[ALREADY REPORTED]SA-2 Misses 100% of the time due to lag pursuit

[Fri13]

1 hour ago, 1qsb28 said:

Yeah, the sa-2 before this update was easy to beat...But, *so was the real missile IRL.*  Literally any jet powered aircraft in Vietnam with the possible exception of the B-52 could easily out maneuver the missile with one simple turn into or under it.  I found on such story were an  A-6 at 200ft AGL beat FIVE SAMs in a row, yet in DCS a completely slick viper can barley out turn one missile, with about 90% of Sa-2s fire scoring a hit.  

 

The missile should have 0.6-0.8 propability to destroy target. That is very high.

 

But I think it should be marked that it is with inaccuracies in guidance by not having a direct hit, but having missile fly target to it's proximity fuze triggering warhead detonation and fragments to destroy the target. This is not modeled in DCS as you can't give missiles the realistic hundreds of meters at high altitude / ahead of target kill ranges to tens of meters on low altitude.

 

And we have no ECM at all against those missiles proximity fuzes! You can not avoid getting that missile near you, but you can delay or jam the warhead detonation on modern ECM suite so that missile becomes just a "telephone pole" that can't kill you unless happen to hit you directly.

 

Again one of these reasons why ECM is so critical missing part in DCS that this kind factors doesn't exist.

 

The S-75 system was excellent back then, it was the ECM system that finally protected fighters from it as it made it "toothless".

Why even a A-6 could evade them.

[nighthawk2174]

4 hours ago, 1qsb28 said:

So ive updated to the latest open beta after being away from DCS for a while... is there anyway to undo or roll back the so-called "update" to the sa-2 flight/performance model?  I has gone from some what unrealistic in its tracking behavior to a  wildly unrealistic super SAM in in its performance with endless energy and unlimited G.   It Is no longer even remotely usable for representing an sa-2 GUIDELINE. 

Yeah, the sa-2 before this update was easy to beat...But, *so was the real missile IRL.*  Literally any jet powered aircraft in Vietnam with the possible exception of the B-52 could easily out maneuver the missile, as long as the pilot could see it, with one simple turn into or under it.  I found on such story were an  A-6 at 200ft AGL beat FIVE SAMs in a row, yet in DCS a completely slick F-16 can barley out turn one missile, with about 90% of Sa-2s fired scoring a hit.  

 

So is it possible to undo just this update for just this SAM or maybe create a mod to put the Sa-2 back closer to what is was before? it seems far more unrealistic now than it previously...

 

Its because the G limit instead of being 6 at low altitude and droping off to as low as 2g above 40k ft its g limit in game is something like 16g.  Maybe @BIGNEWYcan give us the actual number since ED locked the lua files and also report this inaccuracy.

[1qsb28]

11 hours ago, Fri13 said:

The S-75 system was excellent back then, it was the ECM system that finally protected fighters from it as it made it "toothless".

Why even a A-6 could evade them.

 

we will have to agree to disagree on this point.  lower performance tactical aircraft (by today's standards) like  A-4s, A-6s, F-100s ect. were all defeating the Sa-2 in the 1960s, long before effective ECM was part of the equation.  By all accounts from those who were there, if you could see it, you could beat it by turning into and or below it...No ECM needed.  It was the SAM you didn't see see that killed you. 

 

8 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said:

Its because the G limit instead of being 6 at low altitude and droping off to as low as 2g above 40k ft its g limit in game is something like 16g.  Maybe @BIGNEWYcan give us the actual number since ED locked the lua files and also report this inaccuracy.

 

Thanks for the input...I noticed in the "High Digit Sams" mod info it references this fact as well.  The version of the missile in their mod is limited to 6 G and is an improvement over the stock DCS model but still a little too good; 50% against a clean F-16 and 80% against a clean A-4.  I looked at the .lua for the High Digit model to see if I could reduce the limit another G or so and see how it does but I am not a coder and could not tell which value is the G limit.  Any help figuring that out would be much appreciated. 

[1qsb28]

For what its worth, I figured out the value for G limit in the lua; Nr_max.  I went into the High digit SAM's mod and changed the G limit to 4 G on the Sa-2 in that mod pack and it is much more believable.  it will still kill anything that doesn't make any defensive maneuvers against it.  In an A-4 you can out turn it about 85% of the time but it will still get you if you're not aggressive with it or run out of energy.  Hope this helps anyone else looking for a temporary band-aid to fix the super-sam and bring it back to a Vietnam sa-2.

[Fri13]

g

Edited July 18, 2021 by Fri13
System deleted all text.

[Fri13]

9 hours ago, 1qsb28 said:

 

we will have to agree to disagree on this point.  lower performance tactical aircraft (by today's standards) like  A-4s, A-6s, F-100s ect. were all defeating the Sa-2 in the 1960s, long before effective ECM was part of the equation.  By all accounts from those who were there, if you could see it, you could beat it by turning into and or below it...No ECM needed.  It was the SAM you didn't see see that killed you. 

 

 

ECM was very much a thing back then.

 

F-10 was USMC main ECM aircraft. Succeeded by the A-6 in 1963.

The F-4's had ECM pods, but F-4E had integrated one in hump behind canopy. The F-4F had it in under nose.

The F-100 and F-4's had ALQ-71's for ECM. Even when the F-105 Wild Weasels didn't turn them on, while required to carry one.  

 

But it was not capable to defeat the S-75 proximity fuse. Until it was defeated in 1966.

 

“The intercept was perfect,” Dale Weaver, the senior Ryan contractor on the project later reported. The 147E got a complete set of radar guidance and proximity fuse information. The mission even successfully recorded the force of the blast wave that destroyed the drone. The Air Force used the mission data to develop a warning receiver that fed into a jammer. This electronic shield would prevent any SA-2 missile from hitting any aircraft that carried it.

But how could they test such a device without endangering a pilot? Bring in another drone.

 

Ryan engineers retrofitted a single Model 147, designated type 147F, with the jammer. This arrangement was known as Shoehorn, and project engineer Robert Schwanhausser said the massive electronic gear had to be ‘literally shoehorned’ into the small drone. The U.S. Navy flew it over Vietnam on missile-baiting missions in July 1966, and the device attracted at least eleven SA-2 missiles, all of which failed to bring it down during several missions.

It was finally downed by the twelfth.

 

Shoehorn became the backbone for the AN/APR-26 countermeasures set fitted to U.S. aircraft, including the B-52 Stratofortress, F-4 Phantom II, and C-130 Hercules. The AN/APR-26 would warn a plane that had been spotted by radar, giving the pilot the chance to change course and get out of the air defense zone. It could also detect when the radar locked on, indicating that a missile was on the way so the pilot could carry out evasive maneuvers to throw the missile off.

In the final phase of the SAM attack, when the proximity fuze was activated, the warning tone would increase in pitch and change from a continuous tone to a warble, telling the pilot it was time to do or die.

“The most important factor in using jinking maneuvers has always been saving your most radical turn or dive to the very last moment before the SAM arrived,” says Miller. “The warble was the signal ‘jink hard NOW!’”

 

And finally if the missile got too close, the system’s last line of defense would attempt to defeat its proximity fuse. But crews weren't happy with a device that might detonate the missile when it was already within lethal range, Miller says. Pilots would often leave the automatic jammer turned off and trust to their own skill

 

With all of these defenses working simultaneously, U.S. aircraft survivability ratios against the SA-2 began to climb. In 1965, the year before the CIA’s successful mission, SA-2s destroyed one aircraft for every four missiles fired. By 1967, it took closer to 50 missiles."

 

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a34386117/suicide-drone-cia-sa-2/

 

 

The S-75 went because ECM from 100% hit probability to slow straight flying target to less than 10%.

The missile capability for 10-11g maneuvers means it is just capable to intercept a 3-4g target (4-5g at best). And you need to time it properly. 

 

You just don't go "diving under it" as you need to perform a proper maneuver at proper timing,

but prepare for it by flying to get missile attitude proper one for time to come.

 

 

 

Today S-75 is almost useless a 9g fighters that has situational awareness, but even more it is useless against modern ECM systems.

And similar thing is with all missiles, where maneuvering is key thing, and preparation for it. But it can become too difficult and challenging.

 

[1qsb28]

thats great, I never said the ECM pods didnt work...I said they weren't necessary and not the primary method to defend against the sa-2   ...any tactical jet could defeat the missile by out turning it.  in fact, according to the USAF most weasel crews never bothered to turn their ECM pod on and only carried it because the USAF required them to. 

 

The following paragraphs with quotes from Medal of Honor recipient Leo Thorsness and his fellow weasel crews lays out that they did actually "dive under" as part of out turing the sam:

 

"The next problem was to deal with the oncoming SAM. “The first stage booster that launches the SAM creates a good-sized dust storm on the ground, so if you happen to be looking in the right direction when it blasts off, you know that Sam is airborne and on the prowl,” said Col. Jack Broughton, vice wing commander at Takhli. “After the booster has done its job, it drops off and falls back to earth, leaving the propulsion to Sam’s internal rocket power. If you can see Sam, you can usually escape. It has little, stubby wings and it is going like hell, so it can’t turn very well. You can take it on just like another aircraft, and if you force it into a commit position and outturn it, it will stall out and auger in.”

At the warning cry of “Take it down!” the Weasels went into their most famous maneuver, the SAM break, a high-speed dive past the rising missile, followed by a sharp pull up and change of direction. “Sometimes by descending you can even lose the SAM radar tracking you, or force the SAM to overshoot and pass harmlessly by,” said Capt. Don Carson, a Weasel at Korat. “If this does not work, at least you have one heck of a lot of airspeed you can use to make a break at the last moment and maybe make the SAM miss your aircraft.”

 

So yeah, turning on the thing was the primary means to defeat it....the ECM was often switched off.