Improved SAM sites AI

[Kusch]

Dear ED :D

 

Is it possible to add the ability for SAM sites (like Kub, Osa and Buk, Tor and Tunguska) to operate in passive mode, only using opitc sensors (optic,IR channels) This option could be chosen in mission editor. It would be by far the simpliest solution without messing up with launcher's AI. (Something like radar ON-OFF)

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Dear ED :D

 

Is it possible to add the ability for SAM sites (like Kub, Osa and Buk, Tor and Tunguska) to operate in passive mode, only using opitc sensors (optic,IR channels) This option could be chosen in mission editor. It would be by far the simpliest solution without messing up with launcher's AI. (Something like radar ON-OFF)

That would be very realistic. Yugoslavian Air Defense („ПВО – Против Ваздушна Одбрана“) used optical systems against NATO aircraft and cruise missile. It was relatively successful, NATO deck was at 15 000 feet. And no CAS missions were flown.

 

In Lock On, this would bring the whole new dimension for us Su-25T pilots because we would have to fly much higher. I am trying to keep my deck at 3000 meters. With silent KUB’s, TOR’s and Osa’s I would have to fly much higher and as fast as I can.

[GGTharos]

The EO system is -secondary-. This should give you an idea or two about its utility.

 

When possible, SAMs will use their primary sensor systems. Right now, LOMAC does not give them a reason to -not- do so.

[Pilotasso]

They are already too smart when they freely attack enemy aircraft in the middle of a major furball when IRL they often refrain to do so if freindly aircraft are in the same corridor.

[S77th-GOYA]

Right now, LOMAC does not give them a reason to -not- do so.

 

The HARMs, ALARMs, Kh-58s and Kh-25MPUs in LOMAC call bull-shite.

[GGTharos]

The HARMs, ALARMs, Kh-58s and Kh-25MPUs in LOMAC call bull-shite.

 

LOMAC's AI says your eyes are brown ;)

[D-Scythe]

That would be very realistic. Yugoslavian Air Defense („ПВО – Против Ваздушна Одбрана“) used optical systems against NATO aircraft and cruise missile. It was relatively successful, NATO deck was at 15 000 feet. And no CAS missions were flown.

 

- the 15 000 ft limit was against MANPADS; every other Serbian SAM had a ceiling far in excess of 15 000 ft (and visually, you can pick up an aircraft flying silhouetted against a blue sky flying much higher than 15 000 ft, which is less than 3 miles)

 

- No CAS operations were flown because there was NOTHING to give ground support to

 

In Lock On, this would bring the whole new dimension for us Su-25T pilots because we would have to fly much higher. I am trying to keep my deck at 3000 meters. With silent KUB’s, TOR’s and Osa’s I would have to fly much higher and as fast as I can.

 

Two words: night operations.

 

And optically guided SAMs are really not that lethal. When a radar system like the Tor and Kub are relegated to optical tracking, you might as well be shooting large unguided rockets. Just once though, cause after the first launch, you're getting an LGB shoved deep into your TELAR.

[S77th-GOYA]

LOMAC's AI says your eyes are brown ;)

 

LOMAC's AI sucks at eye color guessing too.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

No CAS operations were flown because there was NOTHING to give ground support to

Albanian regular infantry and KLA was actively involved in infantry skirmishes. They lost every skirmish because NATO could not provide CAS without of high risks being shoot down.

 

There was no secret that Albanian infantry was involved. Take a look at the news paper from that time as well as what Albanian officials (president, prime minister and foreign minister and etc) were talking then and are talking today.

 

Also, KLA was NATO infantry, many of them were trained in Germany and there is no secret about that either.

 

And finally, Klinton decided to sign a peace deal with Milosevic (UN resolution 1244) that guaranties Serbian sovereignty and independence. And that was without going into Kosovo with NATO infantry.

 

There are many reasons why was all of this happening. One of those reasons was that Yugo, nowadays Serbian, Anti Aircraft Force used optical tracking and probably optical initial guidance for its SAM-s.

 

That’s why, for the sake of reality, it might be a good idea to enable optical SAM tracking in Lock On. I would suggest that it should be optional, because it would be close to impossible to accomplish some missions otherwise.

 

Two words: night operations.

It did not work (that’s four words). And based on available evidence, only big stationary targets were successfully hit in night operation over Yugoslavia. Three Yugos 45 arranged in a row, with logs thrown through their windshields looked like light tanks from 20 000 feet at night. We also know that farm tractors were mistaken for armored vehicles. Busses were bombed on open roads being mistaken for armored vehicles.

 

And optically guided SAMs are really not that lethal. When a radar system like the Tor and Kub are relegated to optical tracking, you might as well be shooting large unguided rockets. Just once though, cause after the first launch, you're getting an LGB shoved deep into your TELAR.

Well, it would be good to know the difference between the optical GUIDANCE and optical TRACKING.

 

Your little comment on LGB, the evidence from Yugoslavia (nowadays Serbia) does not support your claim.

[D-Scythe]

.......right.

[GGTharos]

Hajduk is right on the lack of effectiveness against SAMs. As for CAS? They didn't fly any because there were no US troops on the ground, and that's all there is to that campaign within this context.

 

As an aside, SAMs weren't exactly too effective either ... not a whole lot of planes were dropped from the sky given the amount of damage they did.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

No offense dude but you really need to work on your poorly hidden hatred for anything American.

Rugbutt, please, I am begging you to stop making such a nonsense, untrue statements.

 

Pilots flying over Yugoslavia extensively talked about laser range finders and optical SAM systems. Why can’t we talk about that?

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

As an aside, SAMs weren't exactly too effective either ... not a whole lot of planes were dropped from the sky given the amount of damage they did.

You are right. SAM’s and airplanes kept each other out of range.

[Pilotasso]

As I see it, serb defeses survived mostly due to rough terrain ar poor wheather, and the fear of hiting civilian tractors (because stationary targets can be detected with AG radar), as for NATO aircraft not being hit by then, can be explained by the obselecense of the hardware involved. Also because there were no realy long range SAM's anyway. Fly high enough and those SA-3's will fall short.

[Jay]

Also because there were no realy long range SAM's anyway. Fly high enough and those SA-3's will fall short.

 

AFAIK they had some SA-2 Volkhov (S-75M) systems there but don't know their nubmbers.

[D-Scythe]

It's a FACT that NATO pilots were more worried about MANPADS than from EO-guiding/tracking SA-2/3/6s. The only Serb missile NATO aircraft stayed out of range from were MANPADS, hence the 15 000ft floor.

 

If NATO aircraft were actively avoiding SA-2/3/6s, than the 15 000 ft floor makes absolutely no sense. EO sensors can easily pick up aircraft flying at 15 000 ft (honestly, it's less than 3 miles against a clear sky - how much more ideal do you wanna get?), and every one of the aforementioned SAMs are kinematically capable of aircraft flying much higher.

 

Thus, the Serbian non-MANPADS defenses were completely ineffective, so long as you don't do something stupid like fly the same ingress route every single day. NATO aircraft could fly wherever they wanted with impunity up until the end of the conflict (above 15 000ft of course), which is not indicative of any major threat posed by Serbian anti-air defenses.

[EricJ]

* Repeated off topic posts that serve no positive service to the forum.

 

Yeah yeah I know, I don't moderate here, but the original topic has been so twisted to crap that GGTharos answered it already. Kusch asked a good question (read: nothing I cared to ask about in the first place, shame on me).

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Is it possible to add the ability for SAM sites (like Kub, Osa and Buk, Tor and Tunguska) to operate in passive mode, only using opitc sensors (optic,IR channels)

Are optical sensors on these systems used for tracking only? In other words, can a short range SAM be opticaly gudied?

[Kusch]

Words key: Track Via Missile, Radio comand, etc.

 

Check this site;

http://www.warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=264&cattitle=Surface-to-Air

[GGTharos]

Are optical sensors on these systems used for tracking only? In other words, can a short range SAM be opticaly gudied?

 

Beam-riding/SACLOS SAMs can be without much modification to the missile itself most of the time - other systems might have this built in as backup.