In the past I have posted streams of simulated warfare between various forces within a mid range combat simulator run by a friend of mine. I decided to have him do something showing the fairly real unpredictability and variance of Air Warfare even in a computer program and what just basic smart combat controllers can do and so can stupid ones. In addition, the idea was to show an emphasis on why in today's modern warfare scenario; stand-off is the name of the game for any side to avoid losing assets even against an inferior enemy.
The most suitable and known element was to do a PAF vs IAF simulation.
Each IAF asset in a reasonable strike package is simulated as below. It is important to state that in terms of Radar capability, electronic warfare capability,RCS and weapons fit; efforts have been made to give it truest to the immediate future. For the most part, No biased superiority was given to PAF equipment and for the most part IAF equipment is superior in most respects(because we have the usual cry babies sure to comment).
In addition, all IAF assets are linked by simulated "AFNET" which shares radar data.
There was no participation by the user in any of these so to not add a human tilt to either side.
However, friendly side is shown as IAF hence the terrible radio chatter(my friend would appreciate any help with local voices) is from the IAF side.
Lastly, AI pilot skills have been kept at random for both sides. So both sides had a mix of experienced flyers and rookies.
This simulation was run at least 15 times and the results varied EVERY TIME. I asked for the 4 most different results.
To keep a control,the strike package which remained unchanged in its ingress and package pattern to allow uniformity.
The package consisted of the following:
4 x M2K-9 -- This was the main strike package with one flight tasked with a coastal target and the other was to hit an associated airfield close by.
4 x Su-30MKI --These were Providing a low-med escort to protect the flight from air assets.
2 x Rafale DH-- SEAD Aircraft tasked with taking out ADA radars.
2 x Rafale EH-- Escort for SEAD
2 x Su-30MKI -- Decoy Strike package simulating a more western approach
2 x Tejas mk.1-- Decoy Strike package simulating a more western approach
1 x C-130J -- Commando Unit simulating a drop to hit a terrorist camp
1 x Mi-8SAR-- Simulating pickup of raid or SAR
1 x A-50Ehl Proving AEW
The ground based Air Defence was kept unchanged:
1 x SPADA 2000 battery
1 x Crotale
1 x LD-2000 system
4 x Anza placed on assumed approaches
4 x Oerlikon on approach
6 x Oerlikon on airfield.
The variance was in the defenders and was confined to changing one flight of its equipment and in one case using a smart GCI tactic of low flying pincer intercepts versus normal intercept patterns.
The 1st Defense scenario shown is below- This shows a very optimistic result for the attack force. Although iterations were done apparently in which the strike force took heavy losses due to a simple change in altitude of the interceptors.
Defense Package is:
2 x F-16MLU - Launched when strike is assumed detected 10 minutes out.
2 x JF-17 - Standing Combat Air Patrol
2 x JF-17 - Alert 5 intercept.
Unexpectedly, even with radar coverage and datalink- the combination of intercept approaches and basic RCS vs Radar capability lets the defenders get some shots off. However, the following barrage of BVR shots makes generally short work of the Air component of Defence.
The SPADA 2000 is utterly useless against most modern threats with electronic warfare and the Rafales make quick work of its FCR with the AASM. They do however take a loss or two to the Crotale component but the targets are hit.
Result:
Strike force 100% success- 3-4 Losses
Defenders- All lost
The 2nd Defense scenario: This was an attempt to change the equipment parity further in favor of the IAF by changing the F-16s to Mirage-IIIROSE-I. Altitude for the JF-17CAP was reduced from 5000ft to 2000ft.
However, the results were less rosy for the strike force. The Jf-17s are still able to get a few shots off and hit the main strike force. That Defense component is swiftly dealt with by the MKIs but they end up distracted by the ROSE Mirages and fall to the intercept JF-17s. Eventually, the Strike package is able to break through but the M2k flight has to Jettison its load when it hits the ANZA battery at the approach. The SEAD mission still makes short work of the SPADA2000.
Result:
Strike force \: Failure- 5-6 Losses
Defenders- All lost
The 3rd Scenario is more interesting. The CAP altitude was reset to 3000ft but the following equipment changes were made. The JF-17s on CAP were given dual SD-10 launchers and the Alert 10 was changed to a F-16 Block-52. This time, the Strike package took more of a mauling from the interceptors that led to some interesting dogfights in which the Striking force prevailed eventually. The Mirages however made it to target and the mission could be considered a success.
Result:
Strike force \: Success- 6-8 Losses
Defenders- All lost
The last Scenario has the same equipment as above, but the CAP altitude was reduced again to 2000ft and the pincer extended further. The result was a massacre for the strike package who also ended up losing the Commando Raid.
Result:
Strike force \: Failure- 10-12 Losses
Defenders- 1 x F-16 Block 52 Active- possibly 2 x JF-17 Still active
All the above simulations had varying results, but the following things came out certain.
1. Even in the face of superior equipment - Smart ground control of intercepts can lead to some success for outnumbered defenders.
2. MANPADS and AAA pose a significant threat to any low level attack.
3. Most Semi-Active SAMs are useless against a concentrated attack.
4. RCS vs Radar range, power and clutter are very fluid and determine the play of combat.
Any additional observations are welcome. This is a 70-80% realism in terms of every aspect of aircombat so it is NOT the real thing or something to take personally as many here are capable of.
Requests for changes to the scenario , tweaks and redos are welcome but please keep in mind that this goes to third party for simulation and upload. The guy takes his time to respond. @Dazzler @Windjammer @Bilal Khan (Quwa) @Arsalan @Zarvan and whoever else might be interested can be tagged.
Finally, those here to whine will be thrown out of the thread without second guessing.
The most suitable and known element was to do a PAF vs IAF simulation.
Each IAF asset in a reasonable strike package is simulated as below. It is important to state that in terms of Radar capability, electronic warfare capability,RCS and weapons fit; efforts have been made to give it truest to the immediate future. For the most part, No biased superiority was given to PAF equipment and for the most part IAF equipment is superior in most respects(because we have the usual cry babies sure to comment).
In addition, all IAF assets are linked by simulated "AFNET" which shares radar data.
There was no participation by the user in any of these so to not add a human tilt to either side.
However, friendly side is shown as IAF hence the terrible radio chatter(my friend would appreciate any help with local voices) is from the IAF side.
Lastly, AI pilot skills have been kept at random for both sides. So both sides had a mix of experienced flyers and rookies.
This simulation was run at least 15 times and the results varied EVERY TIME. I asked for the 4 most different results.
To keep a control,the strike package which remained unchanged in its ingress and package pattern to allow uniformity.
The package consisted of the following:
4 x M2K-9 -- This was the main strike package with one flight tasked with a coastal target and the other was to hit an associated airfield close by.
4 x Su-30MKI --These were Providing a low-med escort to protect the flight from air assets.
2 x Rafale DH-- SEAD Aircraft tasked with taking out ADA radars.
2 x Rafale EH-- Escort for SEAD
2 x Su-30MKI -- Decoy Strike package simulating a more western approach
2 x Tejas mk.1-- Decoy Strike package simulating a more western approach
1 x C-130J -- Commando Unit simulating a drop to hit a terrorist camp
1 x Mi-8SAR-- Simulating pickup of raid or SAR
1 x A-50Ehl Proving AEW
The ground based Air Defence was kept unchanged:
1 x SPADA 2000 battery
1 x Crotale
1 x LD-2000 system
4 x Anza placed on assumed approaches
4 x Oerlikon on approach
6 x Oerlikon on airfield.
The variance was in the defenders and was confined to changing one flight of its equipment and in one case using a smart GCI tactic of low flying pincer intercepts versus normal intercept patterns.
Defense Package is:
2 x F-16MLU - Launched when strike is assumed detected 10 minutes out.
2 x JF-17 - Standing Combat Air Patrol
2 x JF-17 - Alert 5 intercept.
Unexpectedly, even with radar coverage and datalink- the combination of intercept approaches and basic RCS vs Radar capability lets the defenders get some shots off. However, the following barrage of BVR shots makes generally short work of the Air component of Defence.
The SPADA 2000 is utterly useless against most modern threats with electronic warfare and the Rafales make quick work of its FCR with the AASM. They do however take a loss or two to the Crotale component but the targets are hit.
Strike force 100% success- 3-4 Losses
Defenders- All lost
The 2nd Defense scenario: This was an attempt to change the equipment parity further in favor of the IAF by changing the F-16s to Mirage-IIIROSE-I. Altitude for the JF-17CAP was reduced from 5000ft to 2000ft.
However, the results were less rosy for the strike force. The Jf-17s are still able to get a few shots off and hit the main strike force. That Defense component is swiftly dealt with by the MKIs but they end up distracted by the ROSE Mirages and fall to the intercept JF-17s. Eventually, the Strike package is able to break through but the M2k flight has to Jettison its load when it hits the ANZA battery at the approach. The SEAD mission still makes short work of the SPADA2000.
Strike force \: Failure- 5-6 Losses
Defenders- All lost
The 3rd Scenario is more interesting. The CAP altitude was reset to 3000ft but the following equipment changes were made. The JF-17s on CAP were given dual SD-10 launchers and the Alert 10 was changed to a F-16 Block-52. This time, the Strike package took more of a mauling from the interceptors that led to some interesting dogfights in which the Striking force prevailed eventually. The Mirages however made it to target and the mission could be considered a success.
Strike force \: Success- 6-8 Losses
Defenders- All lost
The last Scenario has the same equipment as above, but the CAP altitude was reduced again to 2000ft and the pincer extended further. The result was a massacre for the strike package who also ended up losing the Commando Raid.
Strike force \: Failure- 10-12 Losses
Defenders- 1 x F-16 Block 52 Active- possibly 2 x JF-17 Still active
All the above simulations had varying results, but the following things came out certain.
1. Even in the face of superior equipment - Smart ground control of intercepts can lead to some success for outnumbered defenders.
2. MANPADS and AAA pose a significant threat to any low level attack.
3. Most Semi-Active SAMs are useless against a concentrated attack.
4. RCS vs Radar range, power and clutter are very fluid and determine the play of combat.
Any additional observations are welcome. This is a 70-80% realism in terms of every aspect of aircombat so it is NOT the real thing or something to take personally as many here are capable of.
Requests for changes to the scenario , tweaks and redos are welcome but please keep in mind that this goes to third party for simulation and upload. The guy takes his time to respond. @Dazzler @Windjammer @Bilal Khan (Quwa) @Arsalan @Zarvan and whoever else might be interested can be tagged.
Finally, those here to whine will be thrown out of the thread without second guessing.
