AWACS/COMMS Discussion – What Would You Have Changed?
-
@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. -