Air Combat Maneuvering 2 vs 2 Tournament (Heaters Aim-9P)

[KidVicious]

Yes, the AI callbacks are annoying. Should be a host/server controlled option.

[Arty]

@A.S:

Little OT. You know what is awesome

If you are behind the bandit (his wingman is dead already) - in his blind spot (little lower)… you dont quite have the rear aspect range to make the Aim-9P hit yet at that speed… you shoot anyways … the bandit doesnt see it… cant see it… cant know it … but starts instantly paniking and maneuvering like a moothafooka, because his UI tool “Player voice” just yalled at thim “FOX 2 INBOUND”…and you hit him, whereas if he would have continued flight straight, you would not have splashed him.

Now THAT is awesome. is it not

Big If statement there unless u talk for 2v2 or 1v2 scenarios and no other comms or support.
In real tactics are endless.
As said needs knowledge, SA and proficiency.

sent from my mi5 using Tapatalk

[Tomcatter31]

@A.S:

We “dont care”, if bandit is out of visual range as long he is in an airspace “we put him to” (left behind), and we know where he “will be” later

I wasn’t talking about the bandit, I was talking about your wingman. Your wingman got seperated by 10 miles. If at that point a bandit sneaks up behind him, you will not be able to see that, because you’re out of range.

Partially true. Trainings are very good to learn and understand basics principles and concepts or(and) to test certain things like effective weapons deployment i.e, but real human fights are a little bit more “spiced up” and a different “animal”. Good bandits dont do things as studied or as expected or as planed.

Not sure what you are trying to say here. You mean that fights in a real war are more spiced up than during training? Well, yes, sure. But you always hear fighter pilots say that when things get rough, they fall back on their training and credit their training for preparing them very well for the real thing. Do you really think that the adversaries at Topgun and the Nellis weapons school always play nice and predictable? The video was a real fight between Topgun students flying F-14’s and instructors flying F-16’s. Don’t you think they try to prepare these students for the real thing as much as possible?

EDIT: about the spiced up thing. Yes, an actual war always brings more stress, chaos and uncertainty with it. The other side of this however is that the adversaries at Topgun or Nellis are probably the best adversaries a fighter pilot will ever face. And an F-14 pilot called Hoser once said that the ACEVAL/AIMVAL exercise was the best flying he’s ever done. Because that was a tactics study where jets on both sides were flown by weapons instructors and the difference between AIMVAL and real combat was that in real combat your enemy dies. At AIMVAL your enemy learns from his mistakes so you had to keep adapting your tactics.

At times i am a “paper tactician” myself too, but only if i can refer to actual situations and dynamics in flights.
Theory alone is as bad as “instinct” or “intuition” alone. Both must work in unity and in a fast flow.

Again what are you trying to say? Paper tactician? actual situations? The image I posted was an actual fight flown during an actual war….

Let us consider everyone is learning by the same “books” and exectutes the lessons perfectly!
Then HOW do you create advantage points giving you an “egde” ? WHO says, one MUST do as it is written - dogmatically and precisely as suggested? Nah! There is still room for creativitiy and “spirit”.

Nobody does and I never said you must do everything as written. However, that doesn’t mean that what was written, isn’t true….
And if everybody executes perfectly and both sides fly the same airplane, nobody wins. On Tomcat Sunset website there was a perfect example of this. Two Navy pilots at Pt Mugu were so closely matched to each other, they decided they wouldn’t dogfight each other anymore. Because neither could gain an advantage over the other, every fight ended up in a rolling scissors close to the ground. They decided that this was too dangerous and risk of an accident too great.

One philosphy may be “kill as fast as possible” …another might be “kill as safe and as easy as possible”

Sure, but if you have to walk home because you ran out of fuel in the process, it’s not very safe, is it?

[Stuge]

@Tomcatter31:

I wasn’t talking about the bandit, I was talking about your wingman. Your wingman got seperated by 10 miles. If at that point a bandit sneaks up behind him, you will not be able to see that, because you’re out of range.

This is a non-argument since the whole idea is to have the other bandit in a place where he is not a threat. Whether he is continuously tracked visually or not is irrelevant - his approximate location is known, as is the fact that he is not an acute threat. Also, a 10 nm separation between wingmen is pretty good initially, since any unexpected switches by the bandits can be dealt with in a more controlled fashion. The distance can be closed rapidly, if needed.

@Tomcatter31:

Sure, but if you have to walk home because you ran out of fuel in the process, it’s not very safe, is it?

This is another non-argument. Disengaging and returning to base (in case of low fuel for example) is always easier when one is not committed into a turning fight. Once in a proper turning fight, bugging out may be impossible without getting shot. Regarding fuel efficiency…. our execution is still very much in experimental phase. Fuel efficiency will increase. Also, “normal” dogfights can become pretty extended, and leave participants out of fuel just as well. Nothing guarantees a quick kill (and especially not getting killed), you don’t always get what you want.

[Arty]

@Tomcatter31:

… Because that was a tactics study where jets on both sides were flown by weapons instructors and the difference between AIMVAL and real combat was that in real combat your enemy dies. …

Well we keep forgetting that real weapons are not that accurate and effective.

So in training u lock up and fire within envelop and exercise parameters and he is instantly called dead… This ISN’T the case in real.

Recent example the superhornet in Syria… had to fire 2 missiles that made the pilot change tactic and position… to shoot down an (actual nonexisting) enemy that was alone and without any A-A or G support… So if the enemy had the same mission and support (not a lonewolf) things would be way more different in the specific example.
I say actual nonexisting enemy cause the guys they fight they know they don’t have airplanes…

[A.S]

@Tomcatter.

Look Friend.

We opened this thread with the first tournament flight we ever did as team, because

• as inspiration for others to add their own ACM videos or tapes along the tournament
• and also as inspiration to discuss the ACM topic generally, because it fell short for too long.

We thought about it, if we should better wait, until the tournament is over, but we saw no problem in “opening up” already. Sharing is caring in a broader perspective.
We see no problem, if people will try to adapt to our “tactics” (already do i heart), or use this discussions here to think about more variables, because we still have other “aces in our sleeves”.

I will not argue with you - or anyone - about what the right or wrong approach is, unless this person is able to pick up a partner and show us or the teams available.

I can very easily and quickly differentiate;

• if someone is arguing for the sake of it (public argument position),
• or if this person is actually able to exectute what he talks about,
• or how much ACTUAL ACM expirience he has - inside squadron or facing others outside the squadron.

… just by the way someone writes, it kinda shows. Redshift´s replies i.e were interesting, just eager to see how they execute it.

As Arty already partially addressed, sometimes things just dont go as planed and in an idealistic execution format.
There are always additional variables, which have to be considered, which books mostly dont cover (NEVER DID as far as i can tell - BFM or ACM - at least not the public available and “floating around” ones.). And watching “Nellis” videos don´t make you an ACM pilot, as reading a driver-manuals don´t make you an “Ayrton Senna”.

Our video is only a demo… with explanations why we did what we did. If someone has better ideas how it is done… join the future tournaments/matchplays and LET´S ROCK

The BFM/ACM peeps hang around here: https://discord.gg/R5dJGb (Discord invitation link)

PS:
In real they can bug-out and go home. We can´t, because it is a limited fuel-time and we HAVE TO finish it in the match-play.

Again, this is why a scenarios like this

• reach station-area in time,
• hold station-ares for a specific time (or kill bandits),
• and being able to RTB after fullfilling one of the two above - still with mission-success

is more appropiate: https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?31080-Aerial-Combat-Tournament-League-TEs

[A.S]

And if everybody executes perfectly and both sides fly the same airplane, nobody wins.

Two options:

• flying perfectly and patiently until bandit makes a mistake, which allows to gain a little advantage to work from
• complicating the situations, creating new “decission-points” and “forcing” / “teasing” the bandit into making a mistake

Two Navy pilots at Pt Mugu were so closely matched to each other, they decided they wouldn’t dogfight each other anymore. Because neither could gain an advantage over the other, every fight ended up in a rolling scissors close to the ground. They decided that this was too dangerous and risk of an accident too great.

… happens all the time among the BFM fellas

[KidVicious]

It’s a good discussion. The footage is available, doctrine is available etc. Some back and forth is expected and open to debate.

As has been said, having knowledge of ACM is one thing, it’s much more difficult to put into practice which is clearly evident.

Regardless of various types of mutual support contracts that develop and are constantly modified as the element progresses in their training; leaving a bandit unmonitored despite of having spacial awareness (which only equates to time, the amount of time you have before the unmonitored bandit could pose a threat from a particular hemisphere, after he slung himself out of the fight temporarily) is a gamble.

If an element’s tactical choices agree to gambling on particular aspects of their contract, then that’s a risk they’re willing to take.

Whether this risk is refutable or not can be defined in discussion surely, but to implement that refutation in the 3D simulator is not such an easy task in many cases.

[Mystic_J]

Nothing important, but ACM is always 2v1. ACM contracts are briefed for 2vX situations, however a 2v2 scenario is always ACT (Air Combat Tactics). That’s all.

[KidVicious]

@Mystic_J:

Nothing important, but ACM is always 2v1. ACM contracts are briefed for 2vX situations, however a 2v2 scenario is always ACT (Air Combat Tactics). That’s all.

That’s right.

ACT being a repertoire of tactical intercepts for various bandit compositions and formations, that attempts to produce an ACM (2v1) situation.

[A.S]

leaving a bandit unmonitored despite of having spacial awareness (which only equates to time, the amount of time you have before the unmonitored bandit could pose a threat from a particular hemisphere, after he slung himself out of the fight temporarily) is a gamble.

If an element’s tactical choices agree to gambling on particular aspects of their contract, then that’s a risk they’re willing to take.

Whether this risk is refutable or not can be defined in discussion surely, but to implement that refutation in the 3D simulator is not such an easy task in many cases.

It is a gamble - in a way, but a “controlable” (controled) one.

The “amount of time you have before the unmonitored bandit poses a threat again” is managed by - in what direction (and how long) the engaged bandit is “placed to” (away from SF) before termination.
If the engaged bandit is able to defend and change the trajectory back towards his “slung out” wingman for some reason, a new situation is created and roles change aswell.
Re-sort.
At that point the “entry” and “entry geometry” of the supporting bandit - and to keep an eye on the bandit who “freed” himself for time being - is important.

Finding the “unmonitored” bandit soon enough is usually simple, but can be difficult!, if that one is “smart” THAT is, why it can be a “gamble”.

If the isolation-concept of the creation of 2v1 situations is NOT applied … you end up in other “all are commited/enganged” situations:

• defensive / defensive
• offensive / offensive
• defensive / offensive

which will lead to new geometrical challenges and solutions, as two seperated fighting groups will most likely “meet again” - creating new SOOs.

[Lukas]

very nice, but I can not download the ACMI…?

BTW I know you will say its lame… but what I dont like too much is this F-16 vs F-16 airframe combat (are u smoking, turn on smoke…etc.).
What about to add an exactly identical copy of F-16 with MiG-29 3D airframe and radar signal :)…perhaps its just about the skins like in original F4.0 (red,blue,yellow,white)…

[A.S]

Inspired by - and remembering - a nice chat with Redhsift on Discord.

Normally…

… the goal of an Element is to stay within a specific “mutual-support bubble” - in order to grant the quickest solutions.
BUT the Element - depending on situation and how bandits execute their tactics - will also require spacial seperation, otherwise the “bubble” is traded with as “single unit”, and an “unmonitored bandit” left out there.

A single bandit will not be so stupid to commit himself into a 1 vs 2-bubble anyways.

[A.S]

@Lukas:

very nice, but I can not download the ACMI…?

BTW I know you will say its lame… but what I dont like too much is this F-16 vs F-16 airframe combat (are u smoking, turn on smoke…etc.).
What about to add an exactly identical copy of F-16 with MiG-29 3D airframe and radar signal :)…perhaps its just about the skins like in original F4.0 (red,blue,yellow,white)…

ACMI (.vhs) is available in the video-descriptions on Youtube (under video).

Yes, it is F16 blk52 vs F16 blk52. No, we are not “smoking”

[Lukas]

I know, but download does not work for some reason…?

Is it prohibited? (smoking :blowpar:)

[A.S]

It does work. Try again. https://www.dropbox.com/s/juznloxqb1j5mnb/1stWeek-Duelality-vs-East_Dragons-5-1-6thAug-AS.7z?dl=0

[Lukas]

5th try with another browser(chrome) and it works (before 20x with firefox no chance). thx

[Tomcatter31]

@A.S:

@Tomcatter.

Look Friend.

….
I can very easily and quickly differentiate;

• if someone is arguing for the sake of it (public argument position),
• or if this person is actually able to exectute what he talks about,
• or how much ACTUAL ACM expirience he has - inside squadron or facing others outside the squadron.

… just by the way someone writes, it kinda shows. Redshift´s replies i.e were interesting, just eager to see how they execute it.

I thought we were just having an interesting discussion about tactics. I thought you’d enjoy it too, because you’re posting in several threads about BFM and ACM and have quite long posts with extensive analysis. I didn’t consider it arguing. If you do, then my apologies.

[Tomcatter31]

@KidVicious:

It’s a good discussion. The footage is available, doctrine is available etc. Some back and forth is expected and open to debate.

Thanks, that’s what I thought too.

Regardless of various types of mutual support contracts that develop and are constantly modified as the element progresses in their training; leaving a bandit unmonitored despite of having spacial awareness (which only equates to time, the amount of time you have before the unmonitored bandit could pose a threat from a particular hemisphere, after he slung himself out of the fight temporarily) is a gamble.

If an element’s tactical choices agree to gambling on particular aspects of their contract, then that’s a risk they’re willing to take.

Whether this risk is refutable or not can be defined in discussion surely, but to implement that refutation in the 3D simulator is not such an easy task in many cases.

Thanks, that was the point I was trying to make.

[A.S]

@Tomcatter31:

I thought we were just having an interesting discussion about tactics. I thought you’d enjoy it too, because you’re posting in several threads about BFM and ACM and have quite long posts with extensive analysis. I didn’t consider it arguing. If you do, then my apologies.

We have. Enjoyable.