Flares effectivness

[Neon67]

Hey, i have a lot of problem avoiding manpad (igla/stinger/sa9) evenwhen doing preventive flaring or poping a lot of them + break when missile is fired .

 

What's the best technic to avoid it as bomber (su25 a10) once launched ?

how effective are flares normally against IR threat and how good is it modelled in DCS ?

 

:helpsmilie:

[camsr]

Maybe not the best, but if you are flying that low to start with, you were most likely in a dive prior, so popping CMS and pulling up is somewhat effective, if the missile is on the 6. Ilgas are troublesome, been hit a lot but just keep trying.

[Maverick-X]

Iglas are quite effective low altitude area denial weapons. Hard to spot, but hit hard ^^ I've got quite some trouble evading them aswell. Preventive flaring does quite a good job against them. If possible use terrain cover, especially with threats behind you. Important thing when flying low with manpad threats is being lightweight. Forget those 6 mav's + hundrets of GBU's and CBU's loadouts, you can't put them to use when you are shot down anyways!

[flag02004]

Iglas (SA18) or Stinger are modern very short anti aircraft systems, they are equip with counter CME, that means they are able to distinguish the differences between flares and exhaust. That's why if you are lock on, and in range, the kill ratio is very high. The best way to avoid it is to release preventing flares, the purpose of this operation is only to make the lock on difficult for the SAM launcher. it's hard for the SAM launcher to be sure he's system is lock on you and not on the flares when he's got you in his sight.

[Lusik]

I use preventive flares and if a missile is launched at me then I pop lot of flares, maneuver and reduce thrust to decrease heat signature. I'm rarely hit doing so. The last time I was busted was at full power, full fuel, low & slow shortly after take off. ;) It seems that in DCS heat signature is the most prominent factor when it comes to IR seaking missiles.

[Crescendo]

Unless something has changed in 1.2.7, preventative flares do not work, so let's not give him a false impression.

 

It depends how you define it, but when people say "preventative" they usually mean delaying or preventing a missile launch by decoying the SAM seeker (i.e. before launch, the SAM operator might hesitate and ask "is the seeker locked onto the flare or the aircraft?"). In this case, there is zero effect. Preemptively pumping out flares will not stop a SAM from locking up your aircraft and firing at its predetermined range. This is a limitation in the current SAM AI logic - they fire at a certain range no matter what, and whatever countermeasures you decide to dispense has nothing to do with it.

 

However, if you run a flare program around the same time you think a missile is going to be launched, there is a chance that the missile will track the flares dispensed by this program, but only after the missile has already been launched. I would call this a missile defeat, not a missile prevention.

 

In my opinion it's a misnomer to call any flare program "preventative" in the current state of DCS. Flares don't prevent anything, but they might save you after the fact.

[PFunk1606688187]

As far as I'm concerned MANPADS are like infantry ambushes. If you walk into one you've already missed your real chance to 'evade'.

[Flagrum]

Search the forums for "SAM avoidance", "MANPAD avoidance" and the like. There are at least half a dozend threads going into the depths of everything concerning SAM, MANPADs, flares, chaff, ecm, maneuvering, etc.

[ENO]

The last three posts really wrap it up.

 

Preventative (by the common definition of punching the occasional pattern of flares on a run in) I think is a good habit to get into for the time it might actually work... But it should not be done in exchange for proper tactical maneuvering. I use the term "proper" here relative to the fact that many of us fly within easy reach of copious amounts of alcohol and / or crying children.

 

We've started doing something like a poisonous plant test where you gradually ease into unknown territory 1k at a time "trolling" for a launch. You need to be light- not carrying two weeks of warbringing supplies- and fast. The "chosen" one will drop down into an area at a determined altitude and his Wingie will watch the area he overflies. He'll do a pass over the area at "high" speed (su25/ts are awesome for this) and try to draw out the launch. If something launches it will be at its near maximum range and should (emPHAsis on SHOULD) fall short if you perform an aggressive vertical maneuver out of its reach. Your Wingie then puts ordinance in the offenders' lap. If there is nothing you turn 180 and drop a bit lower to overfly the same area. By the time you get down to 8k or so you need to start watching for Shilka and he'll let you know he's there with his radar but your area should be clear of SAM threats. You can then operate with a little more flexibility- angle and dangle with the gun or move the choppers in...

 

I know this may offend the purists but it seems to work.

Edited February 14, 2014 by ENO

[Skitter]

ENO, that's a good one. You just need to find PATIENT hog drivers to fly with.

[PFunk1606688187]

We've started doing something like a poisonous plant test where you gradually ease into unknown territory 1k at a time "trolling" for a launch. You need to be light- not carrying two weeks of warbringing supplies- and fast. The "chosen" one will drop down into an area at a determined altitude and his Wingie will watch the area he overflies. He'll do a pass over the area at "high" speed (su25/ts are awesome for this) and try to draw out the launch. If something launches it will be at its near maximum range and should (emPHAsis on SHOULD) fall short if you perform an aggressive vertical maneuver out of its reach. Your Wingie then puts ordinance in the offenders' lap. If there is nothing you turn 180 and drop a bit lower to overfly the same area. By the time you get down to 8k or so you need to start watching for Shilka and he'll let you know he's there with his radar but your area should be clear of SAM threats. You can then operate with a little more flexibility- angle and dangle with the gun or move the choppers in...

 

I know this may offend the purists but it seems to work.

 

Sounds like some low tech wild weasel stuff right there. Very crafty.

 

The problem with purism in this sim is that this sim is woefully inaccurate with respect to most things involving Electronic Warfare and SAM defense doctrine, among many other things.

[Neon67]

i was more focused on IR missile, my main problem is avoiding manpad or strela while going low level

So apparently the best way is to pup up a lot of flares when missile is launched , as preventing flares doesn't work ?

[Maverick-X]

preventive flares have an effect, apart from creating a good habit for a brighter DCS future. Sometimes the missile locks a flare immedeately after launch. And there is a slight delay for MWS, and then the reaction time... Time to impact for SHORADS is way to short so imho everything that could save your ass is worth it

[ENO]

i was more focused on IR missile, my main problem is avoiding manpad or strela while going low level

 

That is exactly the scenario I was talking about.

[Crescendo]

As discussed, "preventative flares" is a complete and utter misnomer in the current version of DCS. I cannot be more clear about this. No SAM launch will ever be prevented or delayed by running a flare program in the current version of DCS! None, nada, zero! This is a deficiency of the current DCS SAM logic and it should be fixed. In real life, you should be able to delay some IR SAM launches some of the time by running a typical preventative flare program, but in DCS you cannot.

 

preventive flares have an effect, apart from creating a good habit for a brighter DCS future. Sometimes the missile locks a flare immedeately after launch. And there is a slight delay for MWS, and then the reaction time... Time to impact for SHORADS is way to short so imho everything that could save your ass is worth it

 

No, they don't have an effect! I know I'm being pedantic about this, but this is exactly why people become confused about this topic.

 

What you described is a missile defeat. Nothing was prevented, so we should not use the term "preventative". Now, it is true that occasionally a typical preventative flare program of, say, '1 flare every 1 second' (1F1s), may defeat an IR SAM after it has been launched, by this is simply a happy coincidence. Having flares out at a dangerous time certainly doesn't hurt, but most 'preventative flare' programs simply do not have the flare 'density' to reliably defeat a missile. Any missile defeat as a result of running a preventative flare program should be put down to good timing (due to tactics) and good luck and nothing more.

 

Maverick-X, perhaps you may respond and say that your 'preventative flare' program is something more like 2F/1s or 1F/0.5s, in which case we are now moving away from prevention and more towards active defense. If this is the case, you would be better served by calling it a 'defensive flare' program. It is a subtle distinction but one worth making while the SAM logic remains unfixed.

 

So, what is my point?

 

1. A preventative flare program and a defensive flare program are two different things. A preventative flare program is designed to delay a seeker lock and cause the SAM operator to hesitate, and should be relatively economical in terms of flare use. A defensive flare program is generally an 'all-out' program that uses a medium to high number of flares to actively defend against a SAM launch. A pilot may run the preventative flare program during generally vulnerable flight regimes, whereas the defensive flare program is run during the most dangerous part of the attack, or, alternatively, only when a SAM launch has actually occurred.

 

2. Preventative flares do not work in the current DCS version. Due to a limitation in the current SAM logic, you will never prevent an IR SAM launch no matter how many flares you dispense. Therefore, calling any flare program "preventative" in this version of DCS is a misnomer and semantically confusing. This issue should be fixed in new versions.

 

3. It's true, the general concept of preventative flares is a good one. In the real world preventative flares should delay some IR SAM launches some of the time. However, telling people to run preventative flare programs in DCS right now is telling them to do something that doesn't work.

 

4. If we do tell people to use 'preventative flare' programs, we should explicitly tell them that although the tactic doesn't work in the current DCS version, it may work in new DCS versions. I agree it's a good idea to get into the habit of doing it, but people must understand the subtle difference between real world tactics and tactics that actually work in the game. Right now, this talk of preventative flares is sort of like being being 'right for the wrong reasons'.

 

5. Until this issue is fixed, we should not think in terms of prevention, but in terms of pure defense. If we want to ensure the best chance of survival, we should run defensive flare programs in all vulnerable flight regimes (because prevention does not work).

 

Neon67, my advice to you is the following:

 

 

• If possible, you should stay out of the IR SAM envelope entirely. This usually means flying high (15000 ft + AGL). Deny them the opportunity to shoot you.
  

 

• You should fly as fast as possible to ensure you have the energy to maneuver defensively when required. If in the A-10, you should be above 250 knots at all times (when practical), and even faster if possible. This usually means only carrying the absolute bare minimum of stores needed to complete the mission, i.e. no heavy/draggy load-outs — generally two mavericks and 2-4 bombs, that's it. If you're in the Su-25, same rules apply, but I would always keep it above 400 knots at a minimum.
  

 

• If you have to intentionally fly within the threat envelope of a potential IR SAM, you should be run a typical defensive flare program (2F/1s, 1F/0.5s, 2F/0.5s etc). For example, if you are diving to attack a target with guns or bombs, run a defensive flare program during the vulnerable portion of your attack. Yes, this means you will use lots of flares, and yes, you will sometimes run out prematurely. Nevertheless, this is the only way to give yourself the best chance to survive against an unseen IR SAM launch. If you run out of flares you should either carry more or RTB.
  

 

• In general, the concept of a preventative flare program (1F/1s etc) is a good one. You should be able to delay some launches some of the time by doing this. Therefore, if and when this issue is fixed, you should revisit this idea.
  

 

• Remember! A preventative flare program will always be necessarily worse than a pure defensive flare program. The idea is to be relatively economical with your flares and prevent the launch wherever possible, but then to go all out with defense when the launch actually happens. As stated, until seeker locks can be delayed or prevented, you should be more towards 'all out' with your flare use.
  

 

• If all else fails and you can see the SAM launch (and you can't turn and run), cut the throttle a little (lowers your engine temp), run your defensive flare program, and then maneuver to place the missile on your 3-9 line (your wing) and keep it there. Now pull some g while maintaining speed as best as possible and hope for the best. This only works if you stay FAST at all times and therefore have the energy to defend at a moment's notice.
  

Edited February 17, 2014 by Crescendo

[lmp]

Just wanted to say, I love your sig, Crescendo :lol:

[Pyroflash]

IR seekers can and WILL lock onto erroneous heat sources. The AI might not care, but the missile will, which is the important part. Even if preventative measures didn't work, it would benefit you to still practice them for when the seeker and missile logic do get improved. Plus the whole "AI doesn't lock onto flares thing" only applies to SAM threats. Preventative flares are still a great idea when flying around ANY potential IR threat, especially other aircraft. Honestly, if I am within the WEZ of any weapons system that could engage me, I am pumping out the flares every couple of seconds and resting on the controls to evade the missile should I see a launch.

 

Really, the most important thing is speed. ESPECIALLY FOR THE HOG. The A-10C can go decently fast enough, but its acceleration is terrible. If you are caught going 180 kts with your pants down, you can basically forget about everything else and start reaching for the handle. As a last ditch effort, you MAY be able to bank away from the missile, mask your exhaust with your tail, dump ALL of your flares and pull towards the ground, but at that low of speed, it probably won't help anyways. This is especially important considering your engines should be at idle when defending against IR threats. Heat signature plays a big deal in this sim.

 

Also, when you actually do see a missile launch, don't be scared of pumping out three or four batches of flares (typically more than four flares per batch) in order to spoof that missile. Being winchester because you are out of flares is better than being dead because you didn't pop enough. Also make sure to aggressively maneuver against that missile. Flares probably won't do much without some out of plane maneuvering in order to confuse the seeker.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Pyroflash

[Crescendo]

Well I'm happy to be proven wrong, but my testing says otherwise.

 

I did the following test back in 2012/2013, and have run quick tests in all versions up to 1.2.6. The SAM behaviour has not deviated from these results in my testing experience, and I have seen no patch notes that would suggest that the issue has been fixed. Admittedly I have not done testing in 1.2.7.

 

---

 

Testing parameters

 

Threat: 1 x SA-13 set to "expert" skill, oriented directly toward player aircraft.

Player aircraft: 1 x A-10C flying at 250KIAS, 9800ft, straight and level directly over threat.

Countermeasures: Flare program started at 4.0 miles slant range to target, runs continously thereafter.

 

Flight is repeated five (5) times with various levels of countermeasures. TGP measures slant range to the SA-13 at the exact moment of the SAM launch. This slant range is used as a crude measure of any delay in the launch due to flare employment.

 

Results

Test 1 - No countermeasures

 

Slant range at launch: 2.6, 2.7, 2.6, 2.7, 2.5.

Average slant range: 2.6.

 

Test 2 - 2flares/2sec

 

Slant range at launch: 2.5, 2.2, 2.5, 2.6, 2.6

Average slant range: 2.5.

 

Test 3 - 1flare/1sec

 

Slant range at launch: 2.6, 2.5, 2.5, 2.6, 2.6

Average slant range: 2.6.

 

Test 4 - 3flares/1sec

 

Slant range at launch: 2.3, 2.6, 2.5, 2.6, 2.6

Average slant range: 2.5.

 

Test 5 - 4flares/0.5sec

 

Slant range at launch: 1.8*, 2.6, 2.3, 2.6, 2.5, 2.4

Average slant range: 2.5.

 

* I have no explanation for this aberrant result, and it has been excluded from the data set. Perhaps even an "expert" SAM operator occasionally falls asleep or forgets to press the right sequence of buttons!

 

---

 

Those are my results in a simple single-player editor mission.

 

I can't speak for MP, but I will say that there are important variables to consider there. Things such as other aircraft 'stealing' the attention of the SAM (so that it never launches at you) and the SAM itself simply running out of ammo. As for the sun, I consider that a confounding variable and chose not to test it -maybe it has an effect, I don't know.

 

I know I was strident in saying that preventative flares never work, but I have not seen evidence to the contrary, specifically in a controlled environment (which is key).

 

I welcome new evidence that falsifies my findings because that means we can learn something new.

Edited February 18, 2014 by Crescendo

[ENO]

Everything I've ever been told since I started with this sim from the people who generally know what they're talking about said that preventative flaring was "largely placebo."

 

Like ECM- if it works at all it's not because it's working the way it is intended to from a realism perspective as much as because of some other factor that is harder to narrow down.

 

And even if I had a dev come in and say under certain conditions preventative flaring "can" work... I wouldn't depend on it. Heck- even if they told me it worked 70% of the time I wouldn't throw caution to the wind and program a flare every couple seconds just so I could swoop in and shake my fist at the enemy.

 

With those same assurances I would do it if the scenario demanded that I take additional risks in some sort of support capacity- when you have to "put it out there" in the virtual battlefield... but otherwise I'd rather just keep the canopy on.

[Maverick-X]

Crescendo: you are right that preventive flares don't have an effect as they should -> launch prevention. I wrote: they have an effect in terms of creating a good habit for the time they work as intended, and on launch the missile may lock a released flare.

 

I didn't write about how preventive flaring in DCS works, but that it is still usefull. If the missile is not in your current view, the delay between launch detection + reaction time of the pilot can easily be 70% of the time to impact! Even if you see the missile before MWS reacts, the flight time of shorads is way to short for comfort, and after all this is about flare effectiveness.

 

I see your point in differentiation between defensive and preventive flares, although this distinction is diffuse. Never the less it is a working tactic to launch flares while running in on a propalby IRSHORAD defended target. I also don't think that there is a lot of confusion about this, as everyone can easily notice preventive flaring doesn't work, just like your example has shown.

[Crescendo]

Maverick-X, I stand by my post, but reading it again I do think it could be construed as coming on a little strong, to the point that I misrepresented you.

 

I agree that the general concept is a good habit to get into, as long as people understand that its primary purpose (delay or deny) doesn't technically work in DCS (yet).

 

I also agree that a preventative flare program can mitigate the 'reaction time delay factor' between the pilot/MWS detecting the launch and running the correct program. However, I still think it's absolutely worth highlighting the difference between a typical preventative flare program (goal: prevent or delay the launch), and a typical defensive flare program goal: (active defeat). To be fair to you, you acknowledged this. I agree that this is a grey area in which the distinction between the two programs is on a continuum, but I do think it's important that people start thinking about why and when to run preventative programs, defensive programs, or a hybrid of the two. My thinking is that a typical preventative program will save you from an unseen launch only some of the time, and when it does this is mostly good fortune. A preventative program is not as effective as a hybrid or defensive program (naturally), but of course the flare economy of the latter two programs will be worse.

 

Really, I think the way people describe preventative flare programs, myself included, is ripe for confusion. Are we trying to prevent a SAM launch (goal: delay or deny seeker lock), or are we trying to prevent a launched SAM tracking our aircraft? I think most would say the former, but sometimes people mean one or the other, or otherwise conflate the two. So why not make this distinction explicit and rename the 'preventative flare' program? My suggestion is to instead call it a "delay/deny" program. If we do this, we now have at least three separate types of programs (delay/deny, defensive, hybrid). This is semantically much clearer, because logic tells us that any of these programs could be employed preemptively by the pilot in a 'preventative' capacity. The only difference between each program is its primary goal, it's effectiveness at meeting this goal, and its economy. So, sometimes the pilot may wish to be economical with flares and choose a delay/deny program only (and take the risk that an unseen SAM launch may kill him), sometimes he may use slightly more flares with a correspondingly higher chance of defeating an unseen SAM (hybrid), and sometimes he may be cautious and preemptively use many flares with a better chance of defeating an unseen SAM (defensive).

 

Finally, I do disagree about the confusion issue. I have no hard evidence either way, but my feeling is that a not-insignificant number of people aren't aware that you can't prevent a launch currently. I say this because whenever this topic comes up (pretty regularly), you inevitably get a few posts talking about preventative flares, which is fine, but you don't usually see a nuanced discussion about the limitations of the concept in the current state of DCS simulation. Furthermore, you usually don't get a nuanced discussion about the goals and differences of delay-deny/hybrid/defensive programs and the why/how/when regarding their employment. You also get people who say prevention does work (eXPeRT for example), but this is contrary to controlled testing in my experience.

Edited February 18, 2014 by Crescendo

[Supersheep]

Everything I've ever been told since I started with this sim from the people who generally know what they're talking about said that preventative flaring was "largely placebo."

 

I was given the same advice (or read the same posts) and subscribe to this...

[ENO]

It did mention that all SAMs now use a new logic when targeting, did you miss that part?

 

 

I can't speak for anyone else but I definitely missed that part. Please enlighten me as to where that announcement was made so I can adjust my tactical disposition prn.

[ENO]

Dynamic Launch Zone, since beta 1.2.7, which applies to all SAMs, not just Radar ones.

Also, the flares effectiveness has been increased since 1.2.6 or so.

Please look through the patch logs, it's there.

 

 

Maybe I wasn't entirely clear in my sarcasm. I did look through the logs and the only mention is adjustment to the launch profile that prevents the missiles from flying into the ground when launched at low flying aircraft. Not quite the same issue.

 

So if it isn't written there specifically don't act all surprised that we haven't got the memo- especially if the behavior hasn't actually changed.

 

I'm pretty sure that if IR SAMs behavior was substantially modified, someone would have mentioned it. Your tracks don't make your experience any more valid than anyone else's. in fact I think it's downright corny that you would validate your opinion by pasting the contents of that folder. Talk about an unknown drip under pressure. Holy cow.

[Supersheep]

In the discussion of the change logs, a big point was made of the change that SAMs don't launch at max range anymore. Now, what does that say about the 3km standoff attack and the effectiveness of preemptive flares against something like a Gaskin? I don't see much to be pointed out there, other than the fact that the SAM would not shoot either way. I can say that I motor along at a shorter distance from IR SAMs, without sun, without flares, and don't get a launch, either.

 

Playtime doesn't prove anything, by the way. We need an actual file, which I expect you to know, so I'm at a loss as to what to make of your post. Bragging?