noted Newer Air Defenses

[Ash Lynx]

I think we need a wishlist item asking for better sam implementation. From what i am reading here it seems sams in DCS are simply heavily neutered versions of their real life counter parts.

[Northstar98]

On 3/15/2022 at 10:31 AM, Ash Lynx said:

I think we need a wishlist item asking for better sam implementation. From what i am reading here it seems sams in DCS are simply heavily neutered versions of their real life counter parts.

Yeah, radars and FCRs are super generic, and there's next to no differentiation between them besides scan volume and update rate.

The only thing DCS cares about with regards to RADARs of AI units (which also applies when directly controlling units via CA) is the following:

• Detection distance (upper hemisphere)
• Detection distance (lower hemisphere)
• The distance where the radar transitions from acquire to lock (expressed as a multiplier of detection range, almost always set to 0.85)
• Instrumented range (i.e. maximum distance the radar can measure)
• Scan period (this is just the update rate of the radar - for radars that rotate, the whole volume is processed at the rate, even if the 3D model is only looking in one direction, the rotation is eye candy only).
• Scan volume (i.e azimuth and elevation angles)
• Radial velocity (used to approximate a zero-doppler/notch filter (these are the same thing for a stationary radars)), almost always set to ±10 m/s.

That's it.

The only difference between say, a Low Blow of the SA-3 and a Flap Lid of the SA-10 are the detection distances (50 km and 160 km for the Low Blow and Flap Lid respectively), instrumented range (90 km and 260 km, respectively) and the lock-on distance coefficient (1 and 0.85, respectively).

If you look at say, the WWII FuMG-401 Freya LZ, the only difference between it and the ST-68U is that the Freya has 10 km range advantage (in both detection distance, and instrumented range), and is confined to a ±20° azimuth, whereas the ST-68U can do a full 360°. That's it, if it wasn't for that the Freya would be a superior radar to the Tin Shield, despite the latter being more modern.

For limitations in general:

• There's no differentiation between 2D and 3D radars, all radars are treated as if they're 3D.
• There's no differentiation between pulse, pulse + MTI, pulse doppler or CW radars - all radars are treated as either pulse-doppler or modulated CW.
• Nothing about the beam is simulated at all, the main one being lobes (both main and sidelobes).
• Radars are able to instantly classify stuff, despite (in some cases) not being able to (this would probably require a core change to classification and identification as a whole though).
• For RCS, it's a single number that's invariant to aspect, state (i.e external stores carriage, landing gear down, doors open etc, or frequency).

 

In terms of fire-control, there's typically only 1 scheme utilised for each system (and so different modes aren't present, either different guidance schemes for different target parameters, or back-up modes) and they usually don't have their real scheme available (usually being a generic PN scheme with different coefficients, illuminated from launch).

Edited August 3, 2023 by Northstar98
grammar

[FlankerKiller]

On 2/9/2022 at 9:26 AM, LetMePickThat said:

Again, Skynet can do that, even if that requires some scripting knowledge and a lot of time to figure things out

Right, but SkyNet isn't an official part of DCS. What it dose is prove what DCS should be capable of organically. So now we the community need to put the pressure on ED to make it so. Every time we push hard enough they deliver. The Viper flight model, the F-4E, New weather effects. All of it. We need to push on this. It's a combat air simulator game, with four big full fidelity modules capable of SEAD missions. In order to properly simulate an air war in a contested environment we need those SkyNet capabilities to be in game. And it need to be organic. There are even command post in game to be used as targets. What we need is for all the C2 assets to actually be C2 assets. So placing one would alow a coalition to use it's EW radars or largest search radars to monitor its airspace. Then things like the S-300 not being effective against low flying aircraft, even in a Desert with nothing blocking line of sight to be corrected. Those two things alone would be a major improvement. 

[Gradjevinac]

On 3/14/2022 at 3:00 PM, LetMePickThat said:

Check here: 

 

Yea, I am already a heavy user of this MOD.  But we don't have Pantsir SM in it.
 

Can you provide a more details about Pantsir-SM specifications? On your YouTube channel I saw that you made missile 57E6ME.

Is missile 57E6ME with 40km range?
Did you integrate 4 new small missiles packed in one big missile container?

And what did you do with new active electronically scanned array radar? Can it detect targets up to a range of 75 km?

Sorry for being so boring, but I am really excited about this. Great work nad thank You very much for all of the hard work.

On 3/14/2022 at 3:00 PM, LetMePickThat said:

Yes, but it hasn't been released yet. In the meantime:

Liked all your videos.

@LetMePickThat

[Gradjevinac]

Guys in the thread: 

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

@Strigoi_dk and @LetMePickThat released update to the 2SAP and also published a Beta version of  S-300 line including S-400 and Pantsir-SM:

Quote

LetMePickThat and I are proud to release an update to our Beta version of the SAM Sites Asset Pack, or 2SAP. Furthermore, we are also proud to release a Beta version of our S-300 line including the infamous S-400 Triumf system (NATO designation SA-21 Growler). To protect the S-400 site we have also included the Pantsir-SM (NATO designation SA-22 Greyhound).

@Strigoi_dk and @LetMePickThat Thank you, once more.

Edited June 29, 2022 by Gradjevinac

[bies]

On 2/8/2022 at 11:24 AM, LetMePickThat said:

Have you ever took a look at how air defenses are modelled in DCS? All it takes is a basic radar, missile and vehicles setup in .lua. Even the old systems we have now are working completely different than real life counterparts, not because of the lack of data but because their implementation in DCS is approximate at best.

Exactly. Thet's why i said 1980s Patriot / S300 CAN be modeled in reasonably realistic way if someone would like to use some manhours - not thet they already are. All the systems ar currently very simplified.

When more modern systems can't me modeled anywhere near their real capabiliies which are 100% classified, regardless of manhours spent on them.

[Whiskey11]

On 2/7/2022 at 3:43 PM, LetMePickThat said:

If you're interested in the SAMP/T, I have something for you to test...

As for the availability of info, the depth (or lack thereof) of modelling for surface-to-air systems in DCS make that a non-issue, since approximations are already used all over the place (which is fine given the scope of the game). On top of the SAMP/T, we've been working on some other systems like the S-300PMU1/2, the S-300V/VM, the Pantsir-SM, Tor-M2, PAC-2 GEM, PAC-3 MSE, etc.

In general, I agree that DCS is quite lacking in the air defense department. The best SAM we have (not taking into account the S-300F on the Kirov) is the 1980s-vintage S-300PS, whereas the planes most flown are the updated Viper and Hornet. An official implementation of a PMU1/2/VM would bring a lot, not to mention more advanced SAM options for CA users. There were talks of an IADS module a few months ago, I wonder where that will go as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 2/8/2022 at 4:24 AM, LetMePickThat said:

The ways of operating aren't here either, the S-300PS is for instance incapable of shoot-and-scoot techniques, the very reason they moved to wheeled chassis from the trailer-based S-300PT. ECCM isn't modelled at all (ccmk being a single value), there is no HOJ modes for SAM systems (something that has been available on the Patriot since, well, forever), etc.

As for modern systems, it is perfectly possible to get a reasonably good idea of the performance of, say, an S-300PMU (an early-1990s-vintage system) since it is basically a technology upgrade of the S-300PS. All the relevant sensors are nothing more than incremental upgrades of their equivalent on the PS. The PMU was intented as an export variant of said PS, and most of the components were kept as it (hence the choice to keep the SA-10 designation, the PMU being the SA-10C while the PS was the SA-10B). The PM/PMU1 introduced the 48N6, a missile for which a ton of documentation is available, as well as more incremental upgrades to the radars that translate in nothing more than more range and more engagement channels (there is no fundamental difference between, say, a 30N6 and a 30N6E1). As a sidenote, the 5N64E/64N6(E) Big Bird was introduced with the PM/PMU1 to replace the 36D6/ST-68. Having the 64N6 as the base search radar for the S-300PS as we do in DCS is incorrect, though the BB can be retrofitted to the system if the customer wants it. Based on this, I think that it is definitely possible to add to DCS an SA-12, an SA-10C/D or even an SA-20A with at the very least the same level of fidelity as other current LR SAM systems. There are numerous books and documents describing these systems online, some written in the 1990s/2000s by people from Almaz-Antey. The field manuals for the SA-12 have also been made available.

If one day ED decides to model all the MR/LR SAMs in depth, with correct guidance laws, EW implementation and the like, then yeah, anything more recent than the SA-10 family will be a big no. As long as the SA-5 and the SA-10 rely on the same (tweaked) pieces of code, there's no reason not to fiddle with more modern systems. As it stands now, it's hypocritical to call out on the SA-10D or SA-20 as being "too modern and classified" while our sim features both a 2008 Viper and Hornet, and has a Typhoon in development. I would be much more concerned about the fidelity of the Typhoon module than that of an AI-only SAM system that would be already severely limited by both the AI itself and the way SAMs are modelled in DCS.

 

While the S-300PS was intended to be capable of shoot-and-scoot techniques the PVO-Strany never operated them as such outside of demonstrations... at least not what I can see based upon publicly available information.  They were deployed to fixed sites.  Given the PVO's focus on defending strategic targets from attack, there was little reason to move as the enemy had to come to you.  The Pack Up and Move time for the PT and PS is quoted as only being 15 minutes different (30 minutes vs 45 minutes on the PT, both of which seem optimistic) which isn't a huge amount of time different in the grand scheme of things.  I WILL agree the lack of being able to MOVE these SAM's in DCS is, without a doubt, the most annoying aspect of it.  Really the Russian Army's S-300V was the pinnacle of "ohh sheet, it is moving and scooting!" since that system was designed to be closer to the front line where Anti-radiation missiles and SEAD/DEAD aircraft were a genuine continuous threat.

Also, I'd caution against just flat saying S-300PS and using that to refer to a specific missile or capability.  The S-300PS/PT used the same missiles once the PS entered service with the PVO... in fact, the NUMBER of missile options JUST in the S-300PS/PT family stands at SEVEN, including a nuclear equipped option and an Anti Radiation version intended to target AWACS aircraft... 

Our DCS one uses, as you know, the 5V55R which is the second oldest missile possible for the S-300PS/PT.  WORSE yet is these systems are not actually limited to just the 5V55 family of missiles... there is nothing stopping the S-300PT's 5P85 Trailers from housing S-400 missiles... in fact, a variant of such trailer exists for the S-400.  The whole lot of S-300P family of missiles is compatible with other variants, including the S-400 (because it was originally designated S-300PMU-3 before receiving a new designation). 

On 2/8/2022 at 9:50 AM, LetMePickThat said:

If we have air defenses, they have to be modelled to match as best as possible their real-life counterpart. Real life pilots loose sleep over the capabilities of the S-300PS? Well, so should you in DCS. The fact that a two-ship Hornet flight can at the moment take down a full S-300PS battery isn't realistic, and should not be a possibility in the sim in the first place. The limits under which the air defenses are forced to operate in DCS are a huge problem for realistic mission makers and serious flyers. Case in point: the the FCRs on modern air defense systems are perfectly able to guide a missile right to the endgame without a hard lock on the target, and unless your RWR happens to detect the radar-missile uplink there is no reason for you to get a launch warning. The fact that DCS gives you such a warning as soon as a 5V55R leaves its canister isn't realistic. The opposite is also true, an S-300PS should be able to lock you and trigger an RWR alert without having to launch a missile, just to make you feel threatened and force you to go to the deck. At the moment, I can mount a successful DEAD mission on a 300PS with my Harrier and two Sidearms. 

EDIT:  It's worth noting that adding the ability to fire with only a lock warning, and no launch warning, was one of the major hassles associated with the HDSM. Auranis, the original developer, found a clever way to do that and it clearly enhanced the realism of SEAD/DEAD missions in complex environnements. Coupled with Skynet to create a more credible IADS means that players can now undertake serious anti-air defenses business in a more realistic setting.

 

Real life pilots lose sleep over SA-2's and SA-3's as much as they do SA-10's.  You respect a threat, even if it's well outmatched by your capabilities.  Just because you can JAM an SA-2 doesn't mean that telephone pole can't still come up to meet you.  You address the threats present.

The S-300's Command Guidance phase is a very short window to get the missile into it's initial orientation for intercept.  It's less than 10 seconds in length.  So technically feasible to command guide an S-300 missile onto a target, the reason it is there in the first place is to deal with the vertical launch angle and firing against low flying targets.  The Command Guidance and Clam Shell were a band-aid for lack of proper low altitude search resolution of the Tin Shield and to a lesser extent the Big Bird.  

Are there any publicly available sources of information on how a western RWR works against an S-300?  I've heard the whole "you wont get a launch warning" thing before, but I don't think this is quantified anywhere is it?  I'd love to read about it if it is though!

As for taking out the in game SA-10, yeah, it's pretty easy... I don't think it would be this easy IRL either, but I think a huge part of this is because the "kill chain" is seriously hampered by the fact these sites operate entirely in a vacuum rather than part of a proper IADS which can pre-cue targeting radars for immediate lock when able.  This is where DCS's limitations start to show up and things like Skynet can help, but not necessarily.  It's been a while since I've really checked, but I'm pretty sure Skynet doesn't necessarily cue target radars based upon EWR's detection of incoming aircraft.

It's also REALLY important to note that the way DCS employs search radars for SAM sites is also entirely incorrect for all but the Tactical SAM's and the SA-2/SA-3... You RARELY see a Big Bird or Tin Shield parked near an S-300 site.  They are usually at the division level EWR site which could contain a number of search radars including long wavelength search radars and the Big Bird/Tin Shield.  Sometimes those sites include 2-3 of those radars.  The P-19 Flat Face was deployed directly with SA-2 and SA-3 sites but it wasn't necessarily a requirement either... the Soviet PVO IADS allowed for near autonomous cuing of track radars based upon EWR contacts... this is ESPECIALLY true for the SA-5 which could cue based upon either the P-14 horizontal radar + PRV-13/PRV-17 height finder radars OR the IADS network's 3D EWR's.  No amount of scripting will get around DCS's limitations in this regards.  The SA-5 is just borked in DCS to begin with... the Tin Shield was never associated with this system... Syrian or otherwise.  While TECHNICALLY the S-300 command vehicle can cue and fire the SA-5 as part of its design requirements for the Moscow Defense Ring, that doesn't mean the Tin Shield should suddenly be its search radar!

At any rate... I'm rambling now... I hope you have implemented my code fix on the S-300PS in your S-300 Asset Pack to include the Tin Shield... and in the mean time, my SA-5 mod will suffice in correcting the blinding of the SA-5 in DCS. 

 

What us SAM nerds should do is get a list to ED of what features should be modeled to allow for more accurate modelling of systems (especially older systems which have optical guidance options in addition to radar, HOJ, and other launch methods).  I'm talking about specifically how these systems were not so strict with their requirement to have a search radar to function... or at least, the search radars currently available in game!

EDIT: Holy necro... guess I should have date checked this. =|

Edited August 3, 2023 by Whiskey11