Jump to content

Saturating S300 with JSOW


theinmigrant
 Share

Recommended Posts

Good point - 5 targets instead of 1 (the Tomcat carries 4 TALD right?)

 

Yeah. Sometimes i try TALDs' on mp servers. Even one TALD makes sams to launch many many missiles like crazy. Maybe independent air defence units in the area don't communicate with each other and they behave individually.

FC3 | UH-1H | Mi-8MTV2 | A-10C II | F/A-18C | Ka-50 | F-14A/B | F-16CAH-64D Mi-24P | F-4E

Persian Gulf | Nevada | Syria | NS-430 | Supercarrier // Wishlist: C-130 | UH-60

 

Youtube

Z390 / i7 9700K / RTX3070 / 32 GB Ram / 1.5 tb SSD and 1 tb HDD // MS FFB2 - TM Warthog - CH Pro Pedals - Trackir 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you destroy 30N6 radar, it will render the whole site dead. You can plink away at the rest at your leisure.

 

 

I usually have medium and short range defence for the Grumble, to prevent this happening.

..

I7 2600K @ 3.8, CoolerMaster 212X, EVGA GTX 1070 8gb. RAM 16gb Corsair, 1kw PSU. 2 x WD SSD. 1 x Samsung M2 NVMe. 3 x HDD. Saitek X-52. Saitek Pro Flight pedals. CH Flight Sim yoke. TrackIR 5. Win 10 Pro. IIyama 1080p. MSAA x 2, SSAA x 1.5. Settings High. Harrier/Spitfire/Beaufighter/The Channel, fanboy..





..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity I tried setting up an sa10 with the launchers, search radar and track radar very spread out like 15nm. Apart from the fact that it does work, I came accross something I now wonder about RL:

 

My RWR told me that the lock on signal was coming from my right but since the launchers were so far to the left the missiles were actually coming from my left. Is that something that could happen IRL?

 

Im really looking fwd to seeing what others think. Mainly because I'd like to make my missions more realistic and was thinking about spreading out a lot all units within a sam template.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because i served my military service in SA-3, and Im more familiar how they works for sure.

 

 

I'm sure you have more experience than any of the rest of us with the actual SAM equipment. But... looking at some very basic info about SA-3, that's a system that's at least 17 years OLDER tech and tactical doctrine, and was probably developed with simpler threats in mind, than the seemingly very complex S-300 / SA-10. For instance, I'm sure SA-3 was tasked with downing enemy bombers and fighters... but was it designed to shoot down ABM's ? Cruise missiles? Any threats flying at treetop level? I think those were new challenging requirements for the S-300 engineers.

 

Then there's Vietnam. The USAF and USN experience in Vietnam, dealing with SAM traps, doing Wild Weasel missions, using anti-radiation missiles... that all appeared AFTER the SA-3 first got into service. By the time S-300 was starting it's design phase, the engineers would have learned that America was developing the HARM, and that they would have to figure out ways of preventing the destruction of their SAM systems. So I have no doubt there is some dramatic differences between even an upgraded SA-3 compared to S-300 of any era, and the newer S-300 upgrades probably make it into a beast even compared to the earliest S-300.

 

There is also the experience in Syria... some 10+ years ago the IAF did an airstrike in eastern Syria, near the border of Iraq. nearly the entire flight was done inside Syrian airspace. The IAF said they did not use stealth aircraft. Syrian air defense apparently didn't fire a single shot at them, despite being in the airspace for hours. Apparently IDF managed to infiltrate the air defense communications and all but "blinded" their system from even really knowing an air strike was underway. Not sure how they did it, could be software exploit. Could be physical interception of comms cables, like the SBS did in Iraq, digging up comms wires and physically cutting it!

 

When I got out of the army, I still knew enough to go back in and be familiar with everything. But by the time I'd been gone 15 years... that was no longer totally true. And nowdays, I'd probably be a little lost: a lot has changed in that time, so while some things are probably the same, a lot isn't anymore!

 

I also did get to see that there are sometimes a giant difference in capability of the same class of equipment, that would defy belief of those who hadn't actually seen the new. The only true constant is change!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity I tried setting up an sa10 with the launchers, search radar and track radar very spread out like 15nm. Apart from the fact that it does work, I came accross something I now wonder about RL:

 

My RWR told me that the lock on signal was coming from my right but since the launchers were so far to the left the missiles were actually coming from my left. Is that something that could happen IRL?

 

 

Not sure... but ya I think it could happen.

 

 

On really advanced military aircraft though, some have thermal imagers pointing in a 360deg arc to detect the rocket motor plumes of SAM's launching. THOSE would alert your Threat Warning Receiver of a missile launch. A TWS is an advanced RWR but that feeds more information sources to it. I think the SA page on the Hornet is much like a TWS, but also incorporating data link from other sensor assets too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There is also the experience in Syria... some 10+ years ago the IAF did an airstrike in eastern Syria, near the border of Iraq. nearly the entire flight was done inside Syrian airspace. The IAF said they did not use stealth aircraft. Syrian air defense apparently didn't fire a single shot at them, despite being in the airspace for hours. Apparently IDF managed to infiltrate the air defense communications and all but "blinded" their system from even really knowing an air strike was underway. Not sure how they did it, could be software exploit. Could be physical interception of comms cables, like the SBS did in Iraq, digging up comms wires and physically cutting it!

 

When I got out of the army, I still knew enough to go back in and be familiar with everything. But by the time I'd been gone 15 years... that was no longer totally true. And nowdays, I'd probably be a little lost: a lot has changed in that time, so while some things are probably the same, a lot isn't anymore!

 

I also did get to see that there are sometimes a giant difference in capability of the same class of equipment, that would defy belief of those who hadn't actually seen the new. The only true constant is change!

 

Look for suter : https://www.airforce-technology.com/features/feature1669/

After pinpointing the target antennas, Suter then performs its real magic – beaming electronic pulses into the antennas that effectively corrupt, if not hijack, the processing systems that present the enemy operators with their physical picture of the battlefield.

 

Unlike classic jamming or EMP attacks, these data streams do not flood enemy electronics with excess ‘noise’ or power, but instead insert customised signals, including specialised algorithms and malware, into the vulnerable processing nodes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you destroy 30N6 radar, it will render the whole site dead. You can plink away at the rest at your leisure.

 

 

I usually have medium and short range defence for the Grumble, to prevent this happening.

..

 

As well you should, at a minimum an SA15 and one or more tungaskas.

 

Also, IRL there would likely be backup radar. Radar decoys of various sorts optical and thermal decoys as well and terminal defenses (Sa15/19) to shoot down JSOW/harm/mavs and terminal countermeasures for the whole battery. Not to mention the battery would likely move and relocate between attacks.

 

As "Allied Force" showed in the 90's, western missiles like HARMs work great against legacy fixed sites like SA2/3/5 but against mobile SAM batteries like SA-6 they had a fairly dismal record where 12% of the legacy SA6 launchers were destroyed during the campaign when using shoot and scoot tactics, and there were many HARM's expended to achieve that result.

 

Of course none of this reflected in our "top tier" "simulation" that is DCS. Nor are various EW techniques.

 

How'd you like that SA10 battery to shoot you down without turning its radar on because its tracking your data link :)

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity I tried setting up an sa10 with the launchers, search radar and track radar very spread out like 15nm. Apart from the fact that it does work, I came accross something I now wonder about RL:

 

My RWR told me that the lock on signal was coming from my right but since the launchers were so far to the left the missiles were actually coming from my left. Is that something that could happen IRL?

 

Yeah, the missiles are data link guided, so the track radar is all your RWR is picking up, not the missile.

 

Modern aircraft have threat approach systems now that weren't on the legacy hornet we have. But then again, network centric sams and warfare have been around in various formssince the 80's.

 

This is yet another example of why I think DCS should focus on older systems and try to do them right. Because right now in DCS the planes are done ok, but the whole battlefield has like a 1960's or 1970's era feel to it with regard to how IADS works, how EW works, how intel works, the battlefield being pretty mobile and dynamic.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thread is a bit worthless for DCS since I tested dispersing a single sa10 group with widespread launchers away from tracking radars and search radars and half of the time, the wrong launcher fires, or the tracking radar does nothing if another part of the group isn't close to it and various other unproductive combinations. Seems to work best in DCS when it's a closer group with line of sight from all the units in the group. SO basically as much as it would be nice to have a massive "super group" of dispersed SA10 as one IADS, it doesn't practically work like that (right now) at least well and reliably enough.

[edit] also saw a lot of SA10's fire and self destruct when too far away or some other reason I can't immediately fathom.

___________________________________________________________________________

SIMPLE SCENERY SAVING * SIMPLE GROUP SAVING * SIMPLE STATIC SAVING *

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thread is a bit worthless for DCS since I tested dispersing a single sa10 group with widespread launchers away from tracking radars and search radars and half of the time, the wrong launcher fires, or the tracking radar does nothing if another part of the group isn't close to it and various other unproductive combinations. Seems to work best in DCS when it's a closer group with line of sight from all the units in the group. SO basically as much as it would be nice to have a massive "super group" of dispersed SA10 as one IADS, it doesn't practically work like that (right now) at least well and reliably enough.

[edit] also saw a lot of SA10's fire and self destruct when too far away or some other reason I can't immediately fathom.

 

You might wanna check my previous post. Spreading does work in dcs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, depending how its done in game it "might" need to have LOS between the radars and the launchers for a radio data link or the command vehicle (which I've heard doesn't do anything).

 

IRL there of course can be repeaters for the datalink to get over hills and the like. And if EMCON is a concern (which it is IRL) then you can always go back to using cables, but that concentrates the site significantly.

 

Then there is the whole question of IADS tactics which DCS doesn't really model at all at the moment. So its a fixed target shooting exercise.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In one if the weekend-news Wags mentioned that the team will work on the SAM system in general to make it much more networked, integrated and sophisticated. Of course there is no timeline and I think that is a good thing because it likely is way too early for that. But yours (and mine) wishes are heard. There is hope :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I heard that there will be a better IADS at some point. My best guess is that it will come with the "dynamic campaign".

 

The main issue is the overall lack of "logic" with the ai, and then having to script everything in the ME. Which does sort of work for offline play.

 

The other issue is just totally unrealistic "scenarios" on the various online servers and online play in general. (how did that SA10 site get to the top of Mt. Elbrus anyway?)

 

I can't really imagine the squealing of players of if and when they implment "realistic" air ops and realistic iads. Though I'm not really holding my breath. Planning missions is "booooring" for aeroquake guys.


Edited by Harlikwin

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True. Even though I love mission building, playing offline exclusively :) . I learn so much on the way about the real world techniques and doctrines applied....there is a lot of research going into my missions because I strive to have them as realistic as possible. And on that note, all the S-300 sites I came across in the real world had their Clam Shell and Flap Lid radars within 300m of the TELs. Now, talking about a mission in DCS (but likewise in RL as well), I really don‘t care about this S-300 site having its CP 40kms away or another „element“ of TELs another 40km away. For me this is just a different SAM site then because likely only the first one protects the area I want to intrude to get to my target. Another launcher 80km away means the maximum engagement range of it is 80km further away as well and that makes it just irrelevant for my mission.

 

Also, in a real combat environment you might not want to rely on a „wireless“ connection between your TELs and the radars (and possibly the CP as well) because that might be easily jammed, spoofed or otherwise rendered unreliable at best. So you revert back to cable connections and therefore the spread of your SAM site will be limited, just as the illustration further above showed (TELs not further away from the radar than 250m).

 

And finally as someone already has mentioned: Kill the Flap Lid tracking radar and no missile can be guided. The remaining TELs are meat on the table then. Who cares about the CP being intact 40kms away? That is why any warfront S-300/S-400 itself will be protected by short- and medium range air defense systems such as Tor, Tunguska or Pantsir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, IRL most of the sites will also have a backup radar(s), likely located with their own missiles, so if you kill the primary site, the other guy is right back up shooting at you, and possible even from "behind" you. Also, those sites will also have ARM "decoys" designed specifically to lure ARM's away, the will also have GPS jammers and spoofers to decoy things like JDAM's. They will have flares to decoy terminal IR seekers etc... Modern sam sites have countermeasures. Also after an engagement in an IADS environment they will displace to a pre-planned secondary site nearby while another site "pops" up.

 

I'm not sure to what extent you can actually build that into the mission editor. I.e. have an inactive sam site(s) located somewhere. Have the primary site prosecute an engagement, shooting off as many missiles as it can, then shutting down, and moving to an alternate location, while the backup site comes right up. Or better yet, have a SAM trap where you just have the emiiting radars and decoys in one loc, they detect the SEAD package comin to "git em". Wait for them to engage, immediately displace (leaving the decoys), and then have the backup site "behind" the sead package light up right behind/under them.

 

You know "realism" in a "modern air combat simulator" :)

 

Honestly, rather than thinking about a "sam site" as some individual entity I'd start looking at each "battery" as part of a whole, because that is more like how its used doctrinally.

 

I'd love to see the boys on GAW have to take on an IADS system like that. The tears would be delicious. OF course GAW is about having fun, and not realism, so I won't hold by breath.


Edited by Harlikwin

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree as far as RL is concerned. In DCS, we certainly lack the possibility of a backup radar or any other invisible or inactive unit within a group.

 

There is a lot you can do in the ME though to make SAMs a bit „smarter“ (actually, „less stupid“ would be more appropriate). But it‘s a lot of scripting and triggers. This is where I have hopes that ED will make the life of us mission builders a bit easier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree as far as RL is concerned. In DCS, we certainly lack the possibility of a backup radar or any other invisible or inactive unit within a group.

 

There is a lot you can do in the ME though to make SAMs a bit „smarter“ (actually, „less stupid“ would be more appropriate). But it‘s a lot of scripting and triggers. This is where I have hopes that ED will make the life of us mission builders a bit easier.

 

I could achieve that the SAMs turn off their radars pretty "smart" and during different and "random" amounts of time. All via triggers and actually pretty simple, zero scripting. I could share a mission if you'd like.

 

Also through inmortal trigger I could simulate a back up radar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a SEAD mission I set up, I used triggers like IF MISSILE IN ZONE(AGM-88C, SA-11 ZONE) or IF UNIT DEAD(SAM 2 TR), to set SAM sites to GREEN Alert state and have them shut down their radars. Likewise, you can set more actions, like moving, from the unit's Trigger panel and push them via triggers.

The vCVW-17 is looking for Hornet and Tomcat pilots and RIOs. Join the vCVW-17 Discord.

1197644828_Screen_200911_044202-Copy.png.74d8c09ee9060cffd7408a75ab2c13ef.png

38" AW3821DW, Z370 Aorus Gaming 7, i7-8700K, 3090 FTW3 Ultra, 32GB DDR4, 960 Pro, 970 Evo Plus, WD Gold 6TB, Seasonic Prime Platinum
Super Taurus throttle + base, Combat and T/O panels, TM50 base, Hornet grip w/extension, 3 MFDs

F/A-18C, AV-8B, F-16C, JF-17, A-10C (C II), M-2000C, F-14, BS2, UH-1H, P-51D, Sptifire, FC3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you use triggers to have the sam site move after an engagment of X missiles. Or after a set period of time after an engagement.

 

I'm not sure how the sam logic works, or the ME for the most part. But could you have it pop off more than a single missile at a time against a target? I.e. engage 2 targets with 4 missiles each. And displace after that. Or Engage targets, after they are dead, displace to a pre-planned secondary location a few miles away.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you use triggers to have the sam site move after an engagment of X missiles. Or after a set period of time after an engagement.

Sort of, yes, but it still assumes that the site is mobile and there are a couple that should be but aren't.

❧ ❧ Inside you are two wolves. One cannot land; the other shoots friendlies. You are a Goon. ❧ ❧

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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