Aircraft F-4 F-5 F-14 F-15 F-16 F-18 F-22 MiG-19 / J-6 MiG-21 MiG-23 MiG-25 MiG-29 MiG-31 Su-27 Su-30 J-5 J-7
IR WVR Missiles AIM-9 AIM-9 AIM-9 AIM-9 AIM-9 AIM-9 AIM-9 AA-2 AA-2 AA-8 AA-8 AA-8, AA-11 AA-8 AA-8, AA-11 AA-8, AA-11 AA-2 PL-7, PL-8

Semi-Active Radar WVR

IR BVR Missiles
Semi-Active Radar BVR AIM-7 AIM-7 AIM-7 AIM-7

Active Radar BVR

AIM-54 AIM-120 AIM-120 AIM-120 AIM-120
AA-2 AA-2 AA-7 AA-6, AA-7 AA-6 AA-10 AA-10 AA-7 AA-6, AA-7 AA-10 AA-9 AA-10 AA-10

AA-12 AA-12

Table 1 : Air-to-Air Missile Capabilities of Fighters in Falcon 4 (Korean Theatre) You should read the intelligence reports on what kind of threats are present in the target area, and familiarize yourselves with their capabilities. We will discuss more about weapon capabilities in the later sections of this users manual, how best to employ them, and how best to counter them. For a start, knowing what kind of threats you will be facing will allow you to prepare yourself mentally. For example, you will only need to defeat the hostile aircrafts radar in order to foil a semi-active radar homing (SARH) missile shot, but you will need to contend with both the hostile aircrafts radar as well as the missiles onboard radar when defending against an active radar guided missile. You will also need to be aware that some BVR missiles are guided by infra-red radiation, and you will not be warned of a missile launch. More on weapon capabilities later. You should also review the self defense ability of the aircraft that you will face, and whether they are equipped with countermeasure dispensing systems (CMDS) or internal/external jammers. You can find the details in the F4_RP_Sensor_Properties.XLS Excel spreadsheet included with the distribution of this users manual, under the sheet labeled Jammer and CMDS. ANALYZING THE GROUND BASED THREAT The next concern that you should pay attention to is the threat of enemy ground based air defenses. This is less complicated than planning against airborne interceptors, as the ground based air defenses are not as mobile, if not static. The analysis will again make extensive use of the data presented in the Excel spreadsheet the F4_RP_Sensor_Properties.XLS included with this users manual. Avoiding SAM engagements Surface-to-Air guided missile radars have tremendous detection ranges. They will usually detect your presence from distances way beyond their effective firing range. You may find that it may not be possible at all to plan your flight route around the SAM sites to avoid detection. What you will need to do is to avoid getting shot at. This will also help you decide if you should carry a jammer, in the event that you are unable to plan a flight route to avoid an engagement, as well as how you should approach the SAM site if you are tasked with a SEAD mission.

THE ART AND SCIENCE OF MOVING MUD
Air-to-Surface Attack Planning By Hoola INTRODUCTION An important part of pre-flight mission planning is the attack planning. This involves detailed study of the targets characteristics, local geography, air defenses, etc., as well as selection of the attack profile. While the computerized bombing system of the Viper will automatically compute the weapon release parameters, it will help you perform better if you are able to anticipate what is to happen during the bombing run. Half the success of any attack mission lies in the planning process, and if a mission is well planned, it will remove many uncertainties during your final attack run-in, and leave you with more mental capacity to handle other tasks, such as looking out for threats. There are several attack profiles available. We will discuss the merits and disadvantages of each of them, and step you through the planning of the release parameters. This section may be very boring and academic, but you must remember that good planning is essential to the success of any mission. You should develop the discipline of planning your mission thoroughly, and maximize the damage that you can bring about to the enemy. For additional information on air-to-ground attack planning and tactics, a good reference source is the USAF Multi-Command Handbook 11-F16, Volume 5, F-16 Combat Aircraft Fundamentals, available at http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/16v5.pdf. TARGET STUDY The sole purpose of any surface attack mission is to deliver the ordnance onto the intended target. You should make use of the Recon feature in the mission planning screen to help you visualize the target and its local geography. Your considerations should include at least the following: 1. What is the targets elevation? There is no easy way of estimating this in Falcon 4, and you will need to guess the approximate altitude based on the local geography. This will determine your minimum release altitude, especially if you are Figure 36: Satellite imagery of the Pristina fuel depot attacking with cluster bombs. For in Serbia, prior to its destruction by NATO jets during example, if the target is at an Operation Allied Force. Detailed target study is an elevation of 1,000 feet, and you integral part of strike mission planning. (Picture credit have set the cluster bomb to of NATO) burst at 1,500 feet, then it will only burst at an altitude of 500 feet AGL, since the cluster bomb burst height is barometric and not AGL. The target elevation will also affect whether you will enter any SHORAD envelope during the release and the dive pull-out. For example, if the target is at an elevation of 1,000 feet, and is defended by SAMs with an effective altitude of 10,000 feet, you will enter the effective envelope of the air defenses when you are at a barometric altitude of 11,000 feet. 2. Is the target situated on flat ground or on a hill? If it is the former, then you are not limited in your choice of attack heading. If it is the former, then your choice of attack heading is limited to the side of the hill that the target is sited on. For example, if the target is on the

You may often need to query AWACS more than once before you get a confirmed answer. However, AWACS can be wrong, and it is not unheard of for AWACS to mis-identify targets in real life. One such example is quoted below: During the first night of Operation Desert Storm, Captain Gentner Drummond from the 1st TFW was orbiting outside Baghdad on MIGCAP, when he was vectored to a high speed, low level bandit ingressing towards Saudi Arabia. The contact was not egressing along the pre-determined egress routes for friendly aircraft, and one of the ROEs was to engage any aircraft that is not egressing along the prescribed routes. The IFF interrogation drew no response, and he was unable to identify the target through NCTR. AWACS, however, ordered him to shoot, and confirmed that the target was hostile. The F-15 pilot was doubtful, and although he knew that AWACS probably had Rivet Joint data to confirm that the target was hostile, he decided to close in for a VID, just to be sure. He executed a stern conversion, and pulled up next to a Saudi Tornado egressing after a deep strike. You will always need to bear in mind that AWACS (and Rivet Joint, an ELINT asset) can be wrong. It is a fallacy to wish for a complete air picture in an all out war. Even in a limited war, things can often go terribly wrong. Mis-identification of the target can often lead to a wrongful shoot-down, as evident in the UH-60 Blackhawk shoot-down by a pair of F-15C over Kurdistan, during the aftermath of Operation Desert Storm. In this case, both the F-15s and AWACS mis-identified the low flying targets, and the F15s even mis-identified the targets as Mi-24 Hinds during a VID fly-pass. This fog of war is replicated in Falcon 4, as it is not unheard of for targets to be declared as hostile, and yet they turned out to be friendlies. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ON RADARS, JAMMERS, AND RWR We have collated a series of common questions on radars, jammers and RWR for your convenience. You will find that some of the materials and answers presented in the FAQ are repetitive of materials and concepts presented earlier in this section. This section is designed to be a quick reference to provide information in bite size chunks, specific to your questions. We hope that you will find them useful. Should you require more details on the electronic warfare mechanization in the Realism Patch, or just want to know about the design considerations, plus refer to the section titled The Electronic Battlefield in the Designers notes. Why cant I detect any targets below me when I am flying the MiG-21 or F-5E? These aircraft are equipped with pulse radars. Pulse radars display only the raw radar video return, and in a look down situation, the ground reflects a large part of the radars return. This will mask out the target return, and as such, pulse radars are unable to detect targets in a look down situation. Why does the target disappear when the it goes perpendicular to me, and also why does the radar lose the lock under such situations? This will only happen with pulse doppler radars. For a description of the different radar types and modes, refer to the earlier sub-section titled Radar Management. The pulse doppler radar is equipped with a doppler filter that will filter out targets with velocities lower than the filter threshold. Pulse doppler radars rely on the doppler shift on the targets return to detect its presence. When the target goes perpendicular to the radar, the doppler shift decreases towards zero. When this decreases to a value corresponding to the minimum velocity threshold in the doppler filter (also called the doppler notch), the radar no longer regards it as a legitimate target and drops the lock and track.

Why isnt there an IFF in the game? For the simple reason that USAF F-16C/D do not carry IFF interrogators. USAF F-16s (other than the F-16A ADF version) carry only IFF transponders to respond to IFF interrogations, but cannot interrogate others. IFF interrogators are carried on F-16s operated by other countries, such as the F16A MLU, Turkish and Greek Block 50 F-16C/D, and Taiwanese Block 20 F-16A/B. The USAF Block 50 jets are not slated to be retrofitted with IFF interrogators until post 2003, under the Common Configuration Upgrade Program. The associated fallacy is that IFF identifies friends and foes. This is wrong. IFF will identify only friends and unknowns. If the IFF codes match the target will be recognized as friendly. If the transponder codes do not match, it is either that the transponder being interrogated is set wrongly, not operating, or transmitting the wrong code. In all of these instances, the identity cannot be determined, and the IFF displays the target as unknown. The target could well be a friendly with a faulty IFF transponder, as much as it could be a hostile. Of course, the rules of engagement can be made such that an unknown IFF return can be assumed to be hostile. In this case, technically speaking, the IFF still cannot identify the target as a threat. It is just that the ROE specify that unidentified targets are to be treated as threats. We understand that instead of using IFF interrogation (which will give away the location of the interrogator), USAF is more reliant on using NCTR for target identification, and a positive identification on NCTR is sufficient to initiate a missile engagement. This is far more reliable than IFF as the target is positively identified. IFF is not able to provide positive identification of all targets, as a failure in the IFF transponder on friendly aircraft will not allow it to be identified as friendly to its own side. This was one of the contributing factors that led to the shoot-down of two US Army UH-60 over Kurdistan, Iraq, by a pair of USAF F-15C enforcing the no-fly zone during the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War. How do I find out whether the target can detect me on its RWR when I am painting it? The RWR system in the original F4 was a common system for all vehicles, and offered 360 spherical coverage, with 100% detection at 100% of the emitter ranges. From RP4 onwards, different RWRs have been created, with different coverage zones and different sensitivities (including creation of ESM systems). To find out the range at which the target can detect your own radar, look up the RWR type used by the target from the RP documentation (the sheet named RWR in the Excel spreadsheet F4_RP_Sensor_Properties.XLS, included in the distribution of this users manual). This spreadsheet shows the RWR gain, and coverage zones. To find out your own radar range, look up the same documentation under the Radar sheet for the radar properties of your own ship. This is given in feet. Dividing this by 6076 will give you the nominal detection range. Multiplying this again by the RWR gain will give you the detectable range for the targets RWR system. Do RWRs recognize friendlies and foes? This is the biggest fallacy of all. RWRs cannot and do not recognize foes and friends. All that an RWR does is to detect the emitter, classify it by referencing the threat library, output a relevant audio tone, and display the pre-determined symbol. The RWR will recognize emitter type, but cannot make the distinction between friends and foes. If the opponents are flying the same aircraft as the friendlies, the RWR will not be able to distinguish them. The RWRs in the Realism Patch are designed as such. RWR can make mistakes in real life, and much of its accuracy in determining the emitter type is dependent on how well the threat library is programmed (i.e. how good the intelligence and ELINT information are), and how sophisticated the emitter is with its ECCM mode. Frequency agility and varying stagger/jitter will often make identifying the emitter type more difficult in real life.

The RWR symbologies are not accurate ! The default Microprose RWR symbologies are by and large correct for the older RWR in the ALR-56C and ALR-69 class, albeit with some minor inaccuracies. MPS was more correct than everyone else gave them credit for, as far as the USAF RWR symbology implementation is concerned. With newer RWRs (such as ALR-56M and the ALR-67) and that have more processing and memory capacity, the RWRs are also capable of generating and displaying a greater variety of symbols. The Realism Patch has reflected this and updated the RWR implementation to reflect the latest generation of digital RWRs. RWR symbologies are hardwired in the executable, and are not editable without hex edits. The revised RWR symbologies provide much better situational awareness, but cannot provide 100% target identification certainty, as RWR accuracy depends on the quality of the software programming, which is in turn dependent on quality intelligence information on the threat radars operating characteristics. Some radars such as the N-019ME Slotback on the MiG-29, and the N-001 Slotback on the Su-27/30, have very similar electromagnetic characteristics, and is very difficult if not impossible to distinguish. Older pulse radars such as the radars equipping the MiG-19/J-5 have characteristics that are generic to most pulse radars, and this also makes it difficult to identify accurately. Even with the expanded memory capacity on the latest RWRs, the size of the threat library of newer emitters are often very large, and low priority threats such as the MiG-19 are not given much attention, and are sometimes left out of the threat library to make space for newer threats. This will also add to emitter identification difficulties. Such constraints are modeled in the Realism Patch RWR implementation. Can RWR be programmed such that friendlies are always outside the inner ring? As mentioned before, RWRs do not recognize friends and foes. If you program an emitter to remain outside the inner ring, then if the opponent has the same emitter, it is similarly affected. RWRs determine where the symbols are placed by determining the signal strength it receives. It then looks up a pre-determined signal strength table to determine where to display the symbol. At some point in time, the signal strength will become strong enough such that it will breach the inner threat ring, be it a friendly emitter or a hostile emitter, so programming the RWR such that friendly emitters will never breach the inner ring is not a possibility in real life. The Realism Patch radars and RWR are adjusted such that the emitters will breach the inner threat ring when you are about to enter their effective engagement range. As such, for emitters outside the inner threat ring, they are not in a position to engage you, while emitters inside the inner threat ring will pose a danger to you as you are inside their engagement range. For aircraft, this range is set at the range of their typical BVR weapon. Is the jammer working properly? Why does it appear that it is working intermittently? The jammer effects have been revamped totally with effect from Realism Patch version 4. Microprose coded F4 with a spherical ECM coverage. As long as ECM is activated, it is effective and assumes total coverage. However, ECM systems have coverage areas, and within the antenna beamwidth, its ability to direct jamming power also depends on the angular displacement of the threat radar off from the jammer antenna boresight. With Realism Patch, jammers have been given an effective coverage area of 60 in azimuth (measured from the aircraft centerline), and an effective elevation coverage of +15 (up) to 30 (down). Within this angular and elevation coverage, the full effects of ECM are obtained within an azimuth of 30, and an elevation from +5 to 20. Between azimuth of 30 and 60, and elevation of +5 and +15 as well as 20 to 30, the effect of ECM decreases logarithmically with an exponent of 0.5. Hence, in order to obtain the full effects of ECM coverage, it is necessary to ensure that the threat emitter is within the effective coverage cone. If you decide to beam a radar, you will lose ECM coverage.

The Russian Rabid Dog AA-12 (R-77) Adder The AA-12 is the Russian answer to the AIM-120 missile. Also known as the RVV-AE and R-77, this missile is equipped with a larger rocket motor compared to the AMRAAM, but the cruciform lattice control fins results in a slightly higher drag. The seeker range is between 8 9nm., depending on target RCS. The initial acceleration and fly-out speed of the missile is higher compared to the AIM-120, and the maneuverability is better, but the missile loses energy slightly more rapidly compared to the AIM-120 when made to sustain high g maneuvers. In terms of range, the AA-12 has a slight advantage of about 5% over the AIM-120B, solely Figure 76: AA-12 (R-77) Adder loaded on MiG- due to the larger rocket motor. However, the 29M demonstrator shorter seeker range means that the launch aircraft must support the missile longer than the AIM-120 shooter, which somewhat negates the range advantage. This will allow the AIM-120 shooter to take evasive action slightly earlier than the AA-12 shooter. The tactics to counter the AA-12 are similar to that of AIM-54 and AIM-120 (this will be discussed in the sub-section to follow). AERIAL GUNS When all else fails, you have the last resort, i.e. the onboard gun. We have moved on from the days of fighter pilots shooting at one another with pistols. The common American aerial gun is the 20 mm M61 Vulcan cannon, with a firing rate of 6,000 rounds per minute. If you are flying the A-10, you have the slower firing but harder hitting GAU-mm cannon, firing uranium core shells. The Russians have the Gsh-23 and Gsh-301 cannons. In actual aerial combat, achieving gun hits on enemy aircraft is a difficult task. The high speed and wild maneuvering means that guns are ineffective beyond 4,000 feet of slant range. Real life gunfights often close in to less than 3,000 feet, and even 1,500 feet, before the guns become effective. You will need to close in much more during a gun fight in Realism Patch, often within 3,000 feet, or else you will be wasting the ammunition. You will also need to position your pipper accurately to obtain the kill. It is extremely difficult to score a hit against a head-on target, due to the small frontal profile of most fighters. As such, resort to guns only if you are out of missiles, or if the target is totally defenseless. Do not hang around if you are out of missiles, as the enemy can easily overwhelm you. However, if you are caught in a phone booth fight with nowhere else to go, the gun may be your only hope of getting out of the fight, so learn to use it properly. MISSILE EVASION Generating LOS Problems All missiles have LOS tracking rate limits. The LOS rate is at its highest in a front quarter close range engagement, or in the beam, and reduces towards the rear quarter due to the lower closure rates. You

the target at your 9 oclock. The attack will commence with a roll into the target, in a 10 dive, and a minimum bomb release altitude of 8,000 feet. You plan to commence your own attack run as the AI calls "Bombs away. This will ensure that the target is not obscured by the explosions from the AIs bombs. You intend to pull off to the left as you come off the attack, and allow your wingman to rejoin you smoothly. You see your wingman commence its attack, and you commenced your own attack. As you pull off the target, you hear a loud explosion, and your aircraft is destroyed. What Went Wrong The attack was executed perfectly. However, you collided with your wingman due to flight path conflict! As the AI released its bombs at an altitude of 4,000 feet, and then climbed to rejoin the formation on your left, you were heading towards it in a descend. When you pulled off to the left, you crossed the AIs flight path and collided with it. The Solution The art of getting your AI wingman to rejoin the formation quickly and safely following a bombing run is difficult to master. However, the behavior of the AI is predictable. The AI will execute a 45 turn towards you and engage afterburner as soon as it releases its weapons, and will climb or descend as required to formate on you, before shallowing off its turn. The AI will head directly towards you, and as it closes in on you, will maneuver towards its formation position on your left. There was nothing wrong with this plan, except the execution timing. You should delay your roll onto the target until the AI is in a position such that your flight path will not conflict with it as it tries to regain formation. In this example, if you have executed your attack 10 seconds after the AI has completed its own attack, the AI will be behind you as you turn into the target. The AI will be flying towards your rear as you release the bombs and pull off to your left. You can deconflict your operating altitudes. The AI was climbing to meet you as you were descending on your bombing run. Both of you will be at the same altitude at some point in time, and you should make sure that you are not at the same location as the AI when this happens. You need to consider the AIs actions when it tries to rejoin you after a bombing run, and adjust your own actions accordingly to deconflict with it, as the AI will not be changing its own actions to suit you. EXAMPLE 7: ATTACKING TARGETS IN HILLY TERRAIN The Situation Your flight has been tasked to attack a battalion with Maverick missiles. The battalion is situated amongst some hills. The AI responded to your order to attack by firing its missiles, and misses all its targets. What Went Wrong This problem is most probably caused by the AIs Maverick missile impacting on intervening terrain, as the AI will normally launch its Maverick missiles from low altitudes. The Solution You should make sure that the AI is approaching the targets from flat terrain.

The large size and nasty high AOA characteristics of the aircraft are a big disadvantage to the F-4 pilot in the air combat arena. While useful against less capable threats such as the MiG-23, this airplane is simply out-classed by the MiG-29, Su-27, and F-15. When used against smaller and more nimble fighters such as the MiG-19 and MiG-21, the F-4 should use its advantage in thrust to weight ratio to fight in the vertical, and avoid getting into a slow speed fight. As long as the airspeed is kept above 450 KCAS, the F-4 will stand a good chance of surviving the fight and perhaps walk away victorious. The BVR ability should be maximized in such scenarios. One major disadvantage of the F-4 is its smoky engines in MIL thrust, which is a dead give-away, allowing the F-4 to be spotted from BVR distances. Most newer fighters should have no problems out-turning the F-4E. Less capable fighters, such as the F-5 and MiG-19, should be able to bring about a quick death for the F-4 as long as it can be drawn into a low speed WVR fight. The Rhino is at its best when mud-moving. It has a large payload capacity, and is capable of delivering both precision and unguided munitions. The ROK air force has also procured the AGM-142 stand-off missile for integration on their F-4E, giving it an all weather precision stand-off strike capability against heavily defended and fortified targets. In the BAI/CAS role, the F-4 can be configured with the GBU-15 glide bomb, or laser guided bombs. The hardiness of the airframe allows the F-4 to take an incredible amount of damage and still fly home. Northrop-Grumman F-14B Tomcat The F-14 Tomcat began life as a dedicated interceptor, with not an ounce of air-to-ground capability. The aircraft was designed around the powerful AWG-9 radar system and the AIM-54 Phoenix air-to-air missile. This gives the F-14 a detection range in excess of 60nm. against F-16 type of targets, and in excess of 120nm. for bombers. The AWG-9 radar is capable of operating in both pulse and pulse-doppler modes, and as such, beaming against the AWG-9 is less effective as the radar can switch to pulse mode and continue tracking the target, though this is less useful in lookdown situations. The high power of the radar also Figure 100: F-14B with Paveway III laser enables it to burn through most self protection guided bombs. (Picture credit of USN) jamming at ranges exceeding 25nm. or more, allowing it ample chance to commence a missile engagement. The onboard self protection suite consists of the AN/APR-67 super-heterodyne based RWR, with a much higher sensitivity compared to the crystal-video based RWR, and the AN/ALE-39 chaff/flare dispenser. The defensive suite is completed by the internal ALQ-126 deception jammer. This greatly enhances the ability of the F-14B to survive in the modern battlefield. The aircraft may be armed with up to six AIM-54 missiles, allowing it to engage most targets beyond 30nm., depending on altitude and speed. The air-to-air armament of the F-14 easily out-ranges any airplane in the Falcon 4 world. This gives the F-14 an unparalleled ability to engage targets before they can even retaliate. The alternative BVR weapon is the the AIM-7. WVR weapons include the M61 20mm cannon and two AIM-9M missiles.

This towed AA gun is held in the firing position on its carriage by four screw jacks, similar to the KS-19. Though it does not confer the AA battery an ability to fire on the move, it does allow the battery to deploy quickly into action. Gun elevation is up to 82. Typically, each DPRK AAA battery will consist of four of these guns, in addition to the KS-19. The KS-12 is normally used with the SON-9/SON-9A Firecan radar, and fires fragmentation ammunition. It also has the ability to fire the 85 mm rounds used by the Russian assault guns, field, and tank guns, which also makes it a handy weapon for ground combat. The rate of fire in the AA role is between rounds per minute. The O-365 AA round can be fitted with a powder train or mechanical time fuse, and the gun muzzle velocity is about 2,600 feet/sec. Alternative ammunition include the BR-365 armor piecing tracer round, AP-T round, or HVAP-T round. The guns will typically engage at a horizontal range of 3.5nm., and at target altitudes of up to 20,000 feet. The time fuse will detonate the rounds at the target altitude, and the guns are trained to fire in a horizontal engagement zone to bracket the target. As with the KS- Figure 155: KS-mm single 19, horizontal evasive actions are less useful than vertical jinks. barrel AA gun. (Picture credit of The KS-12 is also manufactured in the PRC as the Type 56 AA USAF) gun. S-mm Automatic Anti-Aircraft Gun The S-mm towed automatic AA gun was designed by L V Loktev and introduced into service in 1950 as a replacement for the 37 mm M1939 AA gun. The main improvements over the latter include increased range and the facility to use an off-carriage gun director system. The S-60 AA gun is normally used in conjunction with the PUAZO-6/60 director and SON-9A Firecan radar, as with the KS-12 and KS-19 guns. Typical DPRK AAA batteries will contain six of these medium altitude flak guns, in addition to the heavy AAA artillery in the form of KS-12 and KS-19. These guns may alternatively be used with the I-band Flap Wheel radar, and such a setup was used by the Iraqis during the 1991 Gulf War. The S-60 gun is raised off the ground and the carriage supported by four screw jacks in the firing position. The guns can be fired on its wheels in an emergency, and fire control Figure 156: S-mm automatic AA equipment consist of a reflex sight for AA use, and a gun. (Picture credit of USAF) telescopic sight for ground use. The gun may be operated in four modes: manual, with the handwheels operated by the crew; assisted, with the handwheels operated by the crew with motor assistance; automatic, remotely controlled by a director; and automatic, remotely controlled by a radar. The S-60 gun has an elevation of 87, and fires the OR-281 or OR-281U fragmentation tracer round, fitted with a MG-57 time fuse. The muzzle velocity is 3,000 feet/sec, and the guns are loaded via four round clips. The practical firing rate is about 70 rounds per minute. The gun has a maximum engagement altitude of 15,000 feet, and a typical horizontal engagement range of 2.5nm. Defense against the S-60 guns is similar as that against the KS-12 and KS-19, i.e. to jink in the vertical plane and avoid the flak bursts. The lower engagement altitude of the S-60 guns means that you can avoid

13: "small dock" Defines boundaries of a "small dock" at a port. Presumably positioning data for placement of (small??) ships 14: "large dock" Defines boundaries of a "large dock" at a port. Presumably positioning data for placement of (large??) ships at a port. 15: "take runway" point at which taxiing plane turns onto runway, or landing plane turns off runway onto taxiway 16: "helicopter" positions from which helicopters take off and land at a site.

DOCKING SHIPS AND BOATS

Correcting Docks and Piers in Falcon 4 By Alex Easton PREAMBLE One of the problems in Falcon 4 is the position of ships at ports. The ships are often docked perpendicular to the piers, and very often, cut right across the pier structure. This is best illustrated in Figure 164. This stems from the way Falcon 4 interprets the data for docks. In the Realism Patch, this has now been changed, and extensive changes were made to all ports and docks. All the changes are made to the FALCON4.PD and FALCON4.PHD data files.
Figure 164: Positional changes made to docks and ports to correct docking discrepancies. The left screen shot depicts the original Falcon 4 docks (the gray arrows pointing out the inconsistencies), while the screen shot on the right depicts the corrections made in the Realism Patch. CHANGES MADE 12. The data for small docks were removed. The way the game sees this is erratic. For example, if the PD entry begins with a pair of data for small docks, all docking data in the entry is ignored and the ships form up as if they were out at sea. On the other hand, if the entry starts with a pair of data for large docks, all data in the entry are treated as data for large docks. Therefore, all the dock data were changed to "large dock" to avoid inconsistencies. 13. Most ports have 4 docking positions in the port. The exceptions are Nachoda, Vladivostok, Nampo Naval Base, Haejo Shipyard and Tasa-ri Naval Base. These ports have two docking positions each. If more ships are placed in a port than there are docking points available, the remaining ships will form up as if they were at sea. 14. Two ports are wrong up because MPS placed the port in the wrong position, thus placing the wharves and docks on land. The piers do not reach the sea. Mokp'o is one of the ports. Ships at these ports are placed further out in the bays and not against the wharves. 15. Because different sized ships can occupy docking positions, there is a choice of either:

Some people might get confused as to why a 2000lb bomb has less "blast" than a Maverick. Answer: 2000lbs of C4 is different than 1000mm of High Explosive Anti-Tank. (a shaped charge weapon). The Maverick G is a "penetrator" much like the BLUs. It is a HE round encased in more steel to allow it to get deeper into concrete bunkers and dug in emplacements, but it is not a "shaped charge" explosive. Blast areas for shaped charges are much smaller due to the fact that the explosion is manipulated to cause overpressures in the millions of pounds per square inch. This provides the energy to punch a 20-30mm hole through up to 4 feet of steel and not to disperse it's energy over a wide area like an HE round. The shaped charge also needs enough BAE (behind armor effects) to cause damage to equipment and crew. Punching a hole is meaningless unless it can ruin a crew's day. It is also very likely that MPS used its blast radius more for the F-16. There are minimum safe altitudes to drop ordnance. These altitudes are based on less than a 1-10% chance of doing any damage to your aircraft. Those tables are easily found. In the Falcon world, this is translated into weapons that equally distribute their damage over an area and (this causes large weapons to have large damage values) destroy or disable formations of vehicles where in reality they would need a direct hit to destroy the vehicle. Although this is a speculative assumption, I am guessing that minimum safe altitude is lower now. EFFECTS OF NAPALM AND THE REDUCTION OF ITS DAMAGE VALUE The effects of napalm were toned down based on extensive research on its true effects. The following passages, re-printed from USAF Intelligence targeting guide AIR FORCE PAMPHLET 14-210 Intelligence 1 FEBRUARY 1998, illustrates: A6.1.5. Flame and Incendiary Effects. Firebombs can be highly effective in close air support. Their short, well-defined range of effects can interrupt enemy operations without endangering friendly forces. They are also effective against supplies stored in light wooden structures or wooden containers. A6.1.5.1. Flame and incendiary weapons, however, are often misleading as to the actual physical damage they inflict. Even a relatively small firebomb can provide a spectacular display but often does less damage than might be expected. When a large firebomb splashes burning gel over an area the size of a football field, it may boil flames a hundred feet into the air. This effect is impressive to the untrained observer, and experienced troops have broken off attacks and fled when exposed to napalm attack. However, soldiers can be trained against this tendency to panic. They can be taught to take cover, put out the fires, and even to brush burning material off their own clothing. A6.1.5.2. Near misses with firebombs seldom cause damage to vehicles, and the number of troops actually incapacitated by the attacks is usually rather small. Incendiaries of the type that started great fires in Japanese and German cities in World War II projected nonmetallic fragments. They had little penetrating capability. Today's newer munitions have full fragmentation and penetrating capabilities, as well as incendiary devices. However, both types can penetrate and start fires and are highly effective against fuel storage tanks or stacked drums of flammable material of any sort.

For the RP AIs use of radar guided BVR missiles, skills will also affect missile evasion capabilities and how long the AI pilot will support its own missile in flight. If the AI already has a missile in flight towards the target, and the target retaliates by shooting at the AI, lower skilled pilots are more likely to commence evasive maneuvers immediately and forego supporting their missile in flight. Higher skilled pilots will wait a little longer before commencing the evasive maneuvers, thus giving their missile a higher chance of getting near the target or shooting down the target. This is mechanized as described below. Recruits random duration, ranging from 1 second to how long ago it launched its missile Cadets random duration, ranging from 2 seconds to how long ago it launched its missile Rookies random duration, ranging from 3 seconds to how long ago it launched its missile Veterans random duration, ranging from 4 seconds to how long ago it launched its missile Aces random duration, ranging from 5 seconds to how long ago it launched its missile This gives the higher skilled pilots better Pk for a missile that is already in-flight for considerable duration. It will however evade sooner and increase its survival chances if the missile time of flight is still short. BVR and WVR Behavior One of the biggest changes made to F4 is the BVR engagement behavior. In fact, the AI changes originated from the aim of changing the AI BVR behavior. F4 does not distinguish between BVR and WVR combat, and employs basically the weapon with the greatest range. This makes modeling decent BVR fights impossible other than the AI taking long range shots at you while driving inbound. BVR intercept tactics such as pince and single side offsets are not possible due to this anemic representation. Also, Sylvain discovered that the AI wingman will only employ its visual sensor to check for other targets, while its radar will only scan for the target that the lead has locked onto. The RP AI changes makes a distinction between BVR and WVR combat, with WVR combat defined as inside 10nm. For BVR combat, once the AI sees the target, it will begin a pince or single side offset maneuver instead of driving straight at the target. For an element, the flight lead will take one side of the maneuver, and the wingman the opposing side. For the pince and single side offset, it is executed with a 4nm. separation between the lead and the wingman. The wingman will also use its radar to scan for all possible targets during the intercept, in addition to the one that the lead has locked onto. BVR combat is set to commence at 30nm., or the WEZ of the longest range weapon loaded on the AI, whichever is higher, provided the AI has detected you. The BVR engagement range is also related to the mission type. For example, flights tasked with air-to-ground missions will not commit as far out as flights tasked with sweep or OCA. As this is tied to the onboard weapon WEZ, it allows for better armed AI pilots to initiate the BVR fight from further out (such as AA-10C, or AIM-54 armed airplanes), and lesser armed AI pilots to initiate from closer distances (such as AA-7 or AIM-7 armed airplanes). This prevents inadequately armed AI pilots from initiating the BVR fight from too far out. The 30nm. range was chosen as typical range for initiating BVR engagements. In addition, both flight lead and wingman will now employ their onboard sensors throughout the maneuver, with each being able to take a shot whenever their respective shoot conditions are satisfied. Weapon selection in F4 was also a simple case of the AI selecting the weapon with the Rmax closest to the target range. In a situation where the AI sensor is prevented from acquiring the target early (such as due to ECM), it will lead to cascading effect with the AI switching to WVR weapon when closing in from BVR (especially if WVR weapons have forward quarter WEZ beyond 10nm.). It will also sometimes lead to the AI not firing its missiles in a dogfight, preferring to employ guns instead.

second pass, and so on). If the AI is still in firing parameters after releasing the first two missiles, it will wait for an interval of 5 seconds before firing the third missile. This results in the AI breaking off the pass much earlier, before it enters the SHORAD range of the ground targets. For AI pilots tasked with six Mavericks, this will result in three separate passes with two missiles fired per pass. Such behavior improves the survivability of the AI pilots, especially in the face of sophisticated SHORAD threats such as the SA-8, SA-15, and SA-16. One of the bugs that we have discovered during the development of the A/G AI behavior is the tendency for the AI pilot to fire the first Maverick missile without a valid lock on the target. The AI is now forced the ensure that their Maverick missiles have locked onto the target, before they are allowed to shoot. For AI tasked for search and destroy, interdiction, or BAI missions, or AI carrying air-to-ground missiles, they will now keep pounding their targets or keep looking for targets, as long as they have unexpended ordnance with them. With 1.08US, after every pass, the steerpoint will move to the next one. This leads to the AI bringing back unexpended ordnance. With the Realism Patch, the AI behavior has been modified such that the steerpoint will not increment to the next one until the AI has expended all its air-to-ground ordnance, or there is nothing else to destroy, or it has stayed in the target area for more than 10 minutes. This improves the air-to-ground capability of the AI, resulting in a higher number of kills. One of the problems with the AI in 1.08US was the random occurrence of the AI lead requesting the wingman to rejoin, while the wingman is still carrying air-to-ground ordnance. The problem was with one of the wingman becoming the air-to-air target of the lead. When this happens, the AI lead request the wingman to rejoin since it cannot be a target, even though other wingmen may still be carrying airto-ground ordnance and in the midst of attacking ground targets. With the Realism Patch, this bug is now fixed, and the AI lead will ignore air-to-air threats while engaging ground targets. The main factor affecting AI survivability in 1.08US is the tendency for the AI to stay in trail formation after attacking ground targets. This is akin to lining up all the aircraft in the flight for target practice. With the Realism Patch, the AI wingmen will automatically assume the wedge formation after pulling off the ground targets, and they will also initiate tighter and harder turns away from the targets after attacking them. This improves the AI survivability by lowering the transit time through hostile territory, and the tighter pull-off from the target prevents the AI from overflying ground threats some of the time. During the course of development of RP5, one of the problems that surfaced was the AI flight (especially the AI flight lead) loitering around the target area after attacking it, and then it would return to base, but not follow the steerpoints. This often results in the AI flight overflying ground threats, and affected the survivability of pure AI flights. As it turned out, the AI lead was setting itself up for another pass over the target, even though it had expended all its ordnance in the preceding pass. The AI kept at this until it became too late for it to reach the next steerpoint on time, and it then skips the next steerpoint and heads directly back to base. This behavior is now corrected in the RP, and the AI flight lead will no longer loiter around the target area, but will proceed to the following steerpoint immediately. The altitude selected for the steerpoint immediately after the target defaults to the cruise altitude for each individual aircraft type (defined in the FALCON4.VCD file). For the F-16, this means that the AI will climb to 22,000 feet at 420 knots immediately after bombing, which will bring the AI flight out of SHORAD range, thus increasing their survivability. The default cruise altitude for all the aircraft have been adjusted to improve their survivability, and this is discussed in the sub-section titled Helping the Air Tasking Order Engine. One of the most important changes in the AIs survivability during bombing runs is the AIs selfdefensive measures. The AI is mechanized to dispense one flare and two chaff packets as it completes a bomb run. This is a common tactic used by pilots, i.e., to release countermeasures preemptively, especially when flying over SHORAD threats.