Sidearm

[laugen]

They seam a bit unrealistic don't they? Or where these really able to take out an radar dome with a 25lb warhead?

 

Sent fra min SM-G955F via Tapatalk

[StandingCow]

They seam a bit unrealistic don't they? Or where these really able to take out an radar dome with a 25lb warhead?

 

Sent fra min SM-G955F via Tapatalk

 

Well, I think what we are seeing here is a limitation of DCS, in real life a 25lb warhead is enough to shred a delicate radar system, but not destroy a vehicle... but since DCS doesn't have a great damage model it just destroys the target.

 

Speaking of this, does the AI seem smarter to you all as far as shutting off the radar? They seem to wait until I am VERY close before hitting me with a lock, so while I kill one of them they also tend to shoot me down.

[laugen]

Yeah sadly there is no fragmentation damage. I would actually preferred that vehicles where disabled rather then blow up.

 

I haven't messed around with it that much to notice that, but if that's it is the case it's an welcome feature.

 

Sent fra min SM-G955F via Tapatalk

[MadDog08]

Speaking of this, does the AI seem smarter to you all as far as shutting off the radar? They seem to wait until I am VERY close before hitting me with a lock, so while I kill one of them they also tend to shoot me down.

 

I have noticed this as well, specifically with the Strela. I don't get a radar spike until I am virtually on top of it, and then it is already launching.

 

MadDog

[exray]

I have noticed this as well, specifically with the Strela. I don't get a radar spike until I am virtually on top of it, and then it is already launching.

 

MadDog

 

Same with the ZSU23 although that makes more sense as it is a shorter ranged AA system.

[Einherjer]

So a Hunter-Killer team is the better choice over a solo attack

[al531246]

Remember even if the warhead failed to explode the Sidearm would fly straight through the radar emitter. Thus destroying it (or at least putting it out of action).

[Fri13]

Well, I think what we are seeing here is a limitation of DCS, in real life a 25lb warhead is enough to shred a delicate radar system, but not destroy a vehicle... but since DCS doesn't have a great damage model it just destroys the target.

 

A single 155mm artillery shell is very well capable to destroy most tanks and shred even a modern MBT exterior parts to pieces from (radios, tracks, optics, cannon alignment etc) 30-50m distance of impact point and such weights about 43kg and from that there is about 6.5kg of explosives. Rest of the weight is just the fragmentation shell (about 2000 pieces) that is doing the heavy lifting.

 

So what a 25lb warhead is 11.3kg with about 4kg worth explosives, that is almost same that a single artillery shell does have, but it has far less fragmentations and weight in those.

 

So yeah, a usual tank that is fitted to air defense purposes like a Shilka, Tunguska, Gepard and similar should be easily destroyed by a Sidearm.

 

Like example the Gepard SPAAG is based to Leopard 1 MBT platform. It has only a frontal armor 70mm. It is a glass tank, but fast.

 

 

So when a Sidewinder gets to explode near that, it will do a good amount of damage.

 

Question is really, how close does Sidearm manage to fly? As far I know, it was never really a accurate missile in the first place and lacked the memory to fly to last known location when the radar was shut off, didn't have so great range and capability to hit moving targets was questionable.

 

So what we have now is fairly superior performance by accuracy, but fairly realistic destruction capability.

 

But what we really need to get is that DCS supports multilevel damage system to ground units. So we don't just get vehicles go from "operational" > "smoke". But we could get vehicles tracks cut off, optics gone, engine destroyed, cannon jammed, crew knocked/injured etc. Just like with a SAM systems or such that radars are destroyed or damaged but otherwise operational unit that requires less servicing.

 

Current status is reflecting the DCS core idea of "procedure simulator" where you either hit target as you deployed weapon correctly or followed the procedure, or then you didn't. There is nothing between black and white.

[Fri13]

I have noticed this as well, specifically with the Strela. I don't get a radar spike until I am virtually on top of it, and then it is already launching.

 

You shouldn't.

 

The Strela-1 is using a IR missiles and it is optically targeted and guided. The usage of radar is totally optional when the target range is difficult to estimate for launch parameters.

 

Strela-1 can't launch its missiles against a targets in bad weather and even suffers from bad acquisition in a cloudy day when clouds and clear sky generates a patched background for missile to acquire target. As the missile uses a unusual target locking mechanism using background radiation as filter the aircraft out of it.

 

Most soviet/russia SAM systems can be guided and launched optically, only to engage the radar lock to the target in final seconds for accurate guidance.

So what you would really get, is just a couple seconds time period to take evasive actions as missile is going to hit you in less than few.

 

What we don't have is a radio communication network where all kind different units would call to the SAM sites from spotting a aircrafts and then these to do searching and checking. Instead units doesn't communicate outside of their groups and then having them in groups has own disadvantages.

[M1Combat]

"But what we really need to get is that DCS supports multilevel damage system to ground units."

 

That would be pretty awesome but damn that would take a lot of work if they didn't just fudge it...

[laugen]

According to this site

 

"Sidearm was intended to destroy the radar emitter—the antenna basically—and not the armored vehicle or the surrounding infrastructure it is mounted on. In other words, it's a suppression of enemy air defenses weapon intended to exact a "mission kill" on an enemy air defense system, not obliterate it and its controllers entirely. The same continuous rod fragmentation warhead was used in the AGM-122 as the AIM-9C, which gave it limited destructive ability, but a high probability of causing a fatal impact on the emitter itself. "

 

I think ED could temporary simulate this with just disabling instead of blowing up the target (if there is such a thing)

[Fri13]

 

"Sidearm was intended to destroy the radar emitter—the antenna basically—and not the armored vehicle or the surrounding infrastructure it is mounted on. In other words, it's a suppression of enemy air defenses weapon intended to exact a "mission kill" on an enemy air defense system, not obliterate it and its controllers entirely. The same continuous rod fragmentation warhead was used in the AGM-122 as the AIM-9C, which gave it limited destructive ability, but a high probability of causing a fatal impact on the emitter itself. "

 

I think ED could temporary simulate this with just disabling instead of blowing up the target (if there is such a thing)

 

Yes they could just randomly occurring script it so if the SA explodes X meters from the radar emitter, then turn off the radar for until a service team gets to swap the radar.