Anyone started using the Mirage as their go to SEAD fighter?

[Hodo]

I have found that lately when flying online I have started using the Mirage as my go to SEAD aircraft.  It could be, because of its amazing low altitude high speed performance.  Or the ease of use of all of its systems.   Or it's great jammer.    But I have had far more success in SEAD strikes with the Mirage than any other aircraft.  

 

The Harrier is my close second.  

 

Nothing is more fun than dropping to 50ft off the ground doing 400-600knts popping up to drop 5 82SEs on your target and dip back down and run away.  

[GGTharos]

It's because SAMs are quite a bit nerfed.  Such tactics have been proven to be bad for the pilot's health IRL since the early 90's.

Edited January 21, 2021 by GGTharos

[Glide]

1 hour ago, Hodo said:

I have found that lately when flying online I have started using the Mirage as my go to SEAD aircraft.  It could be, because of its amazing low altitude high speed performance.  Or the ease of use of all of its systems.   Or it's great jammer.    But I have had far more success in SEAD strikes with the Mirage than any other aircraft.  

 

The Harrier is my close second.  

 

Nothing is more fun than dropping to 50ft off the ground doing 400-600knts popping up to drop 5 82SEs on your target and dip back down and run away.  

This was my favorite mission back in the day, and even better at night.   I loved dumping durandals on runways. 

[Hodo]

22 hours ago, GGTharos said:

It's because SAMs are quite a bit nerfed.  Such tactics have been proven to be bad for the pilot's health IRL since the early 90's.

 

Oh it's still bad for your health if you engage a proper setup defense.   But if you work in conjunction with a HARM strike by a pair of F-18s and you fly in low.  The SAMs have a choice.  Usually they go after the high slower targets first, then low fast.  Or leave you to the AAA and MANPADS.

 

It's a fun coordinated strike.  

[GGTharos]

7 minutes ago, Hodo said:

Oh it's still bad for your health if you engage a proper setup defense.   But if you work in conjunction with a HARM strike by a pair of F-18s and you fly in low.  The SAMs have a choice.  Usually they go after the high slower targets first, then low fast.  Or leave you to the AAA and MANPADS.

 

It's a fun coordinated strike.  

 

Well that I agree with.  My beef is mostly with how SAMs are incapable of attacking very low flying targets in this game.

[Hodo]

Just now, GGTharos said:

 

Well that I agree with.  My beef is mostly with how SAMs are incapable of attacking very low flying targets in this game.

Have you flown on Hoggits Georgia at War?  He does a good job of setting up pretty decent SAM defenses.  

[GGTharos]

I have not, but I set up some pretty effective stuff as well.  My main problems are:  MANPADS won't even try if you're above a certain speed, RF missiles usually have a 'floor' that people can fly under that shouldn't be there.  Likewise, Shilka etc are far too inaccurate IMHO.

 

All things that would make you not want to fly so low (turbulence, birds) are turned off.

Edited January 22, 2021 by GGTharos

[Rick50]

This reminds me of a 1991  strike on an Iraq airbase by some RAF Tornados. One that overflew the runway at low altitude was hit by ground fire, jet caught fire, and had to eject soon after. I believe the two pilots survived, were caught as POW's, I seem to recall broadcast news showing them in Iraqi custody.  

 

I think if Iraq was better prepared than it was in 1991, the RAF wouldn't have even considered that type of tactic, and only did so thinking their defenses were on the weak end of things. But, simply thanks to large volume of ground fire, that appears to have stopped that tactic cold, at least with non-stealth manned aircraft anyway, as stealthy cruise missiles are a different matter. 

 

[Hodo]

22 hours ago, GGTharos said:

I have not, but I set up some pretty effective stuff as well.  My main problems are:  MANPADS won't even try if you're above a certain speed, RF missiles usually have a 'floor' that people can fly under that shouldn't be there.  Likewise, Shilka etc are far too inaccurate IMHO.

 

All things that would make you not want to fly so low (turbulence, birds) are turned off.

 

 

I don't know what speed that is.. but last night on Hoggits GAW server I had a pair of MANPADS launched at me and I was doing 590kts at 1000ft AGL.  

 

It was witnessed by a KA-50 pilot who was providing close air support.  It was the only reason I avoided the second one.  Thank God for SRS.

[Glide]

21 hours ago, Rick50 said:

This reminds me of a 1991  strike on an Iraq airbase by some RAF Tornados. One that overflew the runway at low altitude was hit by ground fire, jet caught fire, and had to eject soon after. I believe the two pilots survived, were caught as POW's, I seem to recall broadcast news showing them in Iraqi custody.  

 

I think if Iraq was better prepared than it was in 1991, the RAF wouldn't have even considered that type of tactic, and only did so thinking their defenses were on the weak end of things. But, simply thanks to large volume of ground fire, that appears to have stopped that tactic cold, at least with non-stealth manned aircraft anyway, as stealthy cruise missiles are a different matter. 

 

I read a book on that mission.  Check out YT videos showing that shilka downing the Su-25, and be amazed at the volume of fire from one shilka.  Also, realize that those rounds eventually come down in someone's backyard. 

Edited January 23, 2021 by glide

[Hodo]

32 minutes ago, glide said:

I read a book on that mission.  Check out YT videos showing that shilka downing the Su-25, and be amazed at the volume of fire from one shilka.  Also, realize that those rounds eventually come down in someone's backyard. 

 

Most of them are a type of proximity detonation round.  I believe they explode over a set time to keep them from randomly falling all over the place.

[elcoo]

1 hour ago, glide said:

I read a book on that mission.  Check out YT videos showing that shilka downing the Su-25, and be amazed at the volume of fire from one shilka.  Also, realize that those rounds eventually come down in someone's backyard. 

 

I could only find one "video" of an alleged Shilka engaging a Su-25, and it's obviously a fake: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZNhLNOGfyA 

[Glide]

2 hours ago, elcoo said:

I could only find one "video" of an alleged Shilka engaging a Su-25, and it's obviously a fake: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZNhLNOGfyA 

Video game, I think. 

[Hodo]

2 hours ago, elcoo said:

I could only find one "video" of an alleged Shilka engaging a Su-25, and it's obviously a fake: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZNhLNOGfyA 

Yep it's from ARMA3.

 

This is a real Shilka firing.  Still a lot of rounds but different sound.

 

https://youtu.be/6hIhANtU-rs

[Dragon1-1]

ArmA videos get mistaken for reality a lot.  Wouldn't be surprised if that happened to DCS ones, too. It speaks to photorealistic graphics of both, but in this particular case, they could have looked at it more closely. It looked like a gatling gun of some sort (M113 VADS?) engaging an A-10. The actual Shilka in both mods that provide the VADS sounds much closer to reality and fires in shorter bursts.

[Northstar98]

On 1/23/2021 at 7:36 PM, Hodo said:

Most of them are a type of proximity detonation round.  I believe they explode over a set time to keep them from randomly falling all over the place.

 

They self-destruct, the Shilka doesn't have any proximity rounds (which would be pretty crazy for 23mm).

[Glide]

 

The DCS version lights up nicely:

 

Edited January 27, 2021 by glide

[jojo]

On 1/23/2021 at 2:01 AM, Rick50 said:

This reminds me of a 1991  strike on an Iraq airbase by some RAF Tornados. One that overflew the runway at low altitude was hit by ground fire, jet caught fire, and had to eject soon after. I believe the two pilots survived, were caught as POW's, I seem to recall broadcast news showing them in Iraqi custody.  

 

I think if Iraq was better prepared than it was in 1991, the RAF wouldn't have even considered that type of tactic, and only did so thinking their defenses were on the weak end of things. But, simply thanks to large volume of ground fire, that appears to have stopped that tactic cold, at least with non-stealth manned aircraft anyway, as stealthy cruise missiles are a different matter. 

 

Sorry, but I think you’re wrong.

Iraqi Army was considered well trained after 10 years of war Vs Iran.

 

Low level attack of airfield was the doctrine back then, Tornado had special purpose JP-233 weapons to destroy runways, and it needed to be used at low altitude.

That low altitude profile was selected because SAM threat was considered high at medium altitude.
 

But it’s true that the losses suffered by the RAF Tornado and to lesser extent the damages on French Air Force Jaguar A during attack on Al Jaber put an end to this kind of tactics...

[QuiGon]

On 1/22/2021 at 11:01 PM, Rick50 said:

This reminds me of a 1991  strike on an Iraq airbase by some RAF Tornados. One that overflew the runway at low altitude was hit by ground fire, jet caught fire, and had to eject soon after. I believe the two pilots survived, were caught as POW's, I seem to recall broadcast news showing them in Iraqi custody.  

 

I think if Iraq was better prepared than it was in 1991, the RAF wouldn't have even considered that type of tactic, and only did so thinking their defenses were on the weak end of things. But, simply thanks to large volume of ground fire, that appears to have stopped that tactic cold, at least with non-stealth manned aircraft anyway, as stealthy cruise missiles are a different matter.

 

This RAF crew did a critical mistake, as they turned around and reattacked the airfield after the bombs didn't come off on the first attack run. The effect of suprise is critical on such mission profiles.

 

Low level tactics are not necessarily outdated and definitely weren't outdaed in 91. The enivornment of Dessert Storm was just a totally different one than the Fulda Gap, which was less suited for low level tactics.

[Hodo]

On 1/26/2021 at 4:35 AM, Northstar98 said:

 

They self-destruct, the Shilka doesn't have any proximity rounds (which would be pretty crazy for 23mm).

The ZSU-23-4 fires API-T HEI-T and FRAG-HE-T.

[Northstar98]

Just now, Hodo said:

The ZSU-23-4 fires API-T HEI-T and FRAG-HE-T.

 

Yep, neither have proximity fuses, only self-destruct and impact (for HEI-T); according to this, the Shilka shouldn't have an HEF-T round, only HEI-T or HEI (+ AP-T).

[Hodo]

1 hour ago, QuiGon said:

 

This RAF crew did a critical mistake, as they turned around and reattacked the airfield after the bombs didn't come off on the first attack run. The effect of suprise is critical on such mission profiles.

 

Low level tactics are not necessarily outdated and definitely weren't outdaed in 91. The enivornment of Dessert Storm was just a totally different one than the Fulda Gap, which was less suited for low level tactics.

This is very true.  The Iraqi Army as of 1990 was a very formidable force on paper.  A very large and experienced military with moderately advanced equipment and training.  

 

Had the RAF attack run gone as initially planned with one pass they would have had minimal risk.  But as you said those tactics rely on surprise.

1 minute ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Yep, neither have proximity fuses, only self-destruct and impact (for HEI-T); according to this, the Shilka shouldn't have an HEF-T round, only HEI-T or HEI (+ AP-T).

No prox rounds but the HEF-T round is according to Jane's.  It is usually three HEF-T rounds for every one API-T round.  

[QuiGon]

3 minutes ago, Hodo said:

This is very true.  The Iraqi Army as of 1990 was a very formidable force on paper.  A very large and experienced military with moderately advanced equipment and training.  

 

Had the RAF attack run gone as initially planned with one pass they would have had minimal risk.  But as you said those tactics rely on surprise.

 

Exactly, and unlike the Fulda Gap the Iraqi dessert didn't provide much cover for undetected approaches. Also the high altitude thread wasn't as high as it would have been in the Fulda Gap thanks to SEAD and air superiority over the Iraqi military. These factors made low level tactics less valuable in Iraq.

Edited January 27, 2021 by QuiGon

[DmitriKozlowsky]

On 1/21/2021 at 8:16 AM, GGTharos said:

It's because SAMs are quite a bit nerfed.  Such tactics have been proven to be bad for the pilot's health IRL since the early 90's.

 

With respect I beg to differ. Terrain masking is, and likely continue to be, effective threat avoidance. No SAM can fly through terrain, no AD radar can see through stone. Chase threat interceptors have to find you first. But they are faster at above 15K, then you are 100'agl. Plus your burner is standout hot. So initially after releasing stores, I run to the nearest hill at full AB , and put it between and ground air defenses near target. If I survive that, then a quick climb to around Angels 20 at AB, then exit threat area. 

[Rick50]

On 1/27/2021 at 6:36 AM, jojo said:

Sorry, but I think you’re wrong.

Iraqi Army was considered well trained after 10 years of war Vs Iran.

 

Low level attack of airfield was the doctrine back then, Tornado had special purpose JP-233 weapons to destroy runways, and it needed to be used at low altitude.

That low altitude profile was selected because SAM threat was considered high at medium altitude.
 

But it’s true that the losses suffered by the RAF Tornado and to lesser extent the damages on French Air Force Jaguar A during attack on Al Jaber put an end to this kind of tactics...

 

Sure, I guess I should have been more specific in what I meant: they were not especially well EQUIPED compared to say Western or Soviet 1991 levels. Either in terms of equipment quality, or equipment numbers. I wasn't really considering training level, and I should have been more specific. 

 

Another thing to consider, is that what some people assume from conventional wisdom isn't always correct. Sure, they were considered by many to be "well trained" due to the Iran Iraq war... and yet, in the wake of Desert Storm we discovered that... well, they really weren't that well trained after all. Don't get me wrong, they were far from the worst, but also far from the best. And that brings up a point: while you might think that 10 years of war would make for a razor honed fighting force, that can sometimes happen for some troops and units, but it can also bring huge burnout, demoralized troops, it can kill training budgets ( consider this is Iraq for a decade's worth of conflict, not the Pentagon with more money the world has ever seen), the really gunho troops often get killed or hospitalised, and then your instructors may just be burned out, suffering from PTSD.  Yes, combat experience is an asset, but it can often be offset by the many negatives that also result from experiencing combat.

 

And then the equipment numbers: at the start of that conflict with Iran, they may have had a decent number of Shilkas and other anti-aircraft... but over time in combat, the losses to accidents and repairs, combat actions... can turn into an attrition that's not easily replaced. Again, this is Iraq during sustained warlike footing, not the Pacific Fleet that will replenish in months or a year. Their economy being limited, is then further hobbled by the war, and the threat of anti-ship weapons against revenue-generators like oil tankers that might pickup at Basra but now refuse to arrive.

 

Sure, the low-level tactic was doctrine in the RAF through the 1980's and to 1991. But the USAF in that same war opted to be over 16k AGL, even overflying Baghdad, right from day one. They had a different doctrine. Surely the USAF and RAF were aware of the different tactics. Neither tactic was "wrong", they were correct for different reasons. But in war and tactics, things change, and sometimes such changes result in a particular tactic becoming obsolete for a while, only to return maybe 25 years later.  And yet, A-10's still use low level, along with the ability to do higher altitude tactics as well.