SA-10

[SoaringEagle74]

While I don't think SAMs are simply an inconvenience for air power, I also don't think searching Wikipedia is "doing your homework."

 

The truth is, if SAMs really worked the way their brochures say they would, nobody would bother having an Air Force. The actual reality of the SAM vs. fighter game probably lies somewhere in between the two perspectives presented here. I'd say GG is closer to the truth though.

 

Obviously, EVERYONE knows that *I'M* ALWAYS right. CLEARLY. My opinion is worth 10 of yours :harhar: Yeah, that's right GGtharos (takes off shirt, revealing well chiselled bod) What are you gonna do? What are you gonna do?

 

Oh! So Wikipedia is not credible? Neither is LOMAC/FC? Whatever...I give up. Talk about people making up their own reality you guys are experts at it!

[GGTharos]

Did it ever occur to you we might have access to better data than Wikipedia, like uh, say, actual combat reports?

You're the one making up reality. Wikipedia is a great place to start from, but it baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarely scratches the surface.

 

PS: Ok D-Scythe, touche, I'll get you next time! ;)

[RvEYoda]

Wiki is DEFINITELY VERY wrong many many times.

I would say lo tacref is somewhat accurate discribing the Lo world ;)

 

However the Lo world is pretty far from reality

[Rhen]

Oh! So Wikipedia is not credible? Neither is LOMAC/FC? Whatever...I give up. Talk about people making up their own reality you guys are experts at it!

 

ROFLMFAO!!!! GOD! It truly must be pretty in your world! :megalol:

 

Sorry SoaringEagle, it's just a truly funny statement of historic proportions! :lol:

 

Really, I wish all potential adversary air forces believed that things behaved the way they do in LOMAC. It would make my job entirely much easier than it is. So, if you wouldn't mind... could you convince all those countries that might be a nuisance to use LOMAC as their flight training aid? Pretty please? :clown::smartass:

[SoaringEagle74]

I go with the information I have available to me! Who ever claims to have superior knowledge then go ahead and share it with us...I am all ears.

 

Just make sure its reputable and not hear-say or speculation.;)

 

Also, I don't take brochures at face value(as Mr. Skythe claims) but completly ignoring them is illogical.

[GGTharos]

Why don't you go hunt your own doccos say, for example released under the Freedom of Information act? ;)

At this point that would be a more valuable lesson to you. (By the way, interestinly enough LOMAC always modeled shorter weapons ranges at lower altitudes ;) My my. :)

[SoaringEagle74]

Why don't you go hunt your own doccos say, for example released under the Freedom of Information act? ;)

At this point that would be a more valuable lesson to you. (By the way, interestinly enough LOMAC always modeled shorter weapons ranges at lower altitudes ;) My my. :)

 

No. The burden of proof falls on the person making a counter-claim. I say LOMAC/FC and Wikipedia are reasonably accurate and I provided my sources. You and a few others that claim its wrong need to show me evidence otherwise its just another opinion!

[D-Scythe]

No. The burden of proof falls on the person making a counter-claim.

 

...

 

...you're making the counter-claim. Everyone agrees that Wikipedia is not a "valid" source - cept you.

 

I say LOMAC/FC and Wikipedia are reasonably accurate and I provided my sources.

 

Um...no you haven't. You have provided NO sources that say LOMAC and Wiki are reasonably accurate. The only sources you used *were* LOMAC and Wiki.

 

Clearly, a source can't be a source of itself. That's just silly.

 

GG, Rhen, I feel bad. This isn't even a fair fight - we might as well be clubbing a baby seal :gun_sniper:

[SoaringEagle74]

Some people like twisting words.

 

ED and Wiki are my sources of information. I have no reason not to accept them as accurate. Just because some people disagree doesn't prove sh.t.

 

Who are the "Everyone agrees"? What makes them more experts on the subject matter than ED or Wiki? I am no expert but it seems we have no shortage of them on this forumn.

 

Go ahead...I am still waiting for the sources.

[GGTharos]

ED has already stated the info in their encyclopedia doesn't necessarily reflect reality. It has not been corrected from new sources for a long time.

 

What makes us 'more experts?' We have really, REALLY done our homework.

Like I said. At this point the most valuable lesson for you is to go educate yourself. Standing by wikipedia and LOFC's database is just ..silly. I already gave you a few hints and suggestions, but if you're too lazy to start looking hard ... well :)

 

And that's all there is to it because I don't actually feel the need to prove anything to YOU. The people who did need this (you know, ED?) have already been provided with it, and further, AGAIN, it's funny how you like to quote your sources, but I guess you've somehow missed the actual behavior of those weapons at low altitudes within FC itself. That already contradicts your sources ... and you believe ED, right? ;)

[SoaringEagle74]

ED has already stated the info in their encyclopedia doesn't necessarily reflect reality. It has not been corrected from new sources for a long time.

 

What makes us 'more experts?' We have really, REALLY done our homework.

Like I said. At this point the most valuable lesson for you is to go educate yourself. Standing by wikipedia and LOFC's database is just ..silly. I already gave you a few hints and suggestions, but if you're too lazy to start looking hard ... well :)

 

And that's all there is to it because I don't actually feel the need to prove anything to YOU. The people who did need this (you know, ED?) have already been provided with it, and further, AGAIN, it's funny how you like to quote your sources, but I guess you've somehow missed the actual behavior of those weapons at low altitudes within FC itself. That already contradicts your sources ... and you believe ED, right? ;)

 

Oh. So now I am too lazy to look but you fail to provide any sources.

 

Makes a lot of sense especially from a guy who always complains/whines about different aspects of the game not being right. You see I don't take this or any other game that seriously to dig up records just to make others look stupid. I just assume that which is given is accurate.

 

GGTharos, if you really are an expert...then god bless you my master and sorry for questioning your rationale. How have ED replied to your complaints...will they address these issues in their next patch?

 

Respectfully,

 

SoaringEagle74

[GGTharos]

You're forgetting ... the decision whether there will be another patch or not will be made when BS is released.

 

And yes, if it happens, there's a number of things that might be fixed, and a number that won't be due to the effort required. In other words, some of the behavior we see now will be left in not because it is right, but rather because fixing some of these things would require major code rewrite.

 

And don't kid yourself. You haven't provided any sources. ;)

And if you're not 'going to take the game that seriously', then why are you still wasting your time in this thread?

[SoaringEagle74]

And if you're not 'going to take the game that seriously', then why are you still wasting your time in this thread?

 

Because I don't appreciate being labeled clueless after having read the manual, practiced all the tuturials, flown most of the off-line missions, reading lomac/fc encyclopedia and much more.

 

I have spent plenty of time with this game and I enjoy every bit of it..and yes it probably does have some shortcommings but I don't get worked up over them as much as you do. In any case its just a game that costs 50 euro or less!

 

Your right...I need a break. Later!

[RedTiger]

Some people like twisting words.

 

ED and Wiki are my sources of information. I have no reason not to accept them as accurate. Just because some people disagree doesn't prove sh.t.

 

Who are the "Everyone agrees"? What makes them more experts on the subject matter than ED or Wiki? I am no expert but it seems we have no shortage of them on this forumn.

 

Go ahead...I am still waiting for the sources.

 

You do know that Wikipedia is made up of user contributions, right?

 

I mean, look up what Wikipedia says about the whole notion of "wikis"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki

 

Like others have said, Wikipedia is a good starting point for finding out more. Just don't be to surprised when people scoff at your Wikipedia sources if you're trying to support arguments with them. Don't take this as an insult from some know-it-all either. I don't know much about the technical details of this stuff and would just as soon buy a technical manual on a missile system or fighter jet as I would buy a book on crocheting. I don't have the time or the interest. I'm not a defense analyst, and if anything, my interest lies in the bigger picture of how all this stuff is employed and how that relates to my chosen field.

 

Wikipedia is very susceptible to bias, agendas, and just plain incorrect info. You have to scrutinize the sources people cite for the article.

[SoaringEagle74]

I don't have a problem being proved wrong and I have been proved wrong many times in the past about various theories I had. Its all part of the learning process. All I ask is some evidence to back up claims and all I have gotten is your "clueless", your sources are bad information, I don't have to prove anything to you, etc...etc

 

What kind of a discussion is that? For all I know maybe the game really is screwed up beyond repair but so far there is nothing to suggest that other than "I say it is...deal with it." By the way, why do I have to use FOIA to get this data? Is the information classified?

 

Help me understand!;)

 

P.S. I agree air power is more important than sams but lets not get carried away saying they are only speed bumps...because clearly they are more than that.

[RedTiger]

Well, I'll agree with you on one thing, a lot of information is thrown around by a very few people who appear to be in the know, but they sure as hell don't give up their sources very often. They probably want others to do the leg work they did. My gut instinct tells me that there are people here who are profiting financially from that leg work. If thats the case, then you can be doubly assured that they're not going to share anything. Also, I know for a fact that some of this info was not free. Again, if they paid for it they're probably not going to be willing to just spout off all this info for free.

 

And yes, discussions are difficult when one side holds all the cards and aren't willing to show them. You can either argue further and look like a fool, go out and find/buy this info on your own, or just realize you have different priorities and just listen and comment where you have some real knowledge, which is what I often do.

[GGTharos]

No, they aren't. If all you have is SAMs, you won't stop Air Power. You need air power to stop air power. That may change when we get death-rays.

 

P.S. I agree air power is more important than sams but lets not get carried away saying they are only speed bumps...because clearly they are more than that.

[GGTharos]

I sure don't profit from any of it :P

It's more like an investment in the future. If someone really wants to find out, they have to learn to dig for this stuff. That person becomes an assed to the simulation community where research is realism is required.

Proving that I know what I know to someone who basically has no bearing on development and isn't interested in learning this stuff - well great, they learn something 'interesting' when I post up a bunch of links - but it's a waste of /my/ time. I have to dig up that info again, and some of it is actually not all that easy to access. Sometimes it's a lot of work! Finding out that Patriot crews are trained to shoot at incomin ARMs is an example of a piece of information that took hours upon hours of searching and reading through documents to find. A tiny little piece of info, but it resolved so many questions and debates.

 

They probably want others to do the leg work they did. My gut instinct tells me that there are people here who are profiting financially from that leg work.

[D-Scythe]

Well, for the basic discussion of SAMs vs. SEAD, it's simply a matter of physics/kinematics. It doesn't matter how much money you pay sometimes - if something is classified, then that's the end of that.

 

Personally, here's MY take on the whole SAM vs. SEAD debate, that I posted on the Tanknet forums. GGtharos will give you more details and stuff, but the basic gist of it (as I see it) is as follows...

 

"This is physics. We all know the importance of mobility in warfare - and nothing on this planet is more mobile than a jet. Think about it, in an engagement between a fighter (like the F-16CJ) and a SAM, the F-16CJ has almost every physical advantage.

 

Take detection, for one. Radar waves lose power exponentially - as target range ( R) increases, the radar wave strength decreases by a factor of 1/R^2. This is what gets picked up by enemy RWR. Of course, the radar waves reflecting off the target have to make it back to the radar receiver, suffering the 1/R^2 loss again - thus, the radar waves picked up by your radar is exponentially weaker than the radar waves triggering enemy RWRs. That means that you can/will be passively tracked at a range exponentially greater than the detection range of your radar. See why turning on your radar for that long-range SAM shot is a bad idea? You're broadcasting your position to everyone, even people well beyond the detection range of your radar. On the other hand, the F-16CJ SEAD flight does NOT need to turn on their APG-68s - the HARM/JSOW is completely independent from any radar guidance, unlike your SAMs.

 

Now let's take weapons. Missiles are slower than you think - only the very first stages of flight are made at the brochure speed of the missile. During the other 90% of the flight time, the missile is gliding along, decelerating all the way. The further away the target is, the more the missile decelerates. The further away the target is, the more indirect the path to the target the missile will take - the most efficient path (lofting above to cruise at high alts) is actually NOT the direct path to the target - a bit counter-intuitive. Do you feel the Rtr range shrinking? The fact is, it doesn't really matter how far away the F-16CJ is - as long as it's outside the SAM's Rtr range, it's evasion rate is 100%, because the missile can't shoot down what it can't run down. There is no difference between being 1 km outside the Rtr range or 50 km outside of Rtr range - provided that the Viper runs, it's gonna live 100% of the time. And as I've stated before, the Rtr range of ANY missile - SAMs, AAMs - is only a small fraction of its publicized max range.

 

On the other hand, the F-16CJ does not have to pay attention to all this Rtr crap - your SAM battery cannot split-S and run away at Mach 1. He can fire the HARM at its max ballistic range, it'll make absolutely no difference to the missile. And I'll make the bet that the max range of the HARM is greater than the Rtr of any SAM in existence.

 

The only advantage the SAM has is that it can carry bigger missiles with massive rocket motors for greater range. On the other hand, any missile being fired from a jet fighter have the luxury of already being at altitude and at speed, eliminating the need for such massive motors. SAMs launched from the ground start at zero potential energy and zero kinetic energy.

 

Don't get me wrong, SAMs are definitely not useless - clearly there are other factors involved that I haven't considered. I just don't think these unconsidered factors will change the game in any permanent way - for example, various tactics might give a ground-based defense a transient edge over aircraft but nothing long-lasting. IMO you CAN build a good SAM defense - you just need a fleet of F-15s or Su-35s to go along with it. Otherwise, you can't hope to break even in an air war against a (competent) enemy air force using SAMs alone. I'm not talking about the Syrian Air Force here - competent as in USAF or IAF competent. If you're against such an enemy, and you only have SAMs, then all you can really hope for is to move your SAMs around a lot and give your enemy a really, really bloody nose...until he backs off due to blood loss (i.e. public outcry)."

 

So you see, there really isn't a "source" that will tell you that an F-16CJ starts off in a much more kinematically advantageous position than a SAM battery. It's just sorta assumed. I mean, I could quote from my Physics textbook, but it's rather big and heavy.

[SwingKid]

Low altitude coverage for a Patriot is 15-20nm at best, same for the S-300 which uses similar kinematics. Part of proof for this is the typical FM deployment which has those units stationed about 15-20km apart, thus giving them some overlap.

 

Do you mean to imply that the low-altitude range of these SAMs is limited kinematically, rather than by the radar horizon?

There seem to be quite a number of mast-mounted S-300 radars that would suggest otherwise...

 

-SK

[GGTharos]

Against tactical aircraft, yup. The idea being that you want to shoot them at such range that they either drop their stuff and maneuver to evade, or get blown up. Patriots allegedly will fire against ABT's at 30km, and again at 20km.

 

There's obviously nothing stopping you from sending the missile on a ballistic trajectory that will land it 100km down-range, but I doubt it'll be hitting anything under those circumastances, even if radar horizon wasn't an issue ;)

[SwingKid]

There's obviously nothing stopping you from sending the missile on a ballistic trajectory that will land it 100km down-range, but I doubt it'll be hitting anything under those circumastances, even if radar horizon wasn't an issue ;)

 

Does this logic also prove the foolishness of lofted AMRAAMs and HARMs?

 

-SK

[GGTharos]

Lofted shots (lofted to some extent) are a matter of fact. I'm fairly confident that if Patriot or S300 were such capable low-altitude systems, there wouldn't be as medium or short range ADA being fielded as there are.

[D-Scythe]

Lofted shots (lofted to some extent) are a matter of fact. I'm fairly confident that if Patriot or S300 were such capable low-altitude systems, there wouldn't be as medium or short range ADA being fielded as there are.

 

There aren't...at least in the U.S. It's just Patriot and Stinger, currently. Don't know the status of the surface-launched AMRAAM variant, except that it's not operational.

[GGTharos]

The SLAMRAAM is slated to be fielded in 2009, barring delays. The decomissioning of the HAWK system left a Medium Altitude coverage gap. I don't know is SLAMRAAM is a very good replacement for a medium altitude system - it likely doesn't have the HAWK's range.

It is however a reasonable analogue to the SA-15 I believe, though the way it operates is quite a bit different (the HUMMER is really just a transport/launcher. The missiles, IIRC, are launched by someone who's sitting near the Sentinel radar, commanding several of these humvees).