Tin Shield radar incorrectly named as SA-5 search radar

[Northstar98]

HI everyone,

As of the 2.7.4 update to the OB, the Tin Shield radar has incorrectly been given the name "SAM SA-5 S-200 Gammon SR". IRL however, the Tin Shield is actually associated with S-300/SA-10 system (or used a general purpose EWR).

Given that we have the S-300PS [SA-10b Grumble], we should have the 5N59S [Tin Shield B] (though it has a host of other designations which use different rules - I prefer the 5NXXX for radars as it's cleaner to work with).

It's especially puzzling because the 5V28 missile of the S-200V "Vega" [SA-5b Gammon] has a maximum range of 240km, but the Tin Shield RADAR only has a maximum instrumented range of 150km, 60% less range.
 

Spoiler

The search radar that's actually associated with the S-200/SA-5 (last I checked we were getting the S-200V/VE Vega/Vega-E [SA-5b Gammon]) is actually the 5N84A (P-14F) "Oborona-14" [Tall King C] which is an improved, transportable variant of the P-14 radar. This is paired up with a PRV-13 [Odd Pair] or PRV-17 [Odd Group] height-finding radar.

I did a much more detailed post here.

Edited August 7, 2022 by Northstar98
grammar

[Flappie]

Reproduced and reported.

Thanks.

 

[Flappie]

@Northstar98 I've got an answer from the dev team. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Here are the reasons:

1. Recently, DCS SAM units were renamed so that a mission creator can easily find all units of the same "kind" (SA-2, SA-3, SA-5, ...).
2. Although Tin Shield units can be combined with SA-300 systems in real life, they are also used with SA-5 systems      sometimes.
3. The Tin Shield unit was mainly added to DCS to be used with SA-5. Since its effective range is 150 km, it lessens the effective  range of the SA-5 launchers, indeed.
4. SA-300 already has a more powerful EW radar associated to it ingame.

Edited October 11, 2021 by Flappie

[Northstar98]

On 10/11/2021 at 8:41 PM, Flappie said:

@Northstar98 I've got an answer from the dev team. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Here are the reasons:

 

Recently, DCS SAM units were renamed so that a mission creator can easily find all units of the same "kind" (SA-2, SA-3, SA-5, ...).

This isn't really relevant, though personally, it would be better to have systems that comprise of multiple units be grouped together, so instead of listing every single unit and including the system name on each one, it lists the system the unit belongs to, then when you click on the system name, a drop down menu expands which then lists each unit individually.

This is more the subject for another thread, but I'll elaborate in the spoiler below:

Spoiler

For example, under 'ground units' -> 'air defence' we'd have something like 'S-200V "Vega" [SA-5b Gammon]' and then when you click on it, it expands to show the components:

• 5N62V [Square Pair] FCR
• 5P72V launcher w/ V-880/5V28
• 5N84A "Oborona-14" [Tall King C] SR
• PRV-17 [Odd Group] HFR

For example.

This keeps it tidier, allows us to use shorter and more concise display names, while being more precise, while allowing users to easily find the units that belong to a certain system.

If there are units that belong to multiple systems, it would be better to just duplicate the entry.

I've already given my thoughts to the naming system, and I've made a proposal which can be found here. Though I might add the above, as right now having the SAM system listed in each and every display name can make some names very long.

On 10/11/2021 at 8:41 PM, Flappie said:

Although Tin Shield units can be combined with SA-300 systems in real life, they are also used with SA-5 systems sometimes.

I have so far found no real world S-200 site that has any variant of the Tin Shield associated with it, and so far this is the only source that does.

Even more of a red flag, is that this source doesn't mention (at least in the part accessible to me) the P-14 or any of its versions (such as the 5N84A/5N84AE) as being utilised, despite it being the most commonly associated radar for it and the radar that is indeed present at numerous RL S-200 sites.

It gets better though, according to a newsletter, the S-200 in DCS was modelled after Syrian S-200 systems (which are probably the S-200VE [SA-5b Gammon]). The newsletter incorrectly claims that Syrian S-200s use the Tin Shield, but in fact, all but one of them (though the one that doesn't certainly did historically) shows a 5N84AE colocated (or located very close, far closer than the closest Tin Shield), and this is easily confirmed by satellite imagery (see here).

Syrian Tin Shields (of which there are just 2 known) are used as general purpose EWRs, and they're located much further than 5N84AEs (which are typically colocated) with respect to S-200 sites. Now sure, these will feed into Syria's IADS network, along with their P-35/37s, P-80s and indeed their 5N84AEs, only that functionality is absent in DCS (though there have been discussions about it, and there is a mod).

In terms of battery level radars though (which is what we have to work with in DCS), and the radars that are actually present at S-200 sites, the 5N84A/5N84AE + PRV-13/17 combination seems to be the most common, including at Syrian S-200 sites that ours was supposedly based off of.

On 10/11/2021 at 8:41 PM, Flappie said:

The Tin Shield unit was mainly added to DCS to be used with SA-5. Since its effective range is 150 km, it lessens the effective  range of the SA-5 launchers, indeed.

The first point sounds misguided, as the Tin Shield IRL is most often used as either a general purprose EWR or is assocated with the S-300.

If we're modelling S-200 systems as used by Syria (which the newsletter clearly states, twice), then we should be using the radars present at said Syrian S-200s, that being the 5N84AE and PRV-13 (though the PRV-17 is also associated with the same S-200 variant, just among other operators).

Not only that but the Tin Shield was implemented into DCS months before the S-200 was.

The second point however, I find very disagreeable, maybe even alarmingly so - DCS should be about depicting equipment as accurately to their real-life counteraparts as possible, and we should not be using radars less associated with the SA-5 to reduce its effective range, effectively serving as an artificial nerf.

This is the same line of reasoning which left us with AMRAAMs that were underperforming for years and here it would be equivalent to modelling the AN/APG-63(V)1 RADAR of the F-15C after the AN/APG-68(V)5 RADAR of the F-16CM (at least as far as detection ranges go), to limit the engagement range of the AMRAAM.

On 10/11/2021 at 8:41 PM, Flappie said:

SA-300 already has a more powerful EW radar associated to it ingame.

This reason I find puzzling; so far, AFAIK, we have the S-300PS [SA-10b Grumble] system depicted in DCS, the Tin Shield B and the Big Bird B are both associated with it, with the Big Bird being the direct successor to the Tin Shield.

Plus, I hope you see the backwards logic in giving a shorter range SAM system a longer range acquisition RADAR (the Big Bird B IRL has an instrumented range of ~600km, roughly 8× the maximum engagement range of the 5V55R missile), but giving a much longer range SAM a much shorter range acquisition radar (with a range of ~0.6× the maximum engagement range of the V-880/5V28 missile and a quarter of the range of the Big Bird).

Edited August 7, 2022 by Northstar98
grammar

[Flappie]

I don't know much about SAM sites compared to you. I summed up your opinion to the dev team. Wait and see.

[Northstar98]

On 10/11/2021 at 10:21 PM, Flappie said:

I don't know much about SAM sites compared to you. I summed up your opinion to the dev team. Wait and see.

I'm not by any means an expert at all, nor would I claim to be.

However, if you head to this post I posted links to satellite imagery where you can see Syrian S-200 sites and the radars visible, it also shows the locations of the Syrian Tin Shields.

I might write a subsequent post where I will post annotated screenshots of the respective sites.

And in this wishlist thread, I provide another example of an S-200 site (a former Czecholsovak site, again using the S-200VE), a 5N84AE and PRV-17 were present (I also tried to provide general specifications of the radars).

But thank-you for conveying my thoughts.

Edited August 7, 2022 by Northstar98
grammar

[al531246]

Just to add to this topic. I thought the Tin Shield had been removed from the editor because I couldn't find it, only to discover (as a result of this thread) that it's incorrectly associated with the SA-5!

It's definitely erroneously named. I have mapped a number of SAM systems all over the world onto my own .kmz file and I have never seen a Tin Shield operating in unison with an SA-5. I've seen Tin Shield's left behind when an S-300 site has moved and the TS is used as an EWR. 

Northstar98 is quite right to point out call this a bug. It's incorrect. 

[norman99]

I really wish ED would update the SA-5. It’s so frustrating how neutered its performance is due to incorrect equipment options.

Honestly, I hope they just head over to the TurboSquid site and purchase the complete SA-5 3D models package available. No need to reinvent the wheel, building  everything from scratch, when it’s already been done for them.

https://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/max-sa-5-battalion-missile/513949

 

As you can see above, it already includes the Tall King (& compensator) search radar, Odd Pair height finding radar, as well as the IFF interrogator and other additional control/comm/support equipment.

we see improvements one day.

[Northstar98]

8 hours ago, norman99 said:

I really wish ED would update the SA-5. It’s so frustrating how neutered its performance is due to incorrect equipment options.

The more worrying thing is that apparently this was intentional:

Quote

The Tin Shield unit was mainly added to DCS to be used with SA-5. Since its effective range is 150 km, it lessens the effective  range of the SA-5 launchers, indeed.

[Flappie]

On 8/6/2022 at 10:06 AM, Northstar98 said:

The more worrying thing is that apparently this was intentional:

These words were mine, not ED's, and I regret the phrasing. What I should have said is this:

The Tall King unit has not made it to the game yet. In the meantime, the Tin Shield unit works as a palliative alternative for SA-5 launchers. Hence the "SA-5" prefix was added to this unit, in order to avoid multiple forum threads like "I cannot find the radar unit associated with SA-5 launchers", "SA-5 missiles are never launched", "SA-5 broken"...

I'm pretty sure ED will remove the "SA-5" prefix from the Tin Shield once the Tall King is added. Now, I'm sure the next question will be: "when?". Well, I don't know.

[Northstar98]

7 minutes ago, Flappie said:

These words were mine, not ED's, and I regret the phrasing. What I should have said is this:

The Tall King unit has not made it to the game yet. In the meantime, the Tin Shield unit works as a palliative alternative for SA-5 launchers. Hence the "SA-5" prefix was added to this unit, in order to avoid multiple forum threads like "I cannot find the radar unit associated with SA-5 launchers", "SA-5 missiles are never launched", "SA-5 broken"...

I'm pretty sure ED will remove the "SA-5" prefix from the Tin Shield once the Tall King is added. Now, I'm sure the next question will be: "when?". Well, I don't know.

Okay, thank you, this mirrors what BIGNEWY said here.

Edited August 7, 2022 by Northstar98