it is a clear day with unlimited visibility, a simple odd-even die roll gives me Air 100% Visibility and Sigma 4. The Sigma die roll is 6 so today the Mirages can spot the Eagles at 5nm and the Eagle spots the Mirages at 4nm.

 

Disregarding Clouds (4.5.7) for now, the Eagles will have to still visually identify (4.5.8) the intruding Mirages. 4.5.8 says that in daylight, ...aircraft must be at Low Altitude, which the Mirages are. The identification range is 75% of the spotting range or 3nm.

 

The Mirages, assuming that they are heading toward a known target area...an airfield, would have a 90% (tactical turns) or 60% (engagement turns)chance of detecting the Eagle's APG-63 (in search mode) at out to 155nm through its 1st (?) Generation RWR. A successful RWR (ESM) detection reveals the type of emitter, and its bearing from the detecting unit.

 

Starting with 50nm separation, the first turn was a Tactical Turn, RWR rolls successfully detected both the APG-63 and Cyrano II bis. The turn ends with the Mirages just over 18nm from the CAP. The max range of their single R.530 is 10nm.

 

1306.0 The F-15C's go to FMP of 713kts (2.97nm per ET) on the bearing toward the bogies. Mirages go to FMP as well but remain at 625kts (2.6nm) due to altitude restraints while ordering an altitude climb into the Medium Altitude Band.

 

Mirages do not want to lock-on to the F-15's given that their own R.530 SARH missiles are outranged by the F-15's AIM-7M SARH missiles. 31nm to their own 10nm.

 

1307.0 the aircraft are just over 2nm apart. The F-15's visually identify the Mirages as such, thus hostile. Assuming theat the Mirages are now in the Medium Altitude Band a Dogfight is declared (less than 5nm).

 

Both aircraft are now at afterburner; Mirages @ 750kts, Eagles @ 810.

 

Rolling for Attack Position(s)

1307.5. Narrow Shot (cannon fire) for both forces, Wide-Angle for the Mirages (R.550 Magic), and All-Apect for the F-15's (AIM-9L) Needing 30% for the cannons and 85% for the AIM-9L F-15 #1 rolls 44 (success), F-15 #2 rolls 10 (success), both Mirages, needing 35% for the R.550 fail their rolls with 53 and 79. Both missiles pass the missile failure roll and secure one hit. Mirage #1 shot down.

 

1308.0. Both F-15's again gain position while the Mirage does not (77, 27, 38 respectively). Both missiles pass the missile failure roll and secure one hit downing the surviving Mirage.

 

I think that the Mirage IIIAE is completely outclassed by the F-15C. I'd like to try the same situation but swap out the F-15C for an F-4.

 

Pete

While thinking through using the F-4 in place of the F-15C, I came across the West German F-4F. The next decision was use the pre or post Peace Rhine configuration. Peace Rhine enhancements provided for AIM-9L in place of AIM-9B, RWR and 2nd Generation Decoys. As the F-4F's APQ-120(v)5 still outclasses the Mirage IIIAE's Cyrano II Bis. AIM-9L's would probably replay the earlier mission, so I went with the pre-Peace Rhine upgrade.

 

As it was, the Mirage IIIAE successfully used its RWR to detect the F-4F's active radar ((APQ-120(v)5) in its search mode. The Phantom's did not detect the intruding Mirages. At that point it increase its speed to FMP and increased its altitude into the Medium Altitude Band.

 

The way the turns unfolded, the aircraft almost zipped past each other, entering into a dogfight and having each Mirage down a Phantom with a successful R.550 Magic AAM.

What is "sigma" die roll?

 

Aghhh, tricky ... having an aircraft roll for guns AND their ATA missile. Gives them an extra opportunity (with a lucky die roll) to at least get guns on the enemy even if the ATA missile attempt fails. Nice.

 

Great to see someone else's write up.

 

Other suggested tactics? I guess what i am learning is, great technology (F-15) is always a good chance to beat good technology (Mirage), no matter what the tactics. As it says on the box (i think) its a game of who see's who first ...".

 

I plan to give this tactics thing some more thought, but your "visual confirmation" ROE was a good idea.

What is "sigma" die roll?

 

4.5.6 Visibility Variations. An optional rule for giving some variety to the spotting distances.

 

I plan to give this tactics thing some more thought, but your "visual confirmation" ROE was a good idea.

 

Looking forward to it.

 

Pete

OK, some more thoughts on the F-15 verse Mirage problem.

The F-15 is a better fighter. Full stop. Not all fights are even though, but when they are then the better (F-15) wins. In your own example you included a ROE in where the F-15 had to visually site the Mirages first. That evens things up a bit. So even though the score was F-15's 2 Mirage 0, the odds were still with the F-15 but it was a little harder. So, what else could we do?

 

1) Plane on plane the F-15 will win most times. How about the old 2xF-15's verse 4xMirages?

 

2) Make the Pilots of the Mirages Veteran verse Novice F-15 Pilots

 

3) Have a victory condition. Downing a single F-15 is a win for the Mirages regardless of their own losses.

 

4) Have an "escape" victory condition. If the Mirages get outside a "zone" they are home free, the F-15s can no longer fire on them (draw for both sides). So the F-15's have to shoot the Mirages down inside a field of play.

 

5) Introduce a random chance event for the F-15's. Like each time they want to use chaff or jamming, roll a D10 and on a 9 or 10 the counter measure fails for the rest of the encounter.

 

6) Limit ordinance on the F-15s. 01-50 they have two missiles, and 51-00 they have one (maybe they fired the balance of their ordinance in a previous encounter).

 

7) Limit fuel on the F-15's by saying they cannot engage full mil power (actually, that means they couldn't take part in a dog fight). Or put a time limit on the fight. The F-15's only have enough fuel to last 3 engagement turns. Or my preference would be to make it random - the F-15's have to break off if a 5 or 6 is rolled at the start of each engagement turn after the first one due to low fuel. The F-15's can choose to fight on if they like ... but on a subsequent roll of a 6 they crash due to low fuel ... is it a risk you would take if still pursuing the kill???

 

6) Combination of some of the ideas above.

 

 

I'm finding that in stand alone scenarios it seems like the "better" unit wins most of the time. In the real world things are probably even more biased in favour of the better units. Huh? Rarely is it F-15 verse Mirage. If its the USA then they have some sort of spotter plane circling up high feeding information to the F-15 ... so the F-15 is a better plane, probably has the better pilots AND it gets the advantage of better eyes from a support unit in the real world. Still, as a war game, its good to find ways of using better tactics or rule conditions (ROE or victory conditions) to make the encounter interesting for both sides.

 

 

Low level flight

Re your comments on the Mirages flying at Low level. I found the same thing, there was no advantage to flying lower (that is it didn't decrease your chance of detection like I thought it would), and the chance of a crash was pretty high if you tried extended flying at that altitude (I just learnt terrain following radar is a must here!). Against units that don't have LD/SD radars there may be more merit in it. Even so the chance of a crash is still pretty high.

 

 

Other random thoughts

1) has anyone dropped a full drop-tank of fuel onto a target? What stats did/would you use?

 

2) I always thought the F-14 was the most deadly plane in the air. But comparing it to the F-15 or even F-16/18 its AtA rating is lower (and i'm sure theres other examples). Is this because the F-14 was the first plane to be wayyyyy ahead of the competition and the F15/16/18's that followed improved on the F-14? So the F-14 was just the best of its time. Or is there another advantage the F-14 has I don't know about? Or was the F-14 simply the sexiest plane and overrated?

 

3) I'm enjoying the discussion in all the threads. Even where I have made mistakes its good to be corrected for next time, there are other comments coming out that are useful and interpretations I hadn't considered. So thanks to everyone for contributing.

2) I always thought the F-14 was the most deadly plane in the air. But comparing it to the F-15 or even F-16/18 its AtA rating is lower (and i'm sure theres other examples). Is this because the F-14 was the first plane to be wayyyyy ahead of the competition and the F15/16/18's that followed improved on the F-14? So the F-14 was just the best of its time. Or is there another advantage the F-14 has I don't know about? Or was the F-14 simply the sexiest plane and overrated?

 

The F-14 was designed to be an aerial interceptor, mainly to shoot down "Backfire" and "Badger" bombers from long-range. The F-15 is an air superiority fighter.

 

Primary advantage of the Tomcat is the Phoenix missile, but that was meant for bombers, not fighters.

1) has anyone dropped a full drop-tank of fuel onto a target? What stats did/would you use?

 

The USN actually experimented with dropping drop tanks filled with napalm from carrier-borne fighters early in WWII. They found that the release mechanism for the drop tanks lacked precision, making it impossible to actually hit what the pilots were aiming at except by sheer luck.

By aerial interceptor do you mean the F-14 intercepted bombers? And the air superiority fighter took on other figher planes?

 

"... making it impossible to actually hit what the pilot was aiming at except with sheer luck" - some people would take those chances! :-)

By aerial interceptor do you mean the F-14 intercepted bombers? And the air superiority fighter took on other figher planes?

I do believe that to be the case. Someone else here should be able to elaberate.

By aerial interceptor do you mean the F-14 intercepted bombers? And the air superiority fighter took on other figher planes?

 

The F-14's primary role was fleet defense, meaning it had to do both jobs: (1) shooting down the missile carrying bombers (ideally before they launched their missiles); and (2) dealing with any other airborne threat, including enemy fighters. The need to do both missions simultaneously was in large part the reason for the swing wing.

 

SHUK is also right in that the large, expensive (and precious) AIM-54 Phoenix missile was designed to shoot down bombers. Again, ideally, before they could launch their own anti-ship missiles en masse. Hence the AIM-54's long reach and multiple target capability. This is not to say that the AIM-54 could not bring down fighters, but it was not intended for that task and I expect the CAG would want to retain them in any situation where the bomber threat exceeded the fighter threat.

 

I should add that the Phoenix requires that the F-14 keep a radar lock on the target(s) until the missile's own seeker can take over the job (supposedly around the 14 nm mark). Trying to keep lock on a maneuvering fighter can be difficult (especially in low altitude, overland or high ECM conditions), and IIRC, the Iranians found this out when they used their F-14/AIM-54 combination in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war.

By aerial interceptor do you mean the F-14 intercepted bombers? And the air superiority fighter took on other figher planes?

 

The F-14's primary role was fleet defense, meaning it had to do both jobs: (1) shooting down the missile carrying bombers (ideally before they launched their missiles); and (2) dealing with any other airborne threat, including enemy fighters. The need to do both missions simultaneously was in large part the reason for the swing wing.

 

SHUK is also right in that the large, expensive (and precious) AIM-54 Phoenix missile was designed to shoot down bombers. Again, ideally, before they could launch their own anti-ship missiles en masse. Hence the AIM-54's long reach and multiple target capability. This is not to say that the AIM-54 could not bring down fighters, but it was not intended for that task and I expect the CAG would want to retain them in any situation where the bomber threat exceeded the fighter threat.

 

I should add that the Phoenix requires that the F-14 keep a radar lock on the target(s) until the missile's own seeker can take over the job (supposedly around the 14 nm mark). Trying to keep lock on a maneuvering fighter can be difficult (especially in low altitude, overland or high ECM conditions), and IIRC, the Iranians found this out when they used their F-14/AIM-54 combination in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war.

 

Thanks, Brad.

 

The AIM-54 never actually shot anything down in US service- the only times it was launched (during the 1991 Gulf War) it missed.