Boogieman
-
Posts
190 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Boogieman
-
-
Does anyone know if DCS models the radar elevation limits of the SAM systems it depicts? AFAIK certain PGMs (perhaps HARM) ought to be able to enhance the likelihood of penetrating SAM defences by high diving on the emitter from above their sensor coverage.
-
If it's just an SA-10 site, you can get right on top of it by creeping in below ~60ft (the lower the better) and then hitting the radars with rockets (although this is a bit-memey). SHORAD complicates things if present. Suffice it to say, taking down a theatre-level HIMAD system is an inherently difficult task, much like sinking a well armed warship. Expecting to take one down solo is probably not realistic, especially if it is supported by aircraft and SHORAD systems.
-
Looks like the R77 can do the Cobra too..?
-
Quote
The Air Force’s fighter fleet, led by the F-35A, turned in a better overall mission capable rate in 2020, even with limitations imposed by the pandemic, than it did in 2019, according to figures provided to Air Force Magazine. The F-35’s MC rates soared, and rates even improved for the F-15C, which the Air Force is anxious to divest because of its age. The F-15E’s MC rate declined, however.
https://www.airforcemag.com/usaf-fighter-mission-capable-rates-fiscal-2020/
-
IIRC the ALE-50 was planned for the Viper, not the Hornet.
-
2
-
-
-
-
Hear hear! Despite what the naysayers might have us believe, I do think we are in a golden era of military flight simulation thanks in large part to ED's hard work. What a thrill to watch this masterpiece take shape.
-
6
-
-
TBH I think we are seeing a tacit acknowledgement from ED that the EW system in DCS needs a complete overhaul. IIRC they were advertising for an EW SME/specialist a while ago. I suspect the Hornet ASPJ functionality is just the first step in a much larger process.
-
So I've been looking through the control settings on the Hornet and I can't seem to find where I can bind ECM XMIT/OFF to anything? I have a BlackHog panel that I'd like to bind it to. Any clues?
-
Interesting. So will the ASPJ placed in XMIT jam enemy fighter radars that are painting ownship in TWS mode, for example? Or will they be unaffected?
-
Tried this myself with solid results - FPS is now buttery smooth. Nice one!
-
NASAMS might come close to filling the gap if it was in game. It's not a system you'd be likely to see in any of the theatres/factions/timeframes depicted in DCS though.
-
On 1/3/2021 at 12:18 PM, DanielNL said:
in none of those videos, they fired it on the direct rear of a pre-flaring target.
True enough, nevertheless the targets did deploy a rather massive quantity of flares, which is consistent with a very high level of IRCCM from the missile. This is also echoed in all of the literature I have read on the subject (eg. the source I attached to that same post) indicating that imaging infra-red (IIR) seekers like the one on the AIM9X represent a generational step above those you might be used to on missiles like the AIM9M, R73 or Magic II, with a corresponding jump in IRCCM capability. This is also reflected in the trend toward IIR guidance found in numerous current and emerging SRAAMs ranging from the AIM9X to Python 5, ASRAAM, PL-10, MICA-IR and possibly K74M2.
I am not aware of any data indicating that pre-emptive or reactive use of DCS-style pyrotechnic flares (as a missile seduction measure) should provide an effective method of defeating such missiles, even in scenarios like the one you have shown above. The closest thing I have seen proposes that the use of a distributed flare (ie. not the type depicted in DCS) may provide the target with a fleeting opportunity to break the missile's lock (at ~600m or less from impact) by momentarily bleaching out the seeker of an IIR missile approaching from the rear, giving the aircraft a last ditch chance to break away from the missile FOV. This is not what you have depicted above though.
The take-away message (p7) seems to be that DIRCM systems like the one on the Su-57 will be needed to provide an adequate level of protection against IIR seekers going forward (and even that might not be enough). To quote the source I just described:
Quote"As a result of the evolving threat, the expendable countermeasure has also seen significant improvements in the type of material used, spectral coverage, kinematic behavior and deployment tactics. The open-literature suggests that the imaging seeker has made nearly, if not all types of point target flares unsuitable for aerial platform protection. Major government programs in the field of aerial platform protection discussed in the open-literature favor research and development of activities related to directional infrared countermeasures (DIRCM) technologies. It is unclear how countermeasure developers will evolve the flare technology to continue to be effective against the next generation of (imaging) seekers"
Nevertheless, if you know of any high quality sources/data supporting your position by all means present them. In the absence of this all you are doing is arguing from incredulity, which probably won't lead to any significant changes being made in DCS.
-
1
-
-
-
Sweet, thanks.
-
Has anyone heard any updates on this? I have been experimenting with high altitude PvP BVR in the Hornet with some success, but I think GEN-X could be particularly handy. Can't wait to see how it is modelled in-game.
-
I believe China uses the LD-2000 in the land-based CIWS role. Perhaps Deka will bring it in at some point...
-
My guess is he is referring to the extended range variants (ET/ER) which are ~100kg heavier than the baseline iterations IIRC.
-
This kind of information is not in public domain, but I get the impression these kinds of tests are done routinely. Sometimes special drones are made to simulate the anti-ship missiles and these can then be used in tests where manned ships would try to shoot them down and sometimes decommissioned ships are modified to be remotely operated and then inert or even actual anti-ship missiles are fired against them to test the CIWS systems, decoys, missiles and such.
The only issue is how accurately you can actually simulate a real anti-ship missile with a drone, but e.g. US Navy did purchase some SS-N-22 Sunburn missiles and test fired them in such tests in the 90s.
Yeah, the US now uses a variety of different target drones to simulate various threat ASMs. I believe the work derived from the Kh31 acquisition ultimately led to the supersonic GQM-163.
As has been said there has been very little real-world application of many of these systems as there simply hasn't been a major naval conflict within which to do so. The most recent example that comes to mind is the USS Mason successfully defending itself against multiple Houthi ASMs - likely Chinese made C802's.
https://news.usni.org/2016/10/15/cno-richardson-uss-mason-attacked-cruise-missiles-off-yemen
-
Good question. Both Bear and Backfire are still in service, so info on this one might be hard to come by.
-
Yes.... but you are causing reckless times with such a dream AI capabilities...
Some call it reckless, others call it genius
But in all seriousness my initial reason for making the thread was to propose the inclusion of some more modern SAMs at some point down the track. The implementation of decent IADS modelling would just be the cherry on top. Here's hoping it happens :thumbup:
-
No, rocket artillery is not a target for any of the western air defense systems modeled.
Regarding Patriot, I don't even know how i
The system would classify rocket artillery, but the common sense test is consider the volume of fire for a smerch battery....or a grad battery, then look at the number of interceptors patriot has to counter that. Reload on a launcher is an hour, a sharp crew can knock that time down in an eval, Ina combat scenario this can be potentially cut a little more but at some point, the choke point becomes the reload vehicle, and number of spare missiles on site. Blow your load on a single rocket artillery volley, and your hot crew is apt to spend the next 6 hours reloading all the launchers...they'll come up one at a time, of course, but no where near as fast as the mrls reloads happen.
Perhaps the only suitable system for that, one that could be implemented in DCS easily to boot, is C-RAM( look it up on YouTube) . It's essentially a Phalanx CIWS mounted on a trailer, loaded with exploding rounds (to prevent a hail of spent bullets from raining down on populated areas, something seaborne phalanxes don't need to contend with)
No argument there - just pointing out that this is about as close as you get to a BM in DCS at the moment (not very). Yes I have seen the footage of the "land Phalanx" C-RAM that was used in the ME. I get the impression the US is trying to move beyond that now by looking into things like MML and the MHTK interceptor, Iron Dome and possibly even high powered lasers (IFPC).
-
Another one would be the Israeli "Sparrow" and "Rampage" family of air launched ballistic missiles. I believe the former are used as targets for testing of ABM systems, but otherwise similar in concept.
Ability to lock targets with the jammer on?
in DCS: F/A-18C
Posted
Yup, you'd probably need the APG-79 on the Rhino to do both things at once