Jump to content

Request: Pantsir-S1 Medium Range SAM


dimitrischal
 Share

Recommended Posts

Seeing that the F-18 is around the corner and with all the HARMs and SLAMs that will be flying around I was wondering if getting a Pantsir-S1 at some point would be possible so that we can have some decent medium to short range anti missile and anti air defense. Besides the TOR-M1 that is.

 

1280px-MAKS_Airshow_2013_%28Ramenskoye_Airport%2C_Russia%29_%28521-05%29.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right, my model has been sitting idle for so long:

 

...

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=106072

 

Looks beautiful! Better than some of the vehicles currently in my opinion.

 

However, what I will say is I think it's best to improve the dynamics and mechanics of CA as well as improvements to other vehicles to get them up to the same high standard first, before adding more - adding more vehicles just extends the workload. This is why the WWII asset pack kinda bugs me a little - all of the vehicles that have been added (certainly the ground vehicles) still have the exact same issues as what currently makes CA less immersive than maybe it should be, AFAIK none of the vehicles have FFBNW improvements in mind, even on a more basic level - like animating the suspension properly. Yes, I'm grateful for the WWII asset pack - adding lots of well-made, historically accurate assets, but they are just adding more, instead of generally improving.

 

That being said I find nothing wrong with getting a vehicle that's fitted for, but not with improvements in mind, that may not available currently, but will be available in the future without overhaul - like what the Hornet will be on early access and what the current Kilo class is (FFBNW torpedoes, underwater operations etc - it has it's torpedo tubes, masts and antennae, hydroplanes (including extending/retracting for the bow planes) modelled and animated - FFBNW improvements.

 

I certainly wouldn't object to having the vehicle make an appearance provided that it has FFBNW improvements in mind and so it could be done as realistically as possible.


Edited by Northstar98

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV-2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/bG9bBc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if they have enough data I don't think they could simulate the differences well enough.

 

The major difference are sensors new radar and new electronic for the operators station not sure how well ed could simulate it well enough to differentiate it's capabilities from 2k22. Which also has longer range missiles with later versions.

 

From a controllable combined arms perspective with it not being a simulator there wouldn't be enough differences to really make it stand out from the 2k2w.. 2k22 still has a few advantages because it's tracked. And has thicker armor. ( won't make difference against pgm) but unarmored trucks would be more vulnerable nonetheless to splash damage or even strafing


Edited by Kev2go

 

 

 

Build:

 

 

 

 

 

Windows 10 64 bit,

 

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z370- E Motherboard, Intel Core i7 8700k ( Noctua NH14S cooler),Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 32gb ram (2666 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia Gtx 1080 8gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; WD 1TB HDD, Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I’ve read the pantsirs ciws capability is excellent.

It’s part of an antimissile umbrella that involves the TOR-M1 and the S-300 systems and is comparable to the c-ram and phalanx.

My thinking is not so much as an antiaircraft weapon but an effective anti missile weapon to protect radars and high value assets from stand off weapons like the HARM and SLAM.

It was used this way with great effect in Syria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's best to improve the dynamics and mechanics of CA as well as improvements to other vehicles to get them up to the same high standard before adding more.

 

Wow. Making sense in a wish list. Have you no shame. ;)

ASUS ROG Maximus VIII Hero, i7-6700K, Noctua NH-D14 Cooler, Crucial 32GB DDR4 2133, Samsung 950 Pro NVMe 256GB, Samsung EVO 250GB & 500GB SSD, 2TB Caviar Black, Zotac GTX 1080 AMP! Extreme 8GB, Corsair HX1000i, Phillips BDM4065UC 40" 4k monitor, VX2258 TouchScreen, TIR 5 w/ProClip, TM Warthog, VKB Gladiator Pro, Saitek X56, et. al., MFG Crosswind Pedals #1199, VolairSim Pit, Rift CV1 :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if they have enough data I don't think they could simulate the differences well enough.

 

The major difference are sensors new radar and new electronic for the operators station not sure how well ed could simulate it well enough to differentiate it's capabilities from 2k22. Which also has longer range missiles with later versions.

 

From a controllable combined arms perspective with it not being a simulator there wouldn't be enough differences to really make it stand out from the 2k2w.. 2k22 still has a few advantages because it's tracked. And has thicker armor. ( won't make difference against pgm) but unarmored trucks would be more vulnerable nonetheless to splash damage or even strafing

 

If I'm honest - CA is really too basic and lacking fidelity to even go near the differences between comparable systems. Plus, apart from the SA-15, you have to acquire targets optically regardless of the system your using and you can't use RADAR gun laying - it isn't implemented, and neither is gun stabilisation. And if you have compute firing solution on, it will be the same for absolutely every vehicle, and you still have to aim systems manually - which is unrealistic squared. Only the SA-15 is an exception - but it's still basic, more an interim solution.

 

The 2K22 being tracked is an advantage to wheeled vehicles - if DCS cared about track dynamics and facilitated component damage models - which it doesn't - wheels are just as effective as tracks at the moment. As for armour, realistically the 2K22 is only capable of withstanding small-arms fire (7.62mm) and shell fragments - it isn't going to survive being strafed by 20mm or larger - even if it does it will be 'mission killed' but DCS doesn't facilitate that either - with it's HP based damage modelling for vehicles and when vehicles are destroyed they do one of 2 things - explode (quite violently I might add) immediately or are set ablaze by a smallish fire then explode. There are tracked version of the Pantsir-S1 as well using the GM-352 (which is what the 2K22 uses) which is probably preferable anyway.

 

Improvements though have to come first to CA and it's dynamics IMO before new things get added, because if in the future we get improvements, every single vehicle will have to be overhauled before those improvements can be implemented - increasing workload by a lot. It's better to start improving the current vehicles before adding more, because then we'll have to improve the current vehicles and the new vehicles (if they're not FFBNW improvements as discussed earlier).


Edited by Northstar98

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV-2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/bG9bBc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I find the hitpoint system adequate for the use at hand. After all almost always a smart weapon hit results in a complete kill. Why use more processing power for a use few will notice?

I asked for the pantsir because it is a powerful countermeasure for the onslaught of long range anti radar and stand off weapons being advertised for the hornet or currently available ie KH58U. Not for another anti aircraft SAM.

But anyway. I guess interest is limited in creating a complete battlefield experience as long as we get to blow stuff up...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I find the hitpoint system adequate for the use at hand. After all almost always a smart weapon hit results in a complete kill. Why use more processing power for a use few will notice?

I asked for the pantsir because it is a powerful countermeasure for the onslaught of long range anti radar and stand off weapons being advertised for the hornet or currently available ie KH58U. Not for another anti aircraft SAM.

But anyway. I guess interest is limited in creating a complete battlefield experience as long as we get to blow stuff up...

 

Well, the issue with the hitpoint system comes when you have SEAD missiles such as the AGM-122 or the AGM-45 which have smaller warheads and so may not be able to destroy a vehicle outright in comparison to say a bomb or larger missile. However, while not destroyed outright a mission critical subsystem (such as the RADAR - which is what the missile homes in on) is likely to be put out of action/destroyed without the vehicle being destroyed, fragmentation may also damage other systems (optics, launchers etc) - the vehicle becomes 'mission-killed' and inoperable while not being destroyed. This extends to ships too, even more so maybe - I've had 3 Harpoons hit the Slava broadside, just above the 2 starboard side AK-630M mounts and while graphically speaking they seemed damaged, they were in fact fully functional.

 

The Pantsir is essentially if put super basic and not do it justification at all a Tunguska V.2, but the approximated systems and fidelity of CA means that a Pantsir would end up practically identical to the Tunguska. Again at the moment the only system that you can actually use the RADAR to find targets is the SA-15 and it's still crude and basic, everything else is purely optical and even when optical doesn't represent the capability of said optical system apart from maybe zoom.

 

I for one would love a complete simulator - where as much of everything is catered for with a focus on military aircraft as that's what the niche of DCS really is. But, and this is a daunting, massive and probably unfeasible wish, to get everything up to a high standard. Air, land an sea, with all forms of warfare, as many operations as possible, from combat engineering to direct combat. But again, probably not feasible, at least at the moment.

 

I have nothing against the Pantsir, but I think we need the foundations first before adding more. I bet you the Land Rover (which I'm super grateful for being from the UK) will have the same 'floating hull' nonsense for a suspension model even though there are plans (nothing confirmed) to enhance CA, and when CA gets enhanced and they for instance, make suspension so it behaves realistically, they'll have to do it to every single vehicle, and if more keep getting added, that's more vehicles to fix - it creates it's own problems.


Edited by Northstar98

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV-2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/bG9bBc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the issue with the hitpoint system comes when you have SEAD missiles such as the AGM-122 or the AGM-45 which have smaller warheads and so may not be able to destroy a vehicle outright in comparison to say a bomb or larger missile. However, while not destroyed outright a mission critical subsystem (such as the RADAR - which is what the missile homes in on) is likely to be put out of action/destroyed without the vehicle being destroyed, fragmentation may also damage other systems (optics, launchers etc) - the vehicle becomes 'mission-killed' and inoperable while not being destroyed. This extends to ships too, even more so maybe - I've had 3 Harpoons hit the Slava broadside, just above the 2 starboard side AK-630M mounts and while graphically speaking they seemed damaged, they were in fact fully functional.

 

The Pantsir is essentially if put super basic and not do it justification at all a Tunguska V.2, but the approximated systems and fidelity of CA means that a Pantsir would end up practically identical to the Tunguska. Again at the moment the only system that you can actually use the RADAR to find targets is the SA-15 and it's still crude and basic, everything else is purely optical and even when optical doesn't represent the capability of said optical system apart from maybe zoom.

 

I for one would love a complete simulator - where as much of everything is catered for with a focus on military aircraft as that's what the niche of DCS really is. But, and this is a daunting, massive and probably unfeasible wish, to get everything up to a high standard. Air, land an sea, with all forms of warfare, as many operations as possible, from combat engineering to direct combat. But again, probably not feasible, at least at the moment.

 

I have nothing against the Pantsir, but I think we need the foundations first before adding more. I bet you the Land Rover (which I'm super grateful for being from the UK) will have the same 'floating hull' nonsense for a suspension model even though there are plans (nothing confirmed) to enhance CA, and when CA gets enhanced and they for instance, make suspension so it behaves realistically, they'll have to do it to every single vehicle, and if more keep getting added, that's more vehicles to fix - it creates it's own problems.

 

You are talking about CA, I am not.

I don’t want to drive it or fight with it in CA, I want it as an AI opponent to the upcoming aircraft and their long range HARMs and SLAMs because it has been proven to be able to track and engage multiple incoming projectiles or even uavs successfully and provide excellent point Defence.

The code for this is available and is used on all the ciws on the ships...

 

So it can defend a tracking or search radar from incoming HARMs from F18s.

So it can give mission makers something to spice things up in MP.

It can also be a potent threat against low level fighters and helos if any stray too close for a cheap kill on a high value target....

 

The Tunguska we have now cannot do that. It tracks incoming projectiles or planes extremely poorly and fails to intercept most(I’m talking about the cannons now).

The SA15 can be saturated extremely easily and cannot provide terminal Defence.

 

The way radars work now it is very difficult to simulate any counter SEAD tactic. That is what made me think about the Pantsir.

 

I don’t care about the sidearm much. Honestly about 200 pieces were made and used up quickly in exersices, it had limited actual use and razbam made it to give a slightly unfair edge to their harrier against SAM threats. It was a niche weapon made in limited quantities and had no real operational use in actual combat so we can measure results.

 

The AGM45 had a slightly larger warhead so can be considered closer to a normal munition in DCS and could easily be considered a bit to kill weapon. The AGM88 definitely.

 

A more complex damage system for ships is needed I definitely agree but I don’t think people would appreciate the impact in performance if it was expanded in all ground units.


Edited by dimitrischal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to test a battery of Tunguskas or Tor.

 

4 Tunguskas or 4 Tor with a Dog Ear in the same group all together and test how they work agains ARM.

 

Testing only one SAM alone is not realistic.

" You must think in russian.."

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Windows 7 Home Premium-Intel 2500K OC 4.6-SSD Samsung EVO 860- MSI GTX 1080 - 16G RAM - 1920x1080 27´

 

Hotas Rhino X-55-MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals -Track IR 4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to test a battery of Tunguskas or Tor.

 

4 Tunguskas or 4 Tor with a Dog Ear in the same group all together and test how they work agains ARM.

 

Testing only one SAM alone is not realistic.

 

Doesnt prove anything. The Tunguskas are skill crap close in. And adding 4 Tors in mp adds quite a few complications....lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are talking about CA, I am not.

I don’t want to drive it or fight with it in CA, I want it as an AI opponent to the upcoming aircraft and their long range HARMs and SLAMs because it has been proven to be able to track and engage multiple incoming projectiles or even uavs successfully and provide excellent point Defence.

 

What difference does it make? AI vehicles have the same fidelity whether your driving it yourself or you're not. The limitations that you have driving the vehicle applies to AI vehicles as well. Also stabilisers? Not implemented at all AI or not, which effects gun performance on vehicles firing on the move (I'll test this to confirm, but you definitely don't have stabilisers when using direct control), and the only way AI manages to effectively fire on the move is by ignoring the current suspension model - in which the hull bobs around randomly (the 1.5 Caucasus where I've tested is flat anyway - so not as relevant, but now that the terrain is a bit more complex proper suspension is potentially for consideration). And what about the hydraulic jacks of the truck based Pantsir-S1? Can't use them so it cannot be jacked up to provide the best possible firing position - now these aren't necessarily important but it's still something to consider. Ideally which should try to move as close as we can feasibly be to reality - not have overly approximated/out right inaccurate vehicle dynamics.

 

As for the Tunguska, it can also do this... In every situation where I've tested it it's managed, providing you don't have 4 aircraft firing munitions at a single vehicle. The reason why it's guns aren't effective is more an AI issue. Ship CIWS is far more effective than say a Tunguska or a Shilka - the latter behave more like manually steered and guided ZU-23-2 or variants of. Perhaps suggesting that RADAR gun-laying isn't properly implemented for ground vehicles - though I could be wrong and feel free to correct. I'll do some more testing to confirm.

 

The code for this is available and is used on all the ciws on the ships...

 

Ships can only engage multiple targets simultaneously using different systems with a small number of exceptions (Ticonderoga class and Slava class(?) with Aegis/SA-N-6(?) respectively). I believe the SA-N-9 system (a naval based SA-15) should also be able to engage multiple targets simultaneously. The SA-15-M2E also can engage multiple targets simultaneously.

 

Ship based CIWS systems can only engage one target simultaneously at a time, per system (not sure about Kashtan-M so I'll test that), the hint being they're gun based, one target has to be destroyed before moving onto the next, they should however be capable of tracking multiple threats at once making successive engagements rapid and frequent.

 

So it can defend a tracking or search radar from incoming HARMs from F18s.

So it can give mission makers something to spice things up in MP.

It can also be a potent threat against low level fighters and helos if any stray too close for a cheap kill on a high value target....

 

So can the Tunguska... In every event that I've tested it against more than capable aircraft and weapons, the Tunguska typically (notice the typically) has a high success rate - unless of course you're using one vehicle placed awfully in a rubbish firing position and expecting it to be successful firing at simultaneous multiple threats - AD systems are most effective in a battery or part of a layered defence system, Pantsir S1 isn't an exception - it's just more effective than it's older siblings. Even on it's own it's proved capable of shooting down ARMs such as AGM-88, Kh-58U and Kh-25MPU. I've even had AGM-65s fired at comparatively far closer range shot down by it.

 

But because ground vehicles in DCS are more limited, lacking fidelity, player controlled or not - with workaround solutions to counter SEAD (the most effective SEAD tactic is to turn your RADAR off, move, and use EO - which near enough every self-propelled Russian vehicle has an EO firing channel. The problem is in order to do this we have to use a workaround - a trigger for missile in zone - but this doesn't take into account the missile being detected by the system and if they don't detect the missile, how do they know to turn their RADAR off?

 

The SA15 can be saturated extremely easily and cannot provide terminal Defence.

 

The SA-15 gets saturated easily because we have the earliest incarnation of it, same with the Tunguska, and it only applies if you are using a single vehicle which again, not realistic - things are going wrong if you're left to one vehicle providing air defence, unless you don't have access to multiple assets (you've only got 12 missiles ready to fire remember and you're supposed to be countering munitions and aircraft, not just aircraft at close range). Tor-M2E can engage multiple targets simultaneously. As for terminal defence, you're approaching the region of comparing apples to oranges - in an effective AD system you have a battalion of multiple different vehicles providing a more layered defence scheme.

 

Speaking of the SA-15, even how it launches it's missiles in DCS is inaccurate, it uses a cold launch system whereby the missile is facing the target a mere few meters above the launcher, at the moment the missile is hot-launched, climbs to about 10x the altitude it should vertically before pitching over - making it far easier to spot and evade.

 

Speaking of both systems they are supposed to be able of countering small targets such as cruise missiles, guided missiles, bombs as well as aircraft and should be capable of engaging low RCS targets, but at the moment neither engage bombs (IIRC, this may have been changed).

 

The way radars work now it is very difficult to simulate any counter SEAD tactic. That is what made me think about the Pantsir.

Pantsir-S1 does have superior RADARs - being PESA RADARs and not mechanically steered, more basic 2D RADARs. But consider this, the SA-15 and Tunguska should also be able to cope with 48 targets, tracking 10 of them at a time, later incarnations should be able to engage 4 targets at a time for the SA-15

 

I don’t care about the sidearm much. Honestly about 200 pieces were made and used up quickly in exersices, it had limited actual use and razbam made it to give a slightly unfair edge to their harrier against SAM threats. It was a niche weapon made in limited quantities and had no real operational use in actual combat so we can measure results.

I'm not asking for you to care about it, I'm asking that you consider that the damage modelling for vehicles is crude and basic. The AGM-122 was designed to be a SEAD missile that could be more versatile and fitted to smaller platforms - the Harrier being one of them. Like it or not, an AGM-122 hitting a RADAR or a similar mission critical subsystem - will probably put that system out of action, which is all we can realistically expect from the AGM-122. Just because it never saw real operational use in actual combat doesn't mean the issue of having 2 vehicle states is irrelevant/unimportant.

 

The AGM45 had a slightly larger warhead so can be considered closer to a normal munition in DCS and could easily be considered a bit to kill weapon. The AGM88 definitely
Agreed, though effectiveness is still a player here: The AGM-122 has an 11.3kg blast-frag warhead, only can really to expect a mission kill at best; the AGM-45 has a 66.6/67.5kg blast-frag warhead, nice and large, suitable for destroying unarmoured targets such as the one's being discussed here, however, during it's use in the Falklands war with Operation Black Buck 5, an AGM-45 was fired against a transmitting AN/TPS-43, the missile missed by 10 meters - close enough to receive damage, but nothing substantial enough to disable the RADAR, after that the RADAR was turned off, preventing attacks against it, later the AGM-45 was used again to try and attack the AN/TPS-43, because the RADAR was turned off it hit and destroyed a Skyguard RADAR instead, killing 4 operators. HARM in it's E variant is capable of striking RADARs even if they power off, providing they don't relocate, but it also has it's own mmw RADAR to strike moving targets successfully.

 

A more complex damage system for ships is needed I definitely agree but I don’t think people would appreciate the impact in performance if it was expanded in all ground units.
For ground vehicles this only really needs to be (at the moment) sensors (including optics), barrels/launchers, tracks/wheels, turret rings and maybe hull plates. Penetration is more difficult but once we have it then we can extend to fuel tanks, engine/transmission blocks, magazines and crew members - something that at the moment is no issue for AI aircraft (well for what's crucially important it's fine enough), I don't see why it would impact performance in this regard seeing as armour penetration isn't being factored yet.

 

Doesnt prove anything. The Tunguskas are skill crap close in. And adding 4 Tors in mp adds quite a few complications....lol

 

Yes it simply does - how can you realistically counter SEAD effectively if you're not going to set-up your air-defence properly to counter SEAD? Very few times have I got close enough to a Tunguska to demonstrate it's effectiveness close-in and this is against one system. I'll do more testing.

 

Adding proper battalions (as in real life) is the best way of determining effectiveness - the Pantsir S1 is not an exception.

 

Effective use of something, effective strategy is incredibly important when determining what is effective what isn't effective - that's how pilots flying the MiG-21Bis can down a F-15C in spite of the F-15C being superior on paper in almost every aspect. You can't expect a system to suddenly magically work or be far more superior to another if isn't used correctly. You can't can't conclude a system is ineffective and incapable if it isn't utilised properly or effectively.

 

Again - I am not against the implementation of Pantsir-S1 - not in the slightest, it would be great to see, please bare that it mind. But improvements generally for vehicles be it damage modelling, more advanced and higher fidelity depiction of systems and their capability or even things like adding stabilisers and proper suspension modelling. Should IMO come first before adding new.

 

And if CA gets upgraded to the point where we see vehicles being done to similar fidelity and player interaction as aircraft modules (which is fairly likely, given the hints) vehicles will need to be upgraded anyway and adding more vehicles now increases the workload later on, unless they can be made with FFBNW improvements - that's why I think improvements should be done first before adding more.

 

Short version: go for it, but maybe not right now...

 

I do understand the current imbalance between BLUFOR and REDFOR in terms of available equipment, particularly aircraft, unfortunately not a lot can be done atm to sort that out.


Edited by Northstar98

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV-2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/bG9bBc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is this a sudden requirement now?

Su-25T has had the ability to do some massive SEAD for ever.

 

Pantsir will be as easy to saturate as Tor in any case.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends.

 

You can saturate a lone SAM, but not a well deployed IADS. Specially with CAP covers.

" You must think in russian.."

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Windows 7 Home Premium-Intel 2500K OC 4.6-SSD Samsung EVO 860- MSI GTX 1080 - 16G RAM - 1920x1080 27´

 

Hotas Rhino X-55-MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals -Track IR 4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is this a sudden requirement now?

Su-25T has had the ability to do some massive SEAD for ever.

 

Pantsir will be as easy to saturate as Tor in any case.

 

I was always a fan of the system but these latest reports got me all wired up:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantsir-S1#Operational_history

 

The system proved more than capable of intercepting extremely low rcs drones and munitions.

 

I also thought it was high time we got it in DCS as it has been in service for a few years and it really offers a unique mix of counter munitions defence and classic SAM functionality.

Also i think the F18 is a step up from the SU25T in terms of SEAD.

It can be saturated of course but it is just another item to add something different to the mix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What difference does it make? AI vehicles have the same fidelity whether your driving it yourself or you're not. The limitations that you have driving the vehicle applies to AI vehicles as well. Also stabilisers? Not implemented at all AI or not, which effects gun performance on vehicles firing on the move (I'll test this to confirm, but you definitely don't have stabilisers when using direct control), and the only way AI manages to effectively fire on the move is by ignoring the current suspension model - in which the hull bobs around randomly (the 1.5 Caucasus where I've tested is flat anyway - so not as relevant, but now that the terrain is a bit more complex proper suspension is potentially for consideration). And what about the hydraulic jacks of the truck based Pantsir-S1? Can't use them so it cannot be jacked up to provide the best possible firing position - now these aren't necessarily important but it's still something to consider. Ideally which should try to move as close as we can feasibly be to reality - not have overly approximated/out right inaccurate vehicle dynamics.

 

As for the Tunguska, it can also do this... In every situation where I've tested it it's managed, providing you don't have 4 aircraft firing munitions at a single vehicle. The reason why it's guns aren't effective is more an AI issue. Ship CIWS is far more effective than say a Tunguska or a Shilka - the latter behave more like manually steered and guided ZU-23-2 or variants of. Perhaps suggesting that RADAR gun-laying isn't properly implemented for ground vehicles - though I could be wrong and feel free to correct. I'll do some more testing to confirm.

 

 

Ships can only engage multiple targets simultaneously using different systems with a small number of exceptions (Ticonderoga class and Slava class(?) with Aegis/SA-N-6(?) respectively). I believe the SA-N-9 system (a naval based SA-15) should also be able to engage multiple targets simultaneously. The SA-15-M2E also can engage multiple targets simultaneously.

 

Ship based CIWS systems can only engage one target simultaneously at a time, per system (not sure about Kashtan-M so I'll test that), the hint being they're gun based, one target has to be destroyed before moving onto the next, they should however be capable of tracking multiple threats at once making successive engagements rapid and frequent.

 

 

 

So can the Tunguska... In every event that I've tested it against more than capable aircraft and weapons, the Tunguska typically (notice the typically) has a high success rate - unless of course you're using one vehicle placed awfully in a rubbish firing position and expecting it to be successful firing at simultaneous multiple threats - AD systems are most effective in a battery or part of a layered defence system, Pantsir S1 isn't an exception - it's just more effective than it's older siblings. Even on it's own it's proved capable of shooting down ARMs such as AGM-88, Kh-58U and Kh-25MPU. I've even had AGM-65s fired at comparatively far closer range shot down by it.

 

I dont know if the pantsir can engage targets will on the move in order to face the limittions you are claiming, i havent used CA to see the limitations of the suspension system however i don't think this is the question here.

I am comparing the ship CIWS because this is exactly what the pantsir imitates and i am pretty sure operates similarly with a similar degree of effectiveness. Much like the CRAM US has used. These systems engage targets in order of threat and are very effective against non manouvering missiles even in saturation scenarios( up to a point).

The tunguska performs miserably in my tests sometimes failing to intercept anything.(talking about munitions here not planes). Logical for an old system like that.

 

But because ground vehicles in DCS are more limited, lacking fidelity, player controlled or not - with workaround solutions to counter SEAD (the most effective SEAD tactic is to turn your RADAR off, move, and use EO - which near enough every self-propelled Russian vehicle has an EO firing channel. The problem is in order to do this we have to use a workaround - a trigger for missile in zone - but this doesn't take into account the missile being detected by the system and if they don't detect the missile, how do they know to turn their RADAR off?

 

 

 

The SA-15 gets saturated easily because we have the earliest incarnation of it, same with the Tunguska, and it only applies if you are using a single vehicle which again, not realistic - things are going wrong if you're left to one vehicle providing air defence, unless you don't have access to multiple assets (you've only got 12 missiles ready to fire remember and you're supposed to be countering munitions and aircraft, not just aircraft at close range). Tor-M2E can engage multiple targets simultaneously. As for terminal defence, you're approaching the region of comparing apples to oranges - in an effective AD system you have a battalion of multiple different vehicles providing a more layered defence scheme.

 

Speaking of the SA-15, even how it launches it's missiles in DCS is inaccurate, it uses a cold launch system whereby the missile is facing the target a mere few meters above the launcher, at the moment the missile is hot-launched, climbs to about 10x the altitude it should vertically before pitching over - making it far easier to spot and evade.

 

Speaking of both systems they are supposed to be able of countering small targets such as cruise missiles, guided missiles, bombs as well as aircraft and should be capable of engaging low RCS targets, but at the moment neither engage bombs (IIRC, this may have been changed).

 

Pantsir-S1 does have superior RADARs - being PESA RADARs and not mechanically steered, more basic 2D RADARs. But consider this, the SA-15 and Tunguska should also be able to cope with 48 targets, tracking 10 of them at a time, later incarnations should be able to engage 4 targets at a time for the SA-15

 

I'm not asking for you to care about it, I'm asking that you consider that the damage modelling for vehicles is crude and basic. The AGM-122 was designed to be a SEAD missile that could be more versatile and fitted to smaller platforms - the Harrier being one of them. Like it or not, an AGM-122 hitting a RADAR or a similar mission critical subsystem - will probably put that system out of action, which is all we can realistically expect from the AGM-122. Just because it never saw real operational use in actual combat doesn't mean the issue of having 2 vehicle states is irrelevant/unimportant.

 

You are right but we must consider the use of resources for a more advanced damage system in any case.

Given most munitions can be accuratelly represented with the current system I don't know if its worth the trouble. A rework in some areas is adequate for a lot of players, especially those not into CA...

 

Agreed, though effectiveness is still a player here: The AGM-122 has an 11.3kg blast-frag warhead, only can really to expect a mission kill at best; the AGM-45 has a 66.6/67.5kg blast-frag warhead, nice and large, suitable for destroying unarmoured targets such as the one's being discussed here, however, during it's use in the Falklands war with Operation Black Buck 5, an AGM-45 was fired against a transmitting AN/TPS-43, the missile missed by 10 meters - close enough to receive damage, but nothing substantial enough to disable the RADAR, after that the RADAR was turned off, preventing attacks against it, later the AGM-45 was used again to try and attack the AN/TPS-43, because the RADAR was turned off it hit and destroyed a Skyguard RADAR instead, killing 4 operators. HARM in it's E variant is capable of striking RADARs even if they power off, providing they don't relocate, but it also has it's own mmw RADAR to strike moving targets successfully.

 

For ground vehicles this only really needs to be (at the moment) sensors (including optics), barrels/launchers, tracks/wheels, turret rings and maybe hull plates. Penetration is more difficult but once we have it then we can extend to fuel tanks, engine/transmission blocks, magazines and crew members - something that at the moment is no issue for AI aircraft (well for what's crucially important it's fine enough), I don't see why it would impact performance in this regard seeing as armour penetration isn't being factored yet.

 

Like i said its a matter of resources, i don't code so i don't know how resource hungry this could be, what i know is that the average DCS user will be unhappy if this impacts pefrormance at any level...

 

Yes it simply does - how can you realistically counter SEAD effectively if you're not going to set-up your air-defence properly to counter SEAD? Very few times have I got close enough to a Tunguska to demonstrate it's effectiveness close-in and this is against one system. I'll do more testing.

 

Adding proper battalions (as in real life) is the best way of determining effectiveness - the Pantsir S1 is not an exception.

 

Effective use of something, effective strategy is incredibly important when determining what is effective what isn't effective - that's how pilots flying the MiG-21Bis can down a F-15C in spite of the F-15C being superior on paper in almost every aspect. You can't expect a system to suddenly magically work or be far more superior to another if isn't used correctly. You can't can't conclude a system is ineffective and incapable if it isn't utilised properly or effectively.

 

I am not expecting a vastly superior system, nor do i expect it to work wonders on itself however we are lacking the innermost ring of the anti air umbrella now, in both coalitions.

I am asking for another tool to have handy for a more immersive experience, i can set battalions for SAM cover but the sad truth is that irl you almost always have understrength groups and formations, or in game you need to consider perfromance issues for everybody not just the monster computers.

 

And honestly i find the Pantsir interesting, it is clearly a superior system to everything in game now and would like to see it included.

 

Again - I am not against the implementation of Pantsir-S1 - not in the slightest, it would be great to see, please bare that it mind. But improvements generally for vehicles be it damage modelling, more advanced and higher fidelity depiction of systems and their capability or even things like adding stabilisers and proper suspension modelling. Should IMO come first before adding new.

 

And if CA gets upgraded to the point where we see vehicles being done to similar fidelity and player interaction as aircraft modules (which is fairly likely, given the hints) vehicles will need to be upgraded anyway and adding more vehicles now increases the workload later on, unless they can be made with FFBNW improvements - that's why I think improvements should be done first before adding more.

 

I am not sure if improvements sogreat are planned however given the slow progress on everything else i wouldn't hold my breath...

Short version: go for it, but maybe not right now...

 

I do understand the current imbalance between BLUFOR and REDFOR in terms of available equipment, particularly aircraft, unfortunately not a lot can be done atm to sort that out.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantsir-S1#Operational_history

Pretty interesting track record so far...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was always a fan of the system but these latest reports got me all wired up:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantsir-S1#Operational_history

 

The system proved more than capable of intercepting extremely low rcs drones and munitions.

 

None of what it intercepted was 'extremely low RCS' :)

 

Also i think the F18 is a step up from the SU25T in terms of SEAD.

It can be saturated of course but it is just another item to add something different to the mix.

It's not a step up ... unless they change how SAMs and ARMs operate and you actually have to do SEAD, which would be absolutely fantastic.

 

Anyway I have nothing against Pantsir-S1 :)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay dimitrischal, fair enough.

 

Personally, as someone who vouches for DCS as a true sandbox air, land and sea simulator - improvements are important to me. But if you're satisfied with the current system then fine.

 

I can't imagine a simplified damage model (like what AI aircraft currently have) as being a major performance problem - but equally I could see how having large formations of vehicles could end up impacting performance - especially for munitions destroying multiple vehicles at once (large bombs, cluster bombs, CBU-97/105 etc).

 

It is clear that our experience with current systems in DCS differ - and to be fair they are the oldest incarnation of the systems in question.

 

Yes Pantsir-S1 is interesting I agree - and it outclasses current comparable systems in DCS. I myself would like to see it included - it's just I feel certain things should come first. However if the vehicle could have FFBNW improvements (like what the Kilo class SSK has) then I'd be perfectly fine with it - so long as it's feasible.

 

Yes improvements to CA are speculative, but there have been hints at perhaps a tank module for instance - so it stands to reason to have vehicles with improved dynamics - especially when under direct player control.

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV-2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/bG9bBc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of what it intercepted was 'extremely low RCS' :)

 

It's not a step up ... unless they change how SAMs and ARMs operate and you actually have to do SEAD, which would be absolutely fantastic.

 

Anyway I have nothing against Pantsir-S1 :)

 

Yes it is. F18 as a platform has More speed, and Energy to Work with, and a much better RWR which will help you discern direction, and threat type because of symbols, nor will the F18 need a Draggy piece of electronic pod on the centerline pylon to make Sead Missies work. That and the AGm88 should also have a longer range for engagements.

 

So yes the Hornet is a step up from the Su25T for SEAD.


Edited by Kev2go

 

 

 

Build:

 

 

 

 

 

Windows 10 64 bit,

 

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z370- E Motherboard, Intel Core i7 8700k ( Noctua NH14S cooler),Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 32gb ram (2666 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia Gtx 1080 8gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; WD 1TB HDD, Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay dimitrischal, fair enough.

 

Personally, as someone who vouches for DCS as a true sandbox air, land and sea simulator - improvements are important to me. But if you're satisfied with the current system then fine.

 

I can't imagine a simplified damage model (like what AI aircraft currently have) as being a major performance problem - but equally I could see how having large formations of vehicles could end up impacting performance - especially for munitions destroying multiple vehicles at once (large bombs, cluster bombs, CBU-97/105 etc).

 

It is clear that our experience with current systems in DCS differ - and to be fair they are the oldest incarnation of the systems in question.

 

Yes Pantsir-S1 is interesting I agree - and it outclasses current comparable systems in DCS. I myself would like to see it included - it's just I feel certain things should come first. However if the vehicle could have FFBNW improvements (like what the Kilo class SSK has) then I'd be perfectly fine with it - so long as it's feasible.

 

Yes improvements to CA are speculative, but there have been hints at perhaps a tank module for instance - so it stands to reason to have vehicles with improved dynamics - especially when under direct player control.

 

I want the same upgrades you want but I also believe they shouldn’t come at the price of overal performance especially on lower end systems.

Now If improvements are made in the way DCS handles resources and cores more specifically we could have all those upgrades but that is another discussion altogether...


Edited by dimitrischal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this would only be valid if we were using newer versions of the F18. Because all of our modules are not the cutting edge versions, but rather a few blocks behind (there are much newer blocks of the A10, and even the F18 we are getting is dated), the Pantsyr wouldn’t be a realistic opponent for the aircraft modules we have. It’s putting cutting edge SAMs against older aircraft. It would be different if we were getting the E/F model Hornet.

 

The logical fit, time period wise, for even our most recent aircraft modules is the SA19 / Tunguska.

Ryzen 9 3900X / Asus Crosshair VI Hero X370 / Corsair H110i / Sapphire Nitro+ 6800XT / 32Gb G.Skill TridentZ 3200 / Samsung 960 Evo M.2 / Virpil Warbrd base + VFX and TM grips / Saitek X56 Throttle / Saitek Pro Combat pedals / Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...