Whiskey11

Ahh, Skynet is a script you use in the mission editor... I'd recommend reading up on it and its use as it can be quite daunting to implement. Wheelyjoe's IADS script is a bit easier to implement in a mission but is far more basic.

My version of Skynet is a super experimental branch which involves some advanced functionality (things like the ActMobile branch, and fixed jammer tables). I have no problem sharing it, but understand that I haven't addressed the AI switching behavior issue that has been fixed by folks over on the Skynet discord... which means it may not correctly update emission states while a SAM site is active and the change occurs. skynet-iads-compiled-actMobileMerged.lua

There are certain aspects of the game which are hardcoded behaviors that I'm not sure we can change. You might be able to accomplish it with Skynet and forcing the engagement range to be longer, but the launch/range window is determined by DCS and when the SAM site thinks it has the highest PK. This mod increased the engagement range to about 80nmi or so over the about 55-65nmi before. I'll have to look into the LUA to see if there is a way to increase that further.

I appreciate you taking it up with the team. If possible, is the documentation they are using available publicly somewhere or could you provide the name? I'm always curious to learn more about these systems, how they were used, etc. The German book was of great curiosity to myself and another who built the entire Soviet Era IADS on Google Earth. I share a little bit of the skepticism with putting a missile in the flight path of an ARM the Flap Lid can't even see. I'm not sure the Clam Shell could detect it given the altitude an ARM is typically fired at and the emphasis on low altitude detection of cruise missiles and jets. I don't know about the Tin Shield seeing it either, maybe the Big Bird could but that kind of detection is traditionally outside the expected use of those systems given the long wavelengths for longer range detection. Sure, hypothetical a command guided launch could put a missile there, but how would it know its even coming in or roughly where to put it. That's why I'm curious about the documentation. As for the scripting in DCS, I use Skynet anytime a SAM is in a mission to create that behavior and many other ones. It would be nice, hint hint, if DCS had some of that natively without scripting or triggers! If you need a certified psychopathic SAM site rivet counter to help test, I'll gladly put the time in.

Both the 54A and the 54C should guide onto the extrapolated tracks.... BUT They presently are NOT guiding on extrapolated tracks if the loss of lock happens even if the target reappears "near" the ghost track... The missile just continues it's loft until it reaches Low Earth Orbit. This is most noticeable when the AIM-54 is in the MBAM... while in the mid course, I've had maybe 10% luck in getting a guide on the extrapolated track. Further, I've had the AWG-9 lose a track, the enemy jet not maneuver, and it still does not correlate the track files correctly even though the X'd out track is directly on top of the "new" track for the same target. This, even for a 1960's radar set, seems odd if it actually has a track correlation capability.

If you are feeling froggy, the barrel bloomers at the base of the barrels where they meet the turret are black IRL and not white... even in WWII... this is a problem of people using Wargaming's USS Iowa model as the basis for things (and this is, for sure, their model as the real USS Iowa never had twin 40mm Bofors... only quads, and WG had a habit of taking the first hull of any US Battleship and removing the quads they set sail with and making them twins...). I fought a nearly three year long war with WG showing historical photo after historical photo on this before they finally changed all of the US Fast Battleships to have the correct gun barrel bloomers...

Can you please have someone from your team look at the following book (in German only, sadly): Der Fla-Raketenkomplex S-300PMU in der NVA" by Bernd Biedermann, Juergen Gebbert, and Wolfgang Kerner In the book, written by some East Germans trained on the system, they say the Flap Lid B of the S-300PMU could not engage targets with RCS less than 0.2m^2 which is way bigger than a HARM RCS. And that makes sense given that the original design parameters for the S-300PS/PT was to be able to engage the low flying cruise missiles of the era (late 70s and early 80s), which were massive. I'm not convinced the S-300PS could engage HARM even under ideal conditions. This seems to be playing out in real life in which both sides struggle(d) to engage incoming ARMs during the conflict. Heck, more modern systems struggle to engage HIMARS M31 GMLRS rounds which are about the same diameter and slightly shorter than a HARM.

My only complaint with using remove scenery objects is that it doesn't fix the elevation issues with the radars... yes, 2SAP will fix that, but not everyone runs 2SAP... I use it extensively... I also use the 107th Modded version of the SA-5 which has the P-14 Tall King mod as a usable search radar. Mods, until ED gets us a content management setup on server connection, are a bit difficult to work around if not everyone is up to speed on them.

When the F14 loses an AIM7 lock the flood antenna moves along the VSL HI/VSL LO searches in sequence... so it's possible it got on the flood mode. I'm working this weekend, so it'll be next week before I can do any testing, but I'll try to. If you run the test again and turn completely away, does it still guide? I'm aware the R27R is not an ET, I was implying there might be an issue with R27's in general since the ET I got hit with went through 2/3rds my flare loadout while my own AIM9's get flared off with a few flares.

The F-14 one is easy enough to explain... the F-14 will default to a Flood mode if lock is dropped after launch of an AIM-7. Flood mode is a degraded guidance mode in which the AWG-9 just spams radar out in front of the F-14 along the datumline (the cross in the hud). There is also the possibility of the aircraft you were flying against using ECM and having it operate in HOJ. I've had HOJ hit jamming targets as far as 32nmi away. Pretty sneaky! The second one is confusing if you weren't using ECM in any way... then again, I had an R-27ET track through 34 flares and me diving for the ground, so maybe there is something up with missile guidance. A bug report usually works best if you can replicate the issue and post a track (not a Tacview, a track file).

Over in the S-300 Pack (Over in the SAM Site Asset Pack thread) discussion, I released a modified entry.lua which disabled the HDSM S-300's (but kept the expanded SA-2, SA-3, SA-17, and MANPADS) because the S-300 Pack was actively being worked on while HDSM wasn't. I haven't checked over there to see if the S-300 Pack has updated to match the recent changes in HDSM's S-300's, but that's always a solution to this problem since the S-300 Pack was designed to work with the S-400 whereas HDSM wasn't... It'd be nice if the two projects would merge since it shares developers to avoid these problems of using "the most current" S-300 codes lol.

I found two problems with this particular mission file: 1.) Your configuration file for the IADS has it looking for the prefix "SAM" when everything is named "ISAM" 2.) The reason they are all autonomous when you change the above is because the 1L119 Nebo-SVU is not supported by the default Skynet configuration. In fact, none of the SAM Site Asset Pack radars are. The following can be added to your skynet-iads-compiled.lua (I recommend changing the file name to skynet-iads-compiled-modified.lua or something so you can keep them separate. I would add it before line 444 (after the default list of EWR's): --- Start of 2SAP & Radar Dome Mod EW radars, and P-14 Mod ['EWR P-37 Bar Lock'] = { ['type'] = 'ewr', ['searchRadar'] = { ['EWR P-37 BAR LOCK'] = { ['name'] = { ['NATO'] = 'Bar Lock', }, }, }, ['harm_detection_chance'] = 60 }, ['EWR 55G6U NEBO-U'] = { ['type'] = 'ewr', ['searchRadar'] = { ['EWR 55G6U NEBO-U'] = { ['name'] = { ['NATO'] = 'Tall Rack', }, }, }, ['harm_detection_chance'] = 65 }, ['EWR 1L119 Nebo-SVU'] = { ['type'] = 'ewr', ['searchRadar'] = { ['EWR 1L119 Nebo-SVU'] = { ['name'] = { ['NATO'] = 'Box Spring', }, }, }, ['harm_detection_chance'] = 75 }, ['EWR Generic radar tower'] = { ['type'] = 'ewr', ['searchRadar'] = { ['EWR Generic radar tower'] = { }, }, ['name'] = { ['NATO'] = 'EWR Generic radar tower', }, ['harm_detection_chance'] = 60 }, ['RadarDomeH'] = { ['type'] = 'ewr', ['searchRadar'] = { ['RadarDomeH'] = { }, }, ['name'] = { ['NATO'] = 'RadarDomeH', }, ['harm_detection_chance'] = 60 }, ['RadarDomeL'] = { ['type'] = 'ewr', ['searchRadar'] = { ['RadarDomeL'] = { }, }, ['name'] = { ['NATO'] = 'RadarDomeL', }, ['harm_detection_chance'] = 60 }, ['FPS-117'] = { ['type'] = 'ewr', ['searchRadar'] = { ['FPS-117'] = { ['name'] = { ['NATO'] = 'Seek Igloo', }, }, }, ['harm_detection_chance'] = 80 }, ['FPS-117 Dome'] = { ['type'] = 'ewr', ['searchRadar'] = { ['FPS-117 Dome'] = { ['name'] = { ['NATO'] = 'Seek Igloo Domed', }, }, }, ['harm_detection_chance'] = 80 }, ['EWR P-14 Tall King'] = { ['type'] = 'ewr', ['searchRadar'] = { ['EWR P-14 Tall King'] = { ['name'] = { ['NATO'] = 'Tall King', }, }, }, ['harm_detection_chance'] = 60 }, Make sure to keep Line 444's closing }, so add it before that! That'll add the SAM Site Asset Pack radars to your Skynet Compiled and allow them to work. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you guys (a month late, Ooof!) I don't regularly check this thread (mostly supporting folks over on the discord), so if you reply, make sure to tag me or reply directly to me so I get the notification.

There was an issue, which I don't think has been fixed yet, with the FPS-117 Domed in the Skynet Compiled file. If you open the skynet-iads-compiled.lua file in Notepad++ or your choice of scripting platform. Find the FPS-117 Dome section (might not exist, find the FPS-117 if it doesn't then add the following code below it) and make sure it looks like this: ['FPS-117 Dome'] = { ['type'] = 'ewr', ['searchRadar'] = { ['FPS-117 Dome'] = { ['name'] = { ['NATO'] = 'Seek Igloo Domed', }, }, }, ['harm_detection_chance'] = 80 }, That should get the FPS-117 Domed to work.

I believe there is a problem with state changes to begin with. A few months ago, a bunch of us in the Skynet IADS Discord ran into a problem with the Set Emissions state not updating correctly when it changes and an aircraft is within the detection range of a SAM site. In those particular examples, we were using the destruction of a building (a "power node") to turn off a SAM site. It'd work perfectly if you destroyed it from outside the SAM range, but it would not update correctly when you were in the zone and it was actively locking you. The SAM site would never update correctly. There was some extensive work around stuff being done to revert Skynet behavior to an older version where it just turned off the AI, but many people are trying to get it work with the default Skynet implementation and having issues. It might be related to this same bug. I thought it was a problem with something in Skynet.

The missile uplink channel could be detectable by western RWR and be the trigger for a launch warning. The S-200's 5N26 Square Pair track radar is a CW illumination antenna with a separate missile downlink/uplink antenna. The only purpose the uplink has is to arm the warhead or self destruct the missile. It's not a guidance channel so in a lot of ways you can think of the Square Pair like an aircraft radar launching any SARH missile, except launching an S-200 missile doesn't necessarily require them to ever arm the warhead. The downlink channel is for weapon health while sitting on the launcher. There is, however, one major change in radar state right before a launch. It depends on the range but the two modes of operation for a Square Pair radar has one mode with range known, and the other with a range unknown. The first indication is the range unknown mode. If a missile is launched in that mode, it's launched entirely in P-nav guidance and it has no "loft" or other trajectory. It is going to go directly to the SARH return. The second mode is usually utilized, especially at range, because it provides the best ballistic profile for the missile. In this mode the radar switches to a modulated frequency to gain range information. This can take UP TO 30 seconds because the ranging is done manually by the operators. It's entirely possible that Western RWR differentiate the two modes and assume the change from range unknown to range known is an indication for launch. That would be VERY simplistic, but it's more likely they are picking up the missile uplink signals for the launch and using that. I don't speak Russian, but I'll check out the sources you posted and see if I can't find a way to translate them since the S-200 is my favorite Soviet SAM system and it interests me greatly!

It really depends on what model we are talking about of both radars, but the Tin Shield has less resolution in it's capabilities than the Big Bird. The Big Bird should have a max detection range on large targets around 360km-600km while the Tin Shield's scopes are limited to about 150km-200km... again depending on which variants we are talking about. So even if the Tin Shield could see the target at the same ranges, the operators wont know it is there until it hits the 150-200km range mark.

The last time I checked, with the knew S-300PS models, it seems to be fixed... although other aspects are broken as reported in the Ground AI Bug section.

If you haven't checked out The IADS Project's Google Earth KMZ, you really should! (https://github.com/Whiskey-11/The-IADS-Project) Not that I'm bias (I am :P), but it's a pretty awesome conveniently searchable KMZ file with nearly all of the known PVO SAM site locations and some speculative Army positions. As for the SA-10, Recoil and I (the two people doing the IADS Project stuff), have been doing research on the tactics the S-300PMU batteries in East Germany would have done. The "War plan" for those units was to displace from their fixed positions to field expedient positions in case of war. The fixed positions were known to be marked by NATO forces for targeting just like the older fixed position SAM units. I can't imagine they would go far from those fixed positions, but certainly they'd move "off the X" to avoid being in a known location.... which is why it's a little surprising to see some real world results of S-400 batteries being located less than a km from their pre-war location in Crimea during the current war. There is a lot about the Soviet/Russian militaries which doesn't make a lot of sense... the biggest one to me is that the Army and PVO units were not on the same EWR networks for their IADS. They ran completely separate IADS and completely separate EWRs... absolutely mind boggling that it took until the S-400 to fix that behavior.

The Tin Shield still works fine, it just doesn't provide the same coverage as the Big Bird. For now, switch to using that!

The S-300 pack has a few S-300 variants High Digit SAMs does not have... specifically it has the S-300V4, S-400, and Pantsir. The S-300 pack, similarly, is lacking some of the things form HDSM like the various Igla variants, the different SA-2 and SA-3 missiles, and the SA-17 (a Buk which can do point defense).

I don't know your source for the interception rate of Tomahawk's during the war in Yugoslavia, but taken at face value, sure. It's not impossible to do so with MANPADS or other SAM sites as has been proven in Ukraine with the Iskander, a similar missile fired by Russia. That's the problem with subsonic cruise missiles. The discussion here is about HARM, which has a QUARTER the RCS value of a Tomahawk. The SA-3 is not capable of detecting and tracking targets with much lower RCS with it's radar. The SA-3 did not see the F117 until it was nearly directly overhead and had its bomb bay open putting it in the worst RCS configuration possible. The long range EWR's gave ample warning it was coming, and NATO had been flying these routes night after night after night. That's not surprising, really. Talking about hit rates with HARM is stupid. Hitting a radar with a HARM is a bonus. Getting the radar to shut off long enough for forces to do their job is the primary goal. That means you are going to fire A LOT of HARM and have few radars destroyed, but how many aircraft did those SAM sites shoot down? I'm well aware of the S-300's history and the eight variants of missiles the S-300PT/PS variants had. The initial roll out of the S-300PT used command guided missiles and progressed to SARH missiles. It isn't until the 5V55R that the TVM missile was successfully deployed with limited success. So limited, they reverted part of the flight of the missile back to Command Guidance to deal with lower flying targets. The SA-11 was not designed with the intention of intercepting ballistic missiles of any range. The Buk lacked the range to make this practical and the Soviet/Russian Army already had the S-300V series of S-300's to accomplish that goal. Pretty much all of the PVO systems are interoperable with each other through the various EWR/"Datalink" (term used loosely) communication masts. Same is true of the Soviet/Russian Army. The two systems (PVO and Army) never spoke to each other in the Soviet Era, and it's only been recently that the PVO and Russian Army have begun seeing the importance of a true IADS with all of their systems operating together. That's why the S-400 and Pantsir were JOINT development projects. As for ED, while I don't disagree that the SAM game needs a major overhaul, they need to fix what is presently broken. That includes a decent chunk of the new S-300 having some serious issues. Restore our gameplay to what it was in 2.8, then start working on ground up overhauls of the system. To summarize, I still DO NOT believe the S-300PS using the 5V55R missile is capable of intercepting HARM at any successful rate given the design requirements and the book I cited. The book specifically calls out the RCS value that the S-300PMU could engage and is written by East German air defense operators who were trained on the system.

With the new S-300 model coming out, I have to say I was super excited to see the updated models. I was EVEN MORE excited to see the S-300 gained the ability to use its wheels finally. With that came a new set of problems. Specifically, the 64N6 Big Bird is pretty shy about deploying on terrain which has a slope. Normally I wouldn't have an issue with that, since, it makes sense to not deploy an extremely heavy and relatively weak radar dish on a significant slope... Enter, the small hill grade: Not only does it never deploy, but it's also performing a magic trick even the Soviets would have been proud of! This particular area of Syria is not exactly an aggressive slope. Certainly not enough to set off any warnings about the weight of the radar spinning at an angle would cause damage, or anything! It seems like the current implementation to check and make sure it wasn't deployed on the side of a mountain, might be a bit... too aggressive? Steps to Reproduce: This bug is relatively simple. Using either the default template, or creating a group manually, put an SA-10 on the map. Launch the mission and see if the Big Bird deployed. Sometimes it deploys correctly, sometimes it doesn't. Expected Behavior: The Big Bird should deploy on reasonable hill grades like the one in the above screenshot. Thanks! dcs.log S300BigBirdDeployBug.trk

Officially, Ukraine was given AGM-88B's which lack a lot of the modern features of the C or E models... Unofficially, who knows if they are getting anything more advanced than that. Regardless, your point still stands... it is, at best, anecdotal evidence, to use real life information available through OSINT resources. There are a lot of false claims out there, and video has proven to be unreliable in identifying larger missile impacts (like those of HIMARS), let alone something smaller like HARM. Usually the videos of intercepts don't show the missile being intercepted in any clarity to even verify if it was hit or not, let alone identify what they are shooting at! As someone who finds SAM History particularly fascinating, the S-300 and S-200 systems have been the two I've studied the most. The S-300P's original design requirement was to engage low flying cruise missiles and ballistic missiles... consider, for a moment, that the design requirement was formalized the 1970's when the West was fielding Pershing II's and cruise missiles like the MGM-13 Mace, both of which are very large in comparison to missiles today. For perspective, we have a reliable source which gives us the detection capability of the S-300PMU. Mind you, we are currently using a bog standard S-300PS in game shooting the 5V55R missile... the S-300PMU used an export version of the Flap Lid-B (30N6E). Our new S-300 uses the Flap Lid-B (30N6 according to the in game files). According to "Der Fla-Raketenkomplex S-300PMU in der NVA" by Bernd Biedermann, Juergen Gebbert, and Wolfgang Kerner gives the S-300PMU the ability to detect and engage targets as small as 0.2 square meters under ideal conditions and at relatively close ranges. (About 2 square feet). For further perspective, the Tomahawk's RCS is estimated to be about 0.1 square meters and it is a significantly larger (about 4x) missile than a HARM is. The AGM-88G has an estimated RCS of about 0.04 to 0.06 depending on aspect and the radar band used to illuminate it per some radar nerds over at the Spacebattles forum (yeah yeah, not a reliable source, per se, here is a link to the thread: Link). That's well below the threshold for the S-300PMU to be able to engage with a Flap Lid-B (30N6E). Certainly enough to make me STRONGLY question if the S-300PS could ever engage a HARM, let alone under ideal conditions. So yeah, I have my strong doubts about the S-300PS engaging HARM or anything in the same size category.

I definitely agree with what you are saying. When I did the IADS Project GitHub with Recoil (Google Earth KMZ with all the Soviet era SAM sites on it), I can count on two hands how many times we saw a Big Bird at the same site as an S-300. Very frequently see them at dedicated EWR sites where you'll see a huge number of EW radars of various types. I will caveat that by saying, at least in Soviet times, it does not appear that Russian Army air defense units had separate radars which could talk to the Air Defense Forces (PVO) air defense radars... so a Dog Ear, for instance, would be used as an EWR for SA-4, SA-6, SA-8, SA-9, SA-11, and SA-13 (although the later two, a lot less frequently due to the Snow Drift taking over for the DE), but those Dog Ear radars couldn't talk to something like the P-19 of an SA-2/SA-3, or the Tall King of an SA-5 and contribute to the overall IADS picture... So maybe integrating something at the PVO and Army levels where those systems are significantly less restrained, is in order. In the mean time, though, that line is all it takes to add the trailer mounted Tin Shield to the S-300, and I think it would be a worthwhile change!

Hey there NineLine, thanks for the reply... I'm glad to see the Mast mounted Tin Shield is in game now for the S-300, but the one from the SA-5 still doesn't work with it. I know it's being pedantic, but both versions should work with the S-300 and the change is most likely the same on the back end for DCS (IE: a relatively straight forward/simple adding of the sensor to the list of acceptable radars per the original post) Also, while I appreciate the higher fidelity models than what we had, it seems like the mast mounted Tin Shield is significantly lower poly than the SA-5's Tin Shield... specifically, the actual wave receivers are missing from both the IFF antenna and the main antenna bars. It's almost like a Level of Detail is missing. Let the team know I highly appreciate the work they've done on the S-300. I'm definitely one of those SAM nerds, so seeing it get some love is great!