Whiskey11

Hey, I've been messing around with the S-300 Pack, specifically the S-300Vx series vehicles, and noticed the SA-23's (all of them) will only fire one missile type (9M82 or 9M83) and not the other in mixed units. The S-300V (SA-12) works fine and will launch the 9M82's first, then the 9M83's when it runs out of 82's. Looking at the LUA files for both, I don't see anything jumping out at me on why that is, but was wondering if you could look into it and see what you can come up with?

Good luck! Outside of St. Petersburg and Moscow, I'm not sure there is a more heavily defended area of Russia proper from the Soviet era... the SAM network up there was absolute madness!

as Said by razo+r, it'll be saved in the .miz. If you make any changes to any script, don't forget to re-add the script in the trigger's list to "update" it since DCS does not dynamically update it. It uploads it only when you add it tot he miz. To make changes, just re-add it

I mean, yes, you could, but doing this for a mission with 30+ SAM's is a chore and it denies you of even some basic functionality like HARM threat reaction.

That's only possible with scripting. Wheelyjoe has an "easy" to drop in script which will accomplish basic functionality of an IADS, including turning radars on and off and HARM threat reaction. https://github.com/wheelyjoe/DCS-Scripts Or, my preference is Skynet-IADS by Walder: https://github.com/walder/Skynet-IADS/tree/master Skynet allows for some seriously complicated IADS networks, destruction of communication, power, and command facilities, as well as Jammer (think Growler/Prowler) effects parts of the network, HARM threat detection, and in experimental branches, mobile Tactical SAMs like the SA-6, SA-11, etc. The scripting for Skynet is complicated and picky, but getting it right allows you to do some seriously cool and nerdy things!

Definitely are. The SA-6, as an example, takes long enough so that I can find them on the HTS pod, find them on the TGP, slew a maverick over to them, fly in range with the maverick and shoot at them with a maverick before they fire.

I wont rehash the RWR symbols presented since that's already been covered by others, but I'll add what I think the priority radars are to kill: Any track radar takes priority over any search radar... always... if it can't lock me up, it can't shoot at me. After that, I generally go search radars, then the launchers. Search radars for SAM sites can queue up AI aircraft to your presence... that's no good. With Skynet IADS, they can be used for dispatching other AI flights from an airbase using the script or they can be used to let other sites know a HARM is inbound. IF ED ever changes it so search radars can "join" groups to replace destroyed ones, I'll probably prioritize the launchers over the search radars. I'll wrap this up by saying, if you need help identifying what is what in a SAM site, I have a great kneeboard which has it all laid out, including RWR, HARM codes, and threat tables for the HAD: It was unceremoniously removed from this section for not being an official kneeboard, but it's a good one none the less. I

As I pointed out, destroying the search radar is not a guaranteed way to make the site inoperative... an S-300's Flap Lid has a scan volume of approximately 110 degrees laterally and 80 degrees vertically.... Destroying the Big Bird (or Tin Shield, if ED ever fixes the S-300's possible search radars) is going to make it easier, but not that much easier. It's still a substantial threat depending on where the Flap Lid is pointed. Destroying the Flap Lid means the Big Bird, or Clam Shell, or whatever may see the strike package, but it can't do anything about it because the thing guiding the missiles is dead. This is true of every SAM site in the game presently. I'm also not sure, given the missions I've flown, that the search radar is any easier to destroy than anything else... a single CBU-105 in the middle of a S-300 will kill pretty much everything except the Big Bird and Clam Shell if the site is laid out like they are in real life.

The original guide was intended to be fore the F-16 and F/A-18C... in later versions I may add that info in, but it's pretty low priority at the moment!

The minimum engagement altitude for the S-300PS on land is 50ft AGL at the S-300 site... with the Clamshell in the group... more modern S-300 variants is down as low as 33m before things like ground clutter can't be filtered out reliably. At sea, you actually have a lot of false positive pulse doppler returns due to wave motion and reflection off of those surfaces. Without getting into the politics of it, a certain Russian warship, which had S-300F on board, failed to intercept what are basically a rival country's Harpoons sea skimming... so it's entirely possible, an Rb04E might make that journey to only be engaged by a ship's CIWS.

You want to take out the track radar, not the search radar... doesn't matter if it can see you if it can't engage you... but the lack of a search radar does not prevent them from shooting at you, just reduces the chances of you being detected in the first place. Knowing which is which is a part of good SEAD/DEAD operations. I have a kneeboard for that! In general, DEAD tactics require good SAM engagement envelop knowledge. The SA-10B we have in DCS world has a minimum engagement altitude of 50ft above the height of the terrain the clam shell search radar is mounted upon (so 50 feet above the height of the SAM site's altitude, basically). Not a lot of room to work with there without terrain masking to accomplish the goal.

If I'm remembering correctly, this is done to make it so these systems don't provide launch warnings when they fire... it's a limitation of DCS.

There are a few forks of HDSM which include some tweaks. For instance, here is one Recoil and I worked on to add the Tin Shield to the S-300PS, replaced the S-300PS 5V55R missile with the in game 5V55R missile (higher performance, better PK), and fixed the Grill Pan's non-working HARM and RWR code (now shows up as an SA-12 with 112 HARM code): https://github.com/Recoil016/HighDigitSAMs/releases/tag/v1.0.0 These issues have sat on the main fork for some time without any movement, so we forked it to make the changes.

While the S-300PS was intended to be capable of shoot-and-scoot techniques the PVO-Strany never operated them as such outside of demonstrations... at least not what I can see based upon publicly available information. They were deployed to fixed sites. Given the PVO's focus on defending strategic targets from attack, there was little reason to move as the enemy had to come to you. The Pack Up and Move time for the PT and PS is quoted as only being 15 minutes different (30 minutes vs 45 minutes on the PT, both of which seem optimistic) which isn't a huge amount of time different in the grand scheme of things. I WILL agree the lack of being able to MOVE these SAM's in DCS is, without a doubt, the most annoying aspect of it. Really the Russian Army's S-300V was the pinnacle of "ohh sheet, it is moving and scooting!" since that system was designed to be closer to the front line where Anti-radiation missiles and SEAD/DEAD aircraft were a genuine continuous threat. Also, I'd caution against just flat saying S-300PS and using that to refer to a specific missile or capability. The S-300PS/PT used the same missiles once the PS entered service with the PVO... in fact, the NUMBER of missile options JUST in the S-300PS/PT family stands at SEVEN, including a nuclear equipped option and an Anti Radiation version intended to target AWACS aircraft... Our DCS one uses, as you know, the 5V55R which is the second oldest missile possible for the S-300PS/PT. WORSE yet is these systems are not actually limited to just the 5V55 family of missiles... there is nothing stopping the S-300PT's 5P85 Trailers from housing S-400 missiles... in fact, a variant of such trailer exists for the S-400. The whole lot of S-300P family of missiles is compatible with other variants, including the S-400 (because it was originally designated S-300PMU-3 before receiving a new designation). Real life pilots lose sleep over SA-2's and SA-3's as much as they do SA-10's. You respect a threat, even if it's well outmatched by your capabilities. Just because you can JAM an SA-2 doesn't mean that telephone pole can't still come up to meet you. You address the threats present. The S-300's Command Guidance phase is a very short window to get the missile into it's initial orientation for intercept. It's less than 10 seconds in length. So technically feasible to command guide an S-300 missile onto a target, the reason it is there in the first place is to deal with the vertical launch angle and firing against low flying targets. The Command Guidance and Clam Shell were a band-aid for lack of proper low altitude search resolution of the Tin Shield and to a lesser extent the Big Bird. Are there any publicly available sources of information on how a western RWR works against an S-300? I've heard the whole "you wont get a launch warning" thing before, but I don't think this is quantified anywhere is it? I'd love to read about it if it is though! As for taking out the in game SA-10, yeah, it's pretty easy... I don't think it would be this easy IRL either, but I think a huge part of this is because the "kill chain" is seriously hampered by the fact these sites operate entirely in a vacuum rather than part of a proper IADS which can pre-cue targeting radars for immediate lock when able. This is where DCS's limitations start to show up and things like Skynet can help, but not necessarily. It's been a while since I've really checked, but I'm pretty sure Skynet doesn't necessarily cue target radars based upon EWR's detection of incoming aircraft. It's also REALLY important to note that the way DCS employs search radars for SAM sites is also entirely incorrect for all but the Tactical SAM's and the SA-2/SA-3... You RARELY see a Big Bird or Tin Shield parked near an S-300 site. They are usually at the division level EWR site which could contain a number of search radars including long wavelength search radars and the Big Bird/Tin Shield. Sometimes those sites include 2-3 of those radars. The P-19 Flat Face was deployed directly with SA-2 and SA-3 sites but it wasn't necessarily a requirement either... the Soviet PVO IADS allowed for near autonomous cuing of track radars based upon EWR contacts... this is ESPECIALLY true for the SA-5 which could cue based upon either the P-14 horizontal radar + PRV-13/PRV-17 height finder radars OR the IADS network's 3D EWR's. No amount of scripting will get around DCS's limitations in this regards. The SA-5 is just borked in DCS to begin with... the Tin Shield was never associated with this system... Syrian or otherwise. While TECHNICALLY the S-300 command vehicle can cue and fire the SA-5 as part of its design requirements for the Moscow Defense Ring, that doesn't mean the Tin Shield should suddenly be its search radar! At any rate... I'm rambling now... I hope you have implemented my code fix on the S-300PS in your S-300 Asset Pack to include the Tin Shield... and in the mean time, my SA-5 mod will suffice in correcting the blinding of the SA-5 in DCS. What us SAM nerds should do is get a list to ED of what features should be modeled to allow for more accurate modelling of systems (especially older systems which have optical guidance options in addition to radar, HOJ, and other launch methods). I'm talking about specifically how these systems were not so strict with their requirement to have a search radar to function... or at least, the search radars currently available in game! EDIT: Holy necro... guess I should have date checked this. =|

Hi Ugra Media, thanks for taking the time to look at this "rivet counting for SAM Sites" Nerd's suggestion for improvements to the Homs SA-5 site. Here is a satellite image from the real life Homs SA-5 site. Each SA-5 site has a few distinct features to it: 1.) Barracks/Administration area 2.) Missile Maintenance (Syria open stores their SA-5's in the hot desert sun!) 3.) The Launch Complexes 4.) A P-14 "Tall King" search radar 5.) A PRV-13/PRV-17 Height Finding Radar 6.) A Square Pair Track radar per launch complex When we look at the real Homs site, there are some distinct differences between the DCS Homs site and the real life one. Below is a picture of Launch Complex 1 As you can see, there are six launcher positions and a single centrally mounted bunker. This bunker houses the launch control equipment for the SA-5 and generators. I've highlighted the entrance to the bunker in red. I've also highlighted the revetments around each launcher in yellow. Finally, there are six green lines which are the cable runs to each launcher from the bunker. When we look at the radar complex, you can see the three Square Pair radar locations. These presently are not modeled on our DCS Homs site. In fact, the height maps for the hills they are on are also missing. The control equipment for each of these radars is actually parked at the bottom of each elevated position. The northern most Square Pair is missing from this image because the third launch complex isn't presently complete in the picture. The PRV-13/PRV-17 Height Finder position is clearly marked but also missing the radar. You can clearly see the control and power bunker next to it. Here we are in DCS: Let's look at where the P-14 is at: With the P-14 we can clearly see the Tall King is on an elevated point with a power and control bunker next to it similar to how the PRV-13/PRV-17 is situated. Here it is in DCS: In Summary: To over simplify the heck out of this "problem", our current Homs SA-5 site suffers from a serious case of Bunker-itis! While having too many bunkers is certainly an issue, the biggest one for me is the radar positions simply don't exist. These positions would be elevated above the surrounding terrain to give clear pictures to the sky. Presently those elevated positions and bunkers simply don't exist! We are also missing all of the revetments around most of the launch complexes. I fully realize this is rivet counting for SAM sites, but when it impacts the ability of the site to function because the track radar is in a valley compared to the rest of the site, it's a bit hard to maintain my SAM Site rivet counting disability! In fairness to this site, it is not the ONLY site to suffer from these problems. There are several SA-2 sites and EWR sites which ALSO have Bunker-itis! I'll make a separate post about them specifically! At any rate, THANK YOU for taking the time to read this.

Welcome to DCS World where the surface to air threats are modeled at a... pardon the pun... surface level. I would LOVE for the SAM game to be modeled way more accurately... including the optical trackers on SAM's like the SA-2, SA-3, and SA-6, or the differences in accuracy between Command Guided missiles, SARH missiles, TVM missiles, and ARH missiles. It's all a work in progress, one which I hope gets way more work going forward!

What EWR are you using? Can you upload the miz file? It'll be easier to diagnose.

This issue existed in the patch after the Sinai was released and I was getting it flying in the F-14. I am still having this issue in the F-14 and F-15E both on both Sinai and Syria (haven't tested others). VR Headset goes to sleep when switching from F-10 to anything else a few times. This problem used to exist "back in ye olden days," went away, and is back again. I think last time it was a memory leak...

No problem!

Certainly because of how relatively static the S-300P versions are, you wouldn't want them anywhere near the front line. The S300V versions are a little more mobile, but you definitely don't want them close enough to be within standard artillery range from the front line. With a max range of about 47 miles on the 9m83 Gladiator missile, that's not a huge window to work in and cover the front line area. Regardless, the longer range SAMs are generally deployed around high value areas with medium range systems making the next layer with short range effectively being right behind the front line. That's not always the case, but it certainly is the most common. And all of this is to say, the Buk family of vehicles is particularly nasty because you never know where they are going to pop up in a battle space. Even if you locate a system, they are mobile enough to just change locations in a matter of minutes. That's why I run the Act Mobile branch of Skynet IADS with my tactical SAMs moving frequently.

This discussion gets messy very fast unless we specify which variant of S-300. There are three "branches" of S-300 development. The S-300V for the Army, the S-300P for the Air Defense Forces, and the S-300F for the Navy. Each has sub variants and the distinctions aren't super important to cover between the sub variants in this discussion so we'll stick to the three major branches. For the S-300V's, it's entirely plausible a Tor system, Tunguska, or Pantsir could be used but these S-300 systems (S-300V/VM/V4 (SA-12, SA-23, SA-23B)) are not presently in the game outside of mods. Even if they were, it's unlikely these systems would be close enough to the front line to need their own point defense on the site. That's not how IADS generally work! For the S-300P, the only plausible point defense is the Pantsir... it's REALLY important to point out that in looking at real life S-300P sites and S-400 sites, I've seen Pantsir ONCE at a site in the Moscow air defense ring. That includes mapping the entirety the Soviet era SAM site locations, many of these positions are still in active use today, albeit with different systems than before. Case in point, the S-400 locations in Kaliningrad are located on a former S-200 (SA-5) site. No Pantsir seen at that base. Beyond the Pantsir, there really isn't any other system the PVO (air defense forces) would have. The PVO's area of responsibility was defending Strategic Level assets like airfields and factories from ballistic and cruise missiles, as well as bombers and other aircraft... in theory, if HARM or Maverick got to them, the army air defense forces AND the air force failed at their job. The S-300F had access to the AK-630 CIWS systems on board the various cruisers which carried it. As a concept, "point defense" against incoming missiles is a relatively new concept. A lot of people talk about Tor (SA-15) as being the original point defense option but even original versions of Tor were focused on 1980's era ballistic and cruise missiles. Talking about Tomahawk style radar cross sections, not HARM, Maverick, GMLRS, etc. While I have no direct evidence to support the concept, what I can say is anecdotally based upon information gleaned from current conflicts, the ability to intercept a HARM/Maverick/GMLRS sized rocket still remains a really large challenge for even Pantsir, never mind an S-300 as we see in game which dates to the mid 80's. As a whole, the S-300 system (all three branches) has limited "point defense" capability. The original designs called for defense against ballistic missiles and cruise missiles. That'd be like Pershing I and II sized or Tomahawk sized missiles. A Tomahawk is nearly TWICE the diameter of a HARM, for instance. I'd be shocked if these systems could engage anything like HARM with any reliability. So in truth, for OUR S-300PS, the realistic answer is none. At least if you are limiting yourself to systems presently in game and not as mods. With all of that in mind, this is a video game (simulator, if you will) with unlimited possibilities on how a scenario can be played. If adding a Tor to an S-300PS fits your fancy, then have at it! No one knows what the Soviet Union, or Russia would do with PVO air defense units in a conflict on their soil, so you can roleplay it that the Army lent them a bunch of point defense systems!

Pantsir being effectively a joint project between the company, the Russian Army, and Russian Air Force (where the former Air Defense Forces are now), I'm not going to be surprised if they eventually start showing up at sites. Right now though, they generally aren't... probably because they are presently near the front lines with the army. Where I start raising eyebrows is when people start putting SA-15's near S-300PS systems under the guise of "muh realisms!" when the SA-15, an army vehicle, is stationed at an S-300PS, an air defense forces unit. Not only have I not seen that on Google Earth, but combining those two units together doesn't make sense given they are different branches with two very different purposes.

Ahhh... I think I know why. I converted the file name over to a zip from a rar... works fine using WinRAR, but WinRAR was also the program used to package it all together... I'll fix it. EDIT: Should be fixed now! If one of you would give it a try and let me know!

Fair enough! I know the feeling which is how I ended up in Skynet and Act-Mobile for Tac SAMS!

Aight Ya'll, here is what I've done. I've taken the High Digit SAMS Mod and REMOVED all of the S-300's from the entry.lua file AND the sensors.lua. What this does, in effect, is remove the loading process for the High Digit SAMS S-300's but leaves in the SA-17, the SA-2, and SA-3 missiles, and the MANPADS (SA-14 and SA-24). The ONLY other thing I did was remove the SON Radar and KS19 stuff since it's now in the base game... Installation: Unzip into your HIGH DIGIT SAMS mod folder. It should be overwrite TWO files (entry.lua and sensors.lua). I guess my reasoning is if Auranis is moving on from HDSM and not maintaining it, hopefully ERO/LetMePickThat are going to pick up the S-300/S-400 slack and maintain those What this does NOT do is it DOES NOT remove ANY of the HDSM files. Why does that matter? It doesn't, unless you are space limited on your Saved Games drive. As an unintended consequence, Skynet will not work with any S-300 variants unless you add the S-300 Pack contents to your Skynet Compiled. I have NOT done this yet, and probably wont for a hot minute. HDSM and S300 Pack Combined LUAs.zip