SAM Sites Asset Pack - A 3D assets mod to populate you SAM sites, FARP and other bases

[toan]

On 11/11/2022 at 9:19 AM, ВитаLiy said:

 

OOO, Yeeeeees!!

Now S-300PMU2 (SA-20B) is working!
need to replace 2 lua files   in  SAMPack_S-300_Series/Database/Vehicle, although one is enough:  S-300PMU2_5P85SE2_LN.lua

And  it would not be bad to change the height of the mast    GT.sensor.height = 27.63         in      S-300PMU2_30N6E2_TR_Mast.lua     

 

S-300PMU2_54K6E2_CP.lua 2.5 kB · 54 downloads S-300PMU2_5P85SE2_LN.lua 2.5 kB · 41 downloads

Sorry, but I didn't find the 'S-300PMU2_30N6E2_TR_Mast.lua ' file to update it with the 'GT.sensor.height = 27.63' value Any pointer, please ? Many thanks...

[flag02004]

Toan you'll find this file 'S-300PMU2_30N6E2_TR_Mast.lua ' here:

C:\Users\"name"\Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\Mods\tech\SAMPack_S-300_Series\Database\Vehicle\radar

[toan]

19 hours ago, flag02004 said:

Toan you'll find this file 'S-300PMU2_30N6E2_TR_Mast.lua ' here:

C:\Users\"name"\Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\Mods\tech\SAMPack_S-300_Series\Database\Vehicle\radar

Got it ! Many thanks....

[Valium]

It seems elevated objects are still not avaible. I can't set radar on hill (object).
Was it updated? I've downloaded that version from 1st page.

[CarbonFox]

I've noticed the S-300VM doesn't fire at all. The V and V4 operate fine though. Just wanted to point this one out.

[LetMePickThat]

On 12/15/2022 at 9:35 AM, Whiskey11 said:

I realize the S-300 Pack is it's own work, but is there any plan on incorporating it directly into the High Digit Sam Modpack?  It seems like HDSM and the S-300 pack would make more sense as one package than as two separate packages.

EDIT:  Any luck getting a HARM onto the SA-23 Grill Screen/Grill Pan Track Radar?  HDSM has an issue where the HARM code for the Grill Screen/Grill Pan doesn't work for the SA-23 but does for the SA-12.

 

ED's SAM update broke stuff, I'll take a look but not ETA since I'm really busy IRL at the moment.

[Whiskey11]

53 minutes ago, LetMePickThat said:

ED's SAM update broke stuff, I'll take a look but not ETA since I'm really busy IRL at the moment.

No worries, is there a place I can help with the solution in the coding?  I've poked around the files to see if I could figure it out on my own, but if you know where ED's HARM stuff ties into HDSM, I'll gladly take a look. 

[LetMePickThat]

2 hours ago, Whiskey11 said:

No worries, is there a place I can help with the solution in the coding?  I've poked around the files to see if I could figure it out on my own, but if you know where ED's HARM stuff ties into HDSM, I'll gladly take a look. 

That's the issue, ED's HARM code doens't tie with our own. The way we do it is by specifying an existing radar type in our own files to piggy back an existing HARM code. The SA-12 has its own RWR and HARM code because there used to be a SA-12 in Flanker/LOMAC, and the associated codes were never deleted. For newer systems, it's a hassle and we usually use the closest equivalent ingame.

[Whiskey11]

52 minutes ago, LetMePickThat said:

That's the issue, ED's HARM code doens't tie with our own. The way we do it is by specifying an existing radar type in our own files to piggy back an existing HARM code. The SA-12 has its own RWR and HARM code because there used to be a SA-12 in Flanker/LOMAC, and the associated codes were never deleted. For newer systems, it's a hassle and we usually use the closest equivalent ingame.

I'm guessing the solution is to just make the Grill Screen and Grill Pan the same radar on the back end?  From memory, the tracking type (TVM, SACLOS, etc) is all set in the weapon file and not the sensor file. 

 

Of course the REAL solution is for ED to finish the HARM tables and allow outside mods to reference an emitter... that would be like pulling teeth though....

[Lt.Turbo]

Has there been any further consideration or work on green liveries for these assets for use on non-desert maps?

[SullyFUBAR]

Love this Mod and use it in almost every mission. 

Question, is there anything to be done about the sandbags exploding? Also, if they are strung together like a sandbag wall they will all go up together killing everybody. Maybe the other objects do the same thing but making a strong point out of sandbag ERA is a no go. 

**Edit - solved my own issue, thank you rubber duck.

Workaround:
1) Make them a vehicle group (for copy/paste, templates, and moving as a group).

2) Make them from a neutral country (so it's not shot at, I prefer Swiss made sandbags when I remember or Algerian when I don't).

3) Make it immortal (because it's sand, in a bag).

IF you want to get real fancy with it, make a triggered action to turn of the immortality if something large (like a 500lbs bomb) hits in the area but that depends on you're level of ADHD. Lastly, remember to do all of this when placing the first sandbag and work in batches.  

Edited January 29, 2023 by SullyFUBAR

[dleffler]

I hadn't seen this posted, but the S-300 mod (see 1st post) and the High Digit SAMs mod seem to conflict with each other and will crash DCS when loading and attempting to scan the database.

[EA-18G_BlockII]

On 1/31/2023 at 5:44 AM, dleffler said:

I hadn't seen this posted, but the S-300 mod (see 1st post) and the High Digit SAMs mod seem to conflict with each other and will crash DCS when loading and attempting to scan the database.

yeah they are conflicted

[tripod3]

Could anybody upload correct version of this mod? I mean without confilcts with S-300 mod and with comments what has been done to avoid conflicts.

[El Phantasmo]

5 hours ago, tripod3 said:

Could anybody upload correct version of this mod? I mean without confilcts with S-300 mod and with comments what has been done to avoid conflicts.

Why even try to run both? HDS is all but abandoned since there hasnt been any updates on it for over a year. The S300 pack has better models and really the only things you might be missing out on would be the SA-17 and the tweaked SA-2/3.

[CommandT]

Hi all, 

Every time I've tried using the newer S-300/400 assets from this mod or High Digit SAMs mod, they never give off a launch tone for your RWR. Is this still the case here? It's the only reason I still use the original S-300 in game

Cheers!

[patpatpowercat]

11 hours ago, CommandT said:

Hi all, 

Every time I've tried using the newer S-300/400 assets from this mod or High Digit SAMs mod, they never give off a launch tone for your RWR. Is this still the case here? It's the only reason I still use the original S-300 in game

Cheers!

They won't. The newer S-300 and S-400 systems use different tracking methods that will not trigger a launch warning.

[El Phantasmo]

3 hours ago, patpatpowercat said:

They won't. The newer S-300 and S-400 systems use different tracking methods that will not trigger a launch warning.

That is true but I believe any modules with MWS should be able to get indication. Also, if the missile is TVM it should in theory be showing up on RWR. Of course I dont know any of this as fact.

[CommandT]

13 hours ago, patpatpowercat said:

They won't. The newer S-300 and S-400 systems use different tracking methods that will not trigger a launch warning.

According to a current fighter pilot I know this may not be true. That's why I wasn't really convinced about this in the mod. 

[patpatpowercat]

On 2/7/2023 at 6:10 PM, El Phantasmo said:

That is true but I believe any modules with MWS should be able to get indication. Also, if the missile is TVM it should in theory be showing up on RWR. Of course I dont know any of this as fact.

Depends on where/etc. MWS gear is crazy unreliable, to the point that some crews turn it off. Also, dunno the abilities of MWS going off from a launch 140nm away...

 

On 2/8/2023 at 4:25 AM, CommandT said:

According to a current fighter pilot I know this may not be true. That's why I wasn't really convinced about this in the mod. 

Current fighters don't have 70/80s RWR gear either. And the fact of the matter is, since this all goes into the ELINT realm, it's classified enough that we won't really know for another 60 years. 

[El Phantasmo]

1 hour ago, patpatpowercat said:

Depends on where/etc. MWS gear is crazy unreliable, to the point that some crews turn it off. Also, dunno the abilities of MWS going off from a launch 140nm away...

 

Current fighters don't have 70/80s RWR gear either. And the fact of the matter is, since this all goes into the ELINT realm, it's classified enough that we won't really know for another 60 years. 

I guess in a modern fighter, things like detected launches from SAMs that far out would be relayed from SATCOM or AWACS. Dont know how fast the data could be relayed though.

[LetMePickThat]

On 2/8/2023 at 1:25 PM, CommandT said:

According to a current fighter pilot I know this may not be true. That's why I wasn't really convinced about this in the mod. 

Modern electronic scan radars would likely not give a launch warning. Whereas a mechanically steered radar will indeed trigger a lock warning when switching from general scan or TWS to STT, and a launch warning when fired upon, there are no changes in the emission pattern of an electronically scanned antenna when an engagement is initiated that could be used by an RWR to trigger an alert.

An electronically scanned array relies on multiple, agile beams that can all track targets with a precision akin to that of STT modes on older radars. With a PESA/AESA design, right after primary detection, the system will work in "pseudo STT" mode for all targets, regardless of whether they are to be engaged, engageable or even hostile. Every internal track will be de facto "locked", with a very high refresh rate and high radar dwell time. This is why the refresh rate on modern AESA designs is very low regardless of the operating mode. On top of that, inherent AESA/PESA characteristics like high frequency agility, advanced scan patterns, a bunch of other LPI techniques and high duty cycle make it very hard for RWRs to understand whether they're just illuminated as part of a regular scan process or if a missile is actually in flight.

Modern RWRs try to work around that problem by intercepting other signals like weapons uplinks, but this isn't guaranteed to work since those signals are designed to use very narrow beams.

I would suggest taking a look at Air and Missile Defense Systems Engineering by Bord and Hoffman if you're interested in that subject.

On 2/9/2023 at 6:29 PM, El Phantasmo said:

I guess in a modern fighter, things like detected launches from SAMs that far out would be relayed from SATCOM or AWACS. Dont know how fast the data could be relayed though.

There is no J-serie message for such thing as a SAM launch warning. Missile warnings can be transmitted using dedicated messages, but this is more relevant for the defense (SAMs, mainly, being informed of an impeeding attack) than it is for aircrafts being actively shot at.

[LetMePickThat]

On 2/8/2023 at 3:10 AM, El Phantasmo said:

That is true but I believe any modules with MWS should be able to get indication. Also, if the missile is TVM it should in theory be showing up on RWR. Of course I dont know any of this as fact.

If your MWS system doesn't rely on radar pattern analysis, then yes. The DDM on the 2000 might be able to pick them, if fired from close enough, but that's about it. Anything RWR-based in a coin toss at best.

[AvgeekJoe]

@LetMePickThat May I please ask for templates for each model of SAM?  I want to make sure I get the units and quantities right.

[EA-18G_BlockII]

On 2/16/2023 at 12:10 AM, LetMePickThat said:

Modern electronic scan radars would likely not give a launch warning. Whereas a mechanically steered radar will indeed trigger a lock warning when switching from general scan or TWS to STT, and a launch warning when fired upon, there are no changes in the emission pattern of an electronically scanned antenna when an engagement is initiated that could be used by an RWR to trigger an alert.

An electronically scanned array relies on multiple, agile beams that can all track targets with a precision akin to that of STT modes on older radars. With a PESA/AESA design, right after primary detection, the system will work in "pseudo STT" mode for all targets, regardless of whether they are to be engaged, engageable or even hostile. Every internal track will be de facto "locked", with a very high refresh rate and high radar dwell time. This is why the refresh rate on modern AESA designs is very low regardless of the operating mode. On top of that, inherent AESA/PESA characteristics like high frequency agility, advanced scan patterns, a bunch of other LPI techniques and high duty cycle make it very hard for RWRs to understand whether they're just illuminated as part of a regular scan process or if a missile is actually in flight.

Modern RWRs try to work around that problem by intercepting other signals like weapons uplinks, but this isn't guaranteed to work since those signals are designed to use very narrow beams.

I would suggest taking a look at Air and Missile Defense Systems Engineering by Bord and Hoffman if you're interested in that subject.

There is no J-serie message for such thing as a SAM launch warning. Missile warnings can be transmitted using dedicated messages, but this is more relevant for the defense (SAMs, mainly, being informed of an impeeding attack) than it is for aircrafts being actively shot at.

so uh is any way to defeat upgraded S-300 series SAM? for example the S-300VM, i couldnt pickup its radar and launch signal and just suddenly go poop in mid-air. Also the jamming script here didnt help either 

It can still defeat S-300PS though

 

but for the high digit ones, here's the result of someone else' test:

"I did some further tests with S-300PS, S-300PMU and S-300VM. At first, the Defensive Jamming doesn't work against any of that three systems. The Offensive Jamming delivers mixed results.
The test setting was always the same: Growler in around 14,500 ft barometric on 400-450 kts, starting in the air between 35-38 nm away, flying straight ahead onto the SAM site.
Results (only Offensive Jamming):

S-300PS Jamming OFF - Missile launch at 28.5 nm
S-300PS Jamming ON - Missile launch at 4.5 nm (1st try) respectively no launch (2nd try)

S-300PMU Jamming OFF - Missile launch at 29.7 nm
S-300PMU Jamming ON - Missile launch at 30.2 nm

S-300VM Jamming OFF - Missile launch at 26.7 nm
S-300VM Jamming ON - Missile launch at 17.7 nm"