AWACS/COMMS Discussion – What Would You Have Changed?
-
I’ve just come back to BMS after an extended VR break. I am shocked at how good ATC is. I’ve never experienced anything like it in a sim. The field and carrier overhead breaks are slick as snot. You guys are amazing.
-
The immersion killer as far as Awacs is concerned to me comes from a structural behaviour and the disclaimer being that this was a WIP for 4.34 with unfinished implementation, so hopefully these shortcomings are being worked on.
Nevertheless in a 4.34 TVT scenario, humans have to make a choice between Awacs and coordinating with other humans NOT initially in your package
Since each package has its own tactical (awacs) frequency, humans not being in the same package but operating in the same area have no way to communicate with each other =W that’s the immersion filler factor
It’s not only a decison about radio comms but also about IDM management.
You could obviously say that it needs to be planned as a single package but saying that actually proves that you haven’t tried in a TvT scenario because it was impossible to do (package bug) and it was anyway not practical to do (max 5 flights in a package) and different play time as we’re all from different timezones and we might actually not always be in the same area at the same time. A friendly might enter your area as you are operating. You don’t have comms with them and you don’t have IDM with them and if you do change your avionics to address these 2 points, you actually lose your awacs support.The first solution brought to this (when for instance two human packages were operating in the same kill box) was to select a human package and as another package tune into their tactical frequency.
=> we then can communicate with humans but the other human package Awacs won’t then answer your call (it answers obviously its assigned package, but not the other joining). Worse we don’t even hear awacs radio calls when the assigned package makes an awacs request.
I could probably live with the fact that as an non assigned package I can’t contact Awacs, but not hearing the comms that are on the frequency is quite unrealistic and a total immersion killer to me. If we did hear them, then we could live with the fact that only one package lead might do awacs calls for the benefit of all on the frequency.The second solution was to have one guy in your flight stay on the initial assigned tactical (#6) and the rest on the other human package switch on the other human tactical net (their #6)
=> we can then communicate amongst human flights but we have one guy acting as a radio relay (on VHF) to keep assigned awacs in the loop.
Works but it’s not ideal and again increase the workload and kills tactical immersion.Another issue is that sometimes you go up between an awacs station change. Your assigned awacs is leaving it’s patrol time as you ingress and the awacs that replaced the first - but not on your briefing - will actually not answer your call. Eventhough you were a good pilot and managed to find him and note down its frequency in the ATO. of course the awacs on station a little bit further your area never answers your call either so you’re on your own.
I can live with that as occurence is relatively low and i’m sure this can also happen IRL.
At least the replacement Awacs should be listed in your comms ladder should your flight happening while there’s a awacs change of stations. (same for AAR by the way)The solution we thought might work better is to have an awacs not only tied to a package but rather to an area. Say xx Nm radius circle around the awacs - (just like the 30Nm radius around airbase for ATC).
In that area, any flight with the correct Awacs frequency can tune in and get valid response from awacs.
these flights will then be able to profit from ongoing awacs comms, that will increase the radio traffic (hopefully kept relevant) and solve that silent radio world some are reporting in campaigns - will increase IDM awareness (since we’re all on the same UHF)
and will allow us to coordinate actions on the UHF radio. True the net will be crowded and that should force us to apply correct radio discipline
=> all that would actually increase immersion, if done correctly by all parties ‘Ai needs to be educated also to keep comms to the strict minimum and avoid repeating calls’
That should address many of the issues we currently have with awacs management in campaigns and would probably also induce new issues.
Probably not an ideal solution, but IMHO would work tactically better than the currect setup
Hopefully that is taken into account for future implementation -
Some relevent points here. But what a weird use of the term “immersion killer”.
-
we each have our own priortities.
Mine is the tactical aspect of simming. and indeed it’s such an immersion killer for me that TvT lost its appeal because of it
I understand it’s different for all, but I don’t see the point of being in a team if I can’t talk to my team to coordinate actions when we need them the most -
I too love the new AWACS. I really like that there are no longer increments in the bullseye calls, ie 5-10-15-20-25 miles. It is now 23 miles or 17 miles and so on. And the ATC really is quite amazing. Well done there guys!
From a tactical point of view, some small things should be tweaked, for the AWACS/GCI to operate more like RL.
1. in 4.34.4 AWACS calls: " Group bullseye two-seven-zero. two-three miles. twentysix thousand…." - The correct way is: “Group bullseye two-seven-zero. TWENTYTHREE. Twentysix thousand……”
2. I find it confusing that AWACS calls “Multiple groups, range and azimuth split” - Range what? azimuth what?, and then AWACS calls out North group, and northwest group and so on. it is massively confusingNot that BMS should implement the entire AFTTP 3-1 comms chapter. But in the example above a simple “core” info would work better and be more realistic, if correct picture labeling is not used: - “Group B/E xxx/yyy/zz thousand. Group B/E xxx/yyy/zz thousand. Group B/E xxx/yyy/zz thousand”
I think that implementing correct picture labeling into AWACS is unrealistic (I don’t really know) So a few tweaks, would go a long way in my book.CYA
-
@Red:
The solution we thought might work better is to have an awacs not only tied to a package but rather to an area. Say xx Nm radius circle around the awacs - (just like the 30Nm radius around airbase for ATC).
In that area, any flight with the correct Awacs frequency can tune in and get valid response from awacs.
these flights will then be able to profit from ongoing awacs comms, that will increase the radio traffic (hopefully kept relevant) and solve that silent radio world some are reporting in campaigns - will increase IDM awareness (since we’re all on the same UHF)
and will allow us to coordinate actions on the UHF radio. True the net will be crowded and that should force us to apply correct radio discipline
=> all that would actually increase immersion, if done correctly by all parties ‘Ai needs to be educated also to keep comms to the strict minimum and avoid repeating calls’
That should address many of the issues we currently have with awacs management in campaigns and would probably also induce new issues.
Probably not an ideal solution, but IMHO would work tactically better than the currect setup
Hopefully that is taken into account for future implementationIMHO, this sounds good to me, RD.
I know there are people here who know how it works IRL, those who know what will work in BMS, and those who know both. I think threads like this can be valuable if it gets those people talking.
I, too, don’t want to sound like I’m complaining, but since it was asked, and in no particular order…- I, too, had an issue like joujou-I called AWACS for Bogey Dope, and got a clear response. 3-5 minutes later my AI wingie gets jumped by a Mig-29. I engage, call “declare” and get a response. I mention that in order to address the AWACS station time question.
- I haven’t tested this in U4, but previously when doing a CAS, the FAC acts like AWACS
As others have mentioned-3a) Even though we’re all on the same UHF(proven as the IDM is working)as other flights in the package , we can’t communicate with them. That’s doubly weird as I can hear AI escort(for example) give formation change calls, Fox3’s etc, and can hear AWACS giving the AI threat warning
3b) D-J has reported that it’s the AWACS job to give continuous warnings. True enough. But it does seem strange to request vector to target and have AWACS start it’s endless repetition, even after you’ve checked out
-
From a tactical point of view, some small things should be tweaked, for the AWACS/GCI to operate more like RL.
1. in 4.34.4 AWACS calls: " Group bullseye two-seven-zero. two-three miles. twentysix thousand…." - The correct way is: “Group bullseye two-seven-zero. TWENTYTHREE. Twentysix thousand……”Is that USAF or NATO brevity? I know the Americans / FAA like - or at least allow - their numbers combined, like pronouncing 622 as “six twenty-two” instead of “six-two-two”, but ICAO (and I believe NATO) always uses separate numbers, i.e. “Group bullseye two-seven-zero, two-three miles, two-six thousand…” to avoid confusion with similar-sounding words (especially words ending in -teen and -ty).
It’s not incorrect to round up or down to the nearest 5, AFAIK.
- Usually, by the time you get sensors on target, an exact BE call won’t be correct anymore, so a vicinity-call works well
- BE is a picture builder and a max error of 2° or 2NM is good enough at ranges where you use BE
- It’s a lot easier to remember “BE 275 / 35” than “BE 276 / 34”, especially in BMS, where current AWACS gives BE calls on every single group, instead of relative positions to the first group
BRAA, on the other hand, should always be exact, though, especially range, since a few miles may make the difference between fight or flight.
What I would like to see is:
1) a config option to have a distance from ownship where AWACS / GCI calls groups proactively, without anyone having to ask for picture or bogey dope. If a config option is too much, a default value of 50 - 60NM should be alright, I think.2) Expeditious tower take-off clearances. If you’re #1 to take-off, but you’ve arrived at the threshold 5 minutes early, tower will clear you to taxi into position and hold (should be “line up and wait”, but I know that’s a lack of audio frag issue) and just keep you on the runway for 5 minutes.
2a) ATC isn’t really aware of how long it takes to take off, I think. If you’re scheduled to take-off at 120100, you’ll get the take-off clearance at 120100. Unless your speed to STPT 2 is ridiculously low, you’re ALWAYS running behind schedule.
2b) Let Tower operate on a first-come-first-served basis, and launch a flight as soon as they report ready for departure at the threshold. It may not be entirely realistic with slots and all, but it will prevent issues when the third flight accidentally ends up taxiing ahead of the second flight, they then both have to wait for third flight’s take-off time, and second flight is running massively late.3) Similar to how you get a taxi clearance to the runway, it would be nice if we could get a taxi back clearance to a stand, hangar or apron, including taxiways, instead of the generic “cleared all the way in”. Aircraft spawning in may be an issue, but unless that changed with BMS 4.34, there should always be one side of the field that isn’t used for departing aircraft, and is free for arriving traffic instead?
3a) When taxiing to the runway, Ground should give you the QNH.
3b) QNH should be available in hPa and inHg, regardless of altimeter setting in your own config. This is sometimes an issue during coops where players have different settings than the server. Only current workaround is ATIS (which in itself is unrealistic on a MIL airbase) or having a conversion list handy.4) Departure handing you off to the next controller / station at a certain altitude and/or range.
-
**@Eagle-Eye:
Is that USAF or NATO brevity? I know the Americans / FAA like - or at least allow - their numbers combined, like pronouncing 622 as “six twenty-two” instead of “six-two-two”, but ICAO (and I believe NATO) always uses separate numbers, i.e. “Group bullseye two-seven-zero, two-three miles, two-six thousand…” to avoid confusion with similar-sounding words (especially words ending in -teen and -ty).
It’s not incorrect to round up or down to the nearest 5, AFAIK.
- Usually, by the time you get sensors on target, an exact BE call won’t be correct anymore, so a vicinity-call works well
- BE is a picture builder and a max error of 2° or 2NM is good enough at ranges where you use BE
- It’s a lot easier to remember “BE 275 / 35” than “BE 276 / 34”, especially in BMS, where current AWACS gives BE calls on every single group, instead of relative positions to the first group
BRAA, on the other hand, should always be exact, though, especially range, since a few miles may make the difference between fight or flight.
Both the USAF and NATO use the bullseye calls like this: Two-seven-zero/ twentysix/ twelve thousand. so tactically you use the range and altitude without calling out each digit. (I am not sure what the FAA/ICAO regulations are on this, however I have heard both ways of saying range used)
And regarding bullseye accuracy…I’m kindda with you on that. and then not at all.
In BMS a proximity call regarding bullseye 235/45 instead of 233/42 will certainly make it easier for your brain to process the information, (and maybe it is easier to code IDK) And true that your sensor will most likely get the contact regardless.
BUT in RL you always say the correct bullseye position. This is due to engagement restrictions, if AWACS and fighter does not have the exact same bullseye position of the group. 267/12 or 270/10 will not make that big of a difference, but 177/97 and 175/95 will make the declaration from AWACS invalid to shoot. Therefore you always say the exact position of the group, and you don’t round up or down.BRAA on the other hand is fine (to some extend) to round up or down
- 278/8, this will chance so rapidly in a turning fight at it is fine for the controller to say 280/8 - as long as the target is moving towards the 280 position - in some cases it is even ok to help the fighter by leading the target - 285/8. The fighter will then turn to 285 and the target will then be on his nose, because the target moved while the fighter was turning.
But I’m totally with you on the range thing - USE EXACT RANGE - unless it is way out there 30-40 miles…but then again you would use bullseye for that type of call.
Regards**
-
As stated in this thread I think a priority addition to AWACS should be proactively calling out threat groups that come within a certain distance of a human controlled flight. I suppose it would be a challenge to implement this but it is quite frustrating having to request a ‘vector to threat’ every 2 minutes to make sure you’re not getting snuck up on when you’re in AG mode searching for targets.
My last flight in EMF really highlighted this as there are only 2 hostile aircraft in the whole campaign. I was doing air to ground a fair way away from them and getting regular picture calls. It seems like they were CAPing near their airbase around 80nm away from my Killbox and it remained this way for a good 10-15 minutes. So i stopped getting regular threat vectors and then after a couple of minutes all i hear is a missile launch warning and my AI wingman call ‘fox 2 inbound’ with absolutely no update from AWACS that the bandits left their CAP and started heading my way.
-
2) Expeditious tower take-off clearances. If you’re #1 to take-off, but you’ve arrived at the threshold 5 minutes early, tower will clear you to taxi into position and hold (should be “line up and wait”, but I know that’s a lack of audio frag issue) and just keep you on the runway for 5 minutes.
I’m in favor of all the points made in your post. Just wanted to add, and you probably already know this, but after you line up and wait you can report ready for departure again and you’ll get immediate clearance.
-
I’m finding it hard to fly with AI because sometimes the soup is really chunky, not that there I find anything wrong with comms. I like that you can’t hear the entire ATO on the radio anymore, makes it easier to focus I suppose.
-
@Red:
The solution we thought might work better is to have an awacs not only tied to a package but rather to an area. Say xx Nm radius circle around the awacs - (just like the 30Nm radius around airbase for ATC).
In that area, any flight with the correct Awacs frequency can tune in and get valid response from awacs.
these flights will then be able to profit from ongoing awacs comms, that will increase the radio traffic (hopefully kept relevant) and solve that silent radio world some are reporting in campaigns - will increase IDM awareness (since we’re all on the same UHF)
and will allow us to coordinate actions on the UHF radio. True the net will be crowded and that should force us to apply correct radio discipline
=> all that would actually increase immersion, if done correctly by all parties ‘Ai needs to be educated also to keep comms to the strict minimum and avoid repeating calls’
That should address many of the issues we currently have with awacs management in campaigns and would probably also induce new issues.
Probably not an ideal solution, but IMHO would work tactically better than the currect setup
Hopefully that is taken into account for future implementationWhat about having it similar to setting up the tanker on UHF-13, when creating a flight you set an “AWACS” STPT that would then set the UHF-6 per the AWACS at the location of the AWACS STPT?
-
Both the USAF and NATO use the bullseye calls like this: Two-seven-zero/ twentysix/ twelve thousand. so tactically you use the range and altitude without calling out each digit. (I am not sure what the FAA/ICAO regulations are on this, however I have heard both ways of saying range used)
Was just watching
, and it reminded me of this topic. The footage at 11:20 seems to indicate we’re both partially right and wrong, as 170/20, 35000 appears to be pronounced one seven zero, twenty, three five thousand. -