Is SAM an idiot?

[therion_prime]

And the award for the most misleading thread title of 2007 goes to ..... therion_prime!!! :music_whistling:

 

Yeah, this thread is about SAMs :P

 

First of all, I really don't know how SAM-sites work and behave in RL, but I dare to say that SAMs in LOMAC are pretty dumb and it's really easy to disable them.

 

They are constantly scanning with their search radars and you can see them on your RWR long before things get critical.

And they will always open fire at their Rmax, making ist very easy for a pilot who has made his homework to avoid the incoming missiles or even play with the SAM-site, making it waste all of it's missiles.

 

I also fly Redviper (a Falcon 4.0 "modification" for those who don't know), and there things are looking VERY different.

The SAMs actually behave stealthy/sneaky:

 

- The search radar will "ping" you from time to time - which means it will scan for a second or two, then turning it's radar off again.

- On your RWR (if you're fast enough to see the "ping"), the search radar is displayed as a "S" Symbol, just the same as harmless dog ears or airport radars.

- SAMs won't fire at Rmax, they'll wait until you are in good range with a higher hit probability.

- When a Sam search radar "pings" you, and you are in a good range, things are happening very fast:

- The track-radar(s) will switch on and begin tracking (lock) you. And only then you can see it's a SAM on your RWR because only the track radar is displayed as a i.e.:"6" or a "2".

- Just a few seconds later, multiple missiles are launched at you, not just one.

 

Using HARMs against SAMs is very tricky too, because you must lock onto the tracking radar and not the search radar. This means, you can only fire your HARM after the tracking radar has switched on and is tracking you (in most cases, there is already a missile after you).

Again, I don't know if this is realistic or not, but it's very challenging and - if you manage to take a SAM out - very satisfying.

 

Oh, and Redviper's SAMs work as IADS, too.

 

If RedViper's implementation of SAMs is (more) correct, will we eventually see an improvement in DCS sometime?

[Malleus]

Sounds like an idea. Also, maybe mobile SAMs (Tunguska, Strela, etc) should move after launching a missile, or do some tactical maneuvering (moving behind buildings in towns, or something), because they are quite easy to dispatch once you've spotted them.

 

Although IIRC such AI improvement are already planned in BS...

[TheProphet]

You are correct, those issues with SAM sites are known for a long time now, I really hope the SAM AI will be improved as you suggested.

[joey45]

Are AL/HARMs moddled correctly cos when/if the radar is turned off the missile would either keep flying in the same direction or [a friend of mine who works for a company told me this] fly up high and deploy a parachute and wait till the radar us turned back on.

[Malleus]

AFAIK the HARM is inertially guided if the target radar shuts off - meaning it will fly to the radar signal's last position. The ALARM has the "loiter" ability, which means it flies up high, deploys a chute, waits until the radar is turned on again, and then ignites a secondary motor to attack it.

 

As for LO, I don't think we'd even notice if these abilities are modelled, since the enemy AA never turns off radar...

[joey45]

thanx Malleus didn't know which one done what.

[therion_prime]

Are AL/HARMs moddled correctly cos when/if the radar is turned off the missile would either keep flying in the same direction or [a friend of mine who works for a company told me this] fly up high and deploy a parachute and wait till the radar us turned back on.

 

Of course you can fire a HARM on the search radar when it was active once and is off when launching the HARM, but:

 

1) the hit probability is pretty low and

2) the SAM site is active even when the search radar is destroyed.

The tracking radars are still able to do their job somehow, although the SAMs suffer from a decreased firing range.

 

For example:

 

If you encounter a KUB site (SA-6 ??) in RedViper, it consists of several launch vehicles, a search radar (called "Straight Flush" IIRC) and a tracking radar (called "Long Track" ? or the other way round :P ).

The "Straight Flush" will "ping" you and you can lock your HARMs onto it, but it's really the "Long Track" you're after. And it will go active only very shortly prior launching missiles at you.

 

So you have to wait until the "Long Track" is active, quickly launch your HARM and then immediately make a break turn while dispensing chaffs and run for your life, because there are already multiple missiles on your tail.

[Wags]

While improving the fidelity of the EW operational environment is an item we want to do later in DCS, it is not planned for Black Shark.

[therion_prime]

While improving the fidelity of the EW operational environment is an item we want to do later in DCS, it is not planned for Black Shark.

 

Cool.

What is EW? Electronic warfare?

[joey45]

Cool.

What is EW? Electronic warfare?

 

yes

[Malleus]

While improving the fidelity of the EW operational environment is an item we want to do later in DCS, it is not planned for Black Shark.

 

Which shouldn't be a problem in BS anyway since the Ka-50 does not have an RWR.

[joey45]

or any SEAD flyables YET...

[Malleus]

or any SEAD flyables YET...

 

Oh yes, that 'later in DCS' may just have to be the A-10 module...:music_whistling:

[joey45]

the A-10a isn't a SEAD plane its a CAS plane...

[Malleus]

Indeed, but it'll surely meet some enemy AA during missions - and what kind of AI those air defences have will not be irrelevant at that point.

[badaboom]

Couldn't a Mav be used to take out a SAM site?

[Yellonet]

Couldn't a Mav be used to take out a SAM site?

Yes it could. If you can get within range.

[159th_Viper]

Couldn't a Mav be used to take out a SAM site?

 

Altitude Coupled with ECM good enough to take on SAM's like Tor's etc etc with a Maverick (65D)

[NotiA10]

the A-10a isn't a SEAD plane its a CAS plane...

 

A10 performs its own sead - but yes you are correct - to a limited degree