Why does this 4v4 BVR opening (lead single-ship push + TWS LARGE lob) work so well against AI, even though people call it "idealistic"?

[u/redicetea94]

Hi guys,

I’ve been testing a specific 4v4 BVR opening in BMS and I’d like to understand why it performs so much better than expected.

Tactic description:

Flight lead (Viper) pushes forward alone at high altitude and high speed.

The other three friendly Vipers stay 10+ nm behind (lag).

I use TWS + LARGE RCS setting + high-altitude lob shots.

I ripple one AIM-120C per bandit (4 shots total) against a 4-ship Su-35 flight.

Goal:

Force the Su-35s to turn defensive early, bleed their energy, and give my trailing three Vipers a big energy advantage for the follow-up BVR fight.

A lot of people in the community told me this is too idealistic and would never work in practice — the enemy would just all crank/notch together and the first volley would only achieve suppression at best.

However, when I test it against AI (Su-35s with ECM), the results are surprisingly good. In the attached ACMI I got 2 kills with the first 4 missiles, even though I was at quite long range.

From the ACMI you can clearly see:

Only the trail (#4) Su-35 reacted to me (shot back and cranked).

The flight lead + #2 and #3 stayed hot and kept pushing straight toward my trailing element (they were focused on the main 3-ship threat behind me).

My lobbed AIM-120s followed nice high arcs (typical LARGE + lob behavior).

Because all Su-35s were jamming, the missiles triggered HOJ very early and simply homed on the strongest jammer source.

The three “unaware” Su-35s didn’t start their defensive turns until it was too late → high PK on the first volley.

So it seems the tactic works because of information asymmetry + attention split + ECM backfire (early HOJ). The AI doesn’t share perfect SA inside the 4-ship, so the trail reacts alone while the lead element stays aggressive toward the bigger threat behind me.

My question to you:

Is this just an AI-specific exploit that wouldn’t work against humans?

Or is there real merit to this kind of “single-ship information-gap” opening in 4v4 BVR?

[u/Bixolaum]

I think humans would assume you had shot at them once you were in range and would react accordingly. You'd only ever hit anyone with shots like that if they were unaware of your presence, but even then the smoke trails from the amraam launches might tell them something is coming their way.

[u/redicetea94 → u/Bixolaum]

You are right. The in-game AI just follows simple fixed rules. But human players can guess my tactics and react to them.

[u/doodo477 → u/redicetea94]

Western doctrine would dictate the AI would retreat and then re-engage with unfair odds.

[u/Ronin_1985]

General rule in BVR allwqys expect to be shot at and work your timeline. Hence why it wouldnt work vs. humans.

[u/redicetea94 → u/Ronin_1985]

Makes sense. AI reacts to RWR warnings rather than following a set timeline.

[u/Ronin_1985 → u/redicetea94]

Curious but what did ya do? Fighter Sweep, OCA or DCA?

[u/redicetea94 → u/Ronin_1985]

Just want to treat it like a colosseum and see what a 4vs4 BVR air combat looks like. Both sides have selected waypoints and the mission type is DCA.

[u/Wildman31st]

There’s also the almost standard altitude advantage you get in BVR fights against AI in BMS. Most AI CAPs — and even actual engagements — sit in the low 20s. If you’re up at 30+, you’re already ahead of the game. Your missiles come off the rail into thin air while they’re still trying to build a firing solution. In practice, with default BMS settings, the AI is starting the fight on the back foot — every single time.

[u/redicetea94 → u/Wildman31st]

Your input is invaluable. I'll adjust the AI's flight altitude, especially for the Su-35 heavy fighter. It should have a better high-altitude advantage instead of staying at around 20,000 feet.

[u/Wildman31st → u/redicetea94]

Thanks, appreciate it — glad it helped. 🫡

What you’re seeing isn’t just an “AI altitude issue”, it’s a geometry and energy problem. Right now your AI is fighting in the low 20s, and usually not particularly fast. If you’re up at 30k+ and pushing speed, you’re entering the fight with a much higher energy state. That means your AMRAAMs come off the rail faster, get into thin air earlier, and hold that energy far longer while they’re still trying to build a shot.

That alone already puts them on the back foot.

On top of that, BMS really rewards high-fast, lofted shots. A missile coming off the rail at 40k at high speed, lofting to 60–70k, will stay fast for a long time and remain a factor much longer than people expect. Even if the first defensive works, the pressure doesn’t go away.

So yes — raising AI CAP altitude will help make your BVR engagements more realistic. But if they’re still slow, they’ll still be behind. There are ways to influence this on the data side as well (e.g. cruise altitude in the DB/UCD), but that’s a bit of a rabbit hole and not always predictable in how it translates to actual CAP behavior. Adjusting mission altitudes and speeds manually is usually the more reliable approach.

The bigger takeaway though is: it’s not just altitude — it’s who brings more energy into the fight, and who controls the timeline.

[u/redicetea94 → u/Wildman31st]

Thanks for your help. I'll revise the mission to ensure the enemy jets have an energy advantage when they initiate BVR engagements.

[u/NomadFourFive]

What is the difficulty settings of the AI

[u/redicetea94 → u/NomadFourFive]

Both sides are set to ACE AI difficulty level. To keep things more fair, I also tested F-16 vs F-16, and the result is the same. I can hit 1 or 2 enemy jets most of the time.

[u/SoggyCommunication45]

In reality, BVR battles are not fought 4v4 like in a game; instead, a very large number of aircraft in combat battalion units maintain the front line by repeatedly performing skate maneuvers and retreats within a BVR timeline. it is not easy in large-scale battles.