Best way to avoid incoming missiles?

[GGTharos]

If the SAMs get smarter, you'll need SEAD ;)

[Chibawang]

Yeesh! I'm all for realistic simulation, but I gotta admit: I fear a remodelling of SAM systems. I'm having enough trouble already! :surrender:

[RedTiger]

Excellent News :thumbup:

 

One Question However: Whilst the one parameter will be modelled, ie a more 'effective' seeker, would consideration then be given for the modelling of the parameters you stated, ie the indecision of the MANPAD operator for one?

 

Does one not run the risk of creating a virtually 'unstoppable/unspoofable' Super-Heater?

 

This makes me wonder...what does the targeting sight of a Stinger look like? Or any shoulder-fired heat seeker? As simulated in most flight sims, you can uncage an Aim-9 and pretty easily tell if its actually tracking the aircraft or a flare. Seeing as how these heaters are probably always uncaged, can you tell if its tracking a flare? Maybe it wouldn't be indecision from the AI but rather not being able to track the aircraft while its still in parameters.

 

^^^^

That DOES sound cool, doesn't it? :D

Edited January 14, 2009 by RedTiger

[GGTharos]

You can't really tell, IIRC - the targeting system just gives you a sound feedback as to whether the seeker is locked on and tracking. The sight itself is just for boresighting the seeker onto the target - then you uncage, lead and elevate as required.

[scatter]

Obviously? You jest. The most recent Attack Heli v. SAM exericse in germany showed that Helis that run into a well designed, modern IADS will have an incredibly tough time. In fact, it would appear that they just cannot win. Even LongBows.

 

That radar can be detected. It is certainly not perfect either, and the MMW hellfire can be spoofed. Also, the MMW hellfire is a NEW addition to the arsenal, and AFAIK, it is in fact still rare - for now the laser hellfires are used.

 

The LongBow is OBVIOUSLY designed for hunting armor. That is what it does. It is what it is equipped for. Not for hunting SAMs of any sort - that is an exception.

 

Leave SEAD to the aircraft designed for it ... and do what you're designed to do in that 64D: Blowing up T-xx's.

 

And yet they were successfully used to clear a path of SAMs/AA and drop beacons for aircraft in a real life conflict (not an exercise) - the first IRAQ war. Even with laser guided hellfires their LOAL capability means minimum exposure in high threat environments.

[GGTharos]

In this instance AH-64s were guided by PaveLows (IIRC) and they were tasked with taking out a specific or a couple of specific C^3 centers. Wild Weasels STILL did their job against SAMs, not AH-64s. Those took out SAMs close to their targets, but those SAMs had no anti-helicopter capability.

[Teapot]

... or you could do yoga; so you can kiss your ass goodbye :D.

Seriously though, I wonder what the general consensus on missile modeling is from the number crunchers; considering the OP it sounds like it's pretty difficult nigh impossible avoiding SAMs in a chopper.

 

Cheers!

[fox_111]

This thread turned out to be very interesting.

 

It also inspired me to make a little mission with lot's of SAM sites to test some tactics.

 

It turned out that without fixed wing air cover to bug the SAMS, I got nailed too fast to find and destroy the SAM sites.

[MBot]

This is why you should practice using flares pre-emptively, not re-actively.

 

I think Feuerfalke makes a very good point about flares drawing in attention. Currently it is already modeles for AI aircraft (they more easely detect targets that launch flares) and I hope at one point such advanced detection logics will also apply to ground units. In some situations running a pre-emptive flare program might do more harm than it helps. Attack helicopters depend a lot on operating undedected (unfortunately this aspect is currently still underdeveloped in Black Shark), so launching flares will be a tradeoff between security against missiles vs. not getting shot at in the first place.

[Feuerfalke]

In DesertStorm the EWRs were taken out before the launch by AH-64As - they don't have radar. :smilewink:

 

But they can coordinate with scout-helos and ground-troops to home in their laser-guided missiles, which made the major advantage then. But as helos can mask behind the terrain a lot better than any plane can, helos have a much better chance against those kind of targets.

 

This does not apply 100% to the BlackShark, though, as the primary goals of the scenario for the BS was a little different.

 

 

Back to topic:

AFAIK you drop flares preemptively, when you know you've been detected anyway and the bad guys are alert. As the interaction of the AI in BS is pretty much down to zero and AI units don't even care if their fired upon or not, I see no reason to provide the AI a better chance of detecting me by dropping flares for fun in BS.

It IS a more realistic tactic for sure, but as a real pilot would have to adapt to the battlefield environment, IMHO we can adopt to game mechanics. :smilewink:

Edited January 14, 2009 by Feuerfalke

[Feuerfalke]

In this instance AH-64s were guided by PaveLows (IIRC) and they were tasked with taking out a specific or a couple of specific C^3 centers. Wild Weasels STILL did their job against SAMs, not AH-64s. Those took out SAMs close to their targets, but those SAMs had no anti-helicopter capability.

 

Actually this is the main reason why helos are called in to take out SAMs. In the military, they are rather fast 100%-all-terrain-ground-units and as such are called in to take out airdefenses against highflying planes. No doubt they coordinate with WWs, which indeed makes the most sense to effectively take them out, but in Iraq helos played a very vital role, especially in the first stages. In both cases Apaches started to take out EWRs, C3s, reconpositions and SAMs 8 hours before the airstrikes were even started. And in the last run towards Badgad in the first phase, there were no WWs at all, just stealthbombers and a mass of helos, that cleared the way.

[AlphaOneSix]

The Apaches that started the ground war took out two EW radar sites, and that's all. It was only 8 Apaches. They didn't attack anything else prior to the rest of the air war starting.

 

Once the whole air campaign got under way, Apaches started taking out all kinds of targets, but dedicated SAM sited were not typically one of those targets.

 

And to be fair, Iraq's air defense system in 1990-1991 was a complete joke.

[therion_prime]

CM Program 7-1-8 with both dispensers enabled.

 

Got hit only once, and there were LOTS of IR-Sams launched at me until now :music_whistling:

 

Yesterday I was not careful again :doh: and had to fight two Strelas who were both firing at me non stop - and I was in a hover. 7-1-8 to the rescue! You could actually see the missiles got distracted as soon as they were launched and all of them dropped too low.

[Feuerfalke]

The Apaches that started the ground war took out two EW radar sites, and that's all. It was only 8 Apaches. They didn't attack anything else prior to the rest of the air war starting.

 

Once the whole air campaign got under way, Apaches started taking out all kinds of targets, but dedicated SAM sited were not typically one of those targets.

 

And to be fair, Iraq's air defense system in 1990-1991 was a complete joke.

 

Actually your statement does not contradict my 2 points:

 

1. Apaches are used against SAM-threats for high-flying aircraft, EWR and C3.

 

The fact that Iraq didn't have any other EWR along the ingress and egress-routes, other than around Bagdad, where the stealthbombers were the more suitable weapon of choice, Iraqi forces never had any sophisticated capabilities against high flying threats, so this does not contradict my statement.

But it supports my second point:

 

2. Most modern conflicts are not an example of how the doctrine of a European battlefield would have been, as it is simulated in DCS, as there were no StealthBombers and the NATO-forces would have been faced with a quite different level of equipment.

 

 

It's even highly doubtfull that the B2s and F117s would have had such a profound success in a WW3 scenario. You can't make a doctrine or general strategy from watching bows and arrows fighting a lighting.

[McVittees]

When the IR seeker code gets updated, I hope they update the MANPAD unit intself. At the moment I think they have unlimited reloads or at least three. The number of reloads should be a mission designer variable or reduced to one. Then if you wanted more missiles you would add more shooters. I don't know how MANPADS are deployed in modern armies but I'd assume one man doesn't lug around three or more missiles without somekind of support vehicle/team.

[d0ppler]

When the IR seeker code gets updated, I hope they update the MANPAD unit intself. At the moment I think they have unlimited reloads or at least three. The number of reloads should be a mission designer variable or reduced to one. Then if you wanted more missiles you would add more shooters. I don't know how MANPADS are deployed in modern armies but I'd assume one man doesn't lug around three or more missiles without somekind of support vehicle/team.

 

I have a feeling that no ground unit has any limitation to weapons in terms of bullets/rockets/missiles in the current state of DCS

[AlphaOneSix]

I have a feeling that no ground unit has any limitation to weapons in terms of bullets/rockets/missiles in the current state of DCS

 

They do, they just are not necessarily correct. ;)

[MBot]

I don't know how MANPADS are deployed in modern armies but I'd assume one man doesn't lug around three or more missiles without somekind of support vehicle/team.

 

As I recently learned, in the russian army it is the following for SAM platoons organic to mechanized infantry: SAM teams have two soldiers, one carrying the Igla launcher with a ready missile and the second man carrying a reload missile. 3 such teams ride in a BMP/BTR. In the vehicle are 5 additional missiles for each team (15 missiles total).

[GGTharos]

Actually your statement does not contradict my 2 points:

 

1. Apaches are used against SAM-threats for high-flying aircraft, EWR and C3.

 

No, Apaches WERE used against one EWR site. Don't try to make an exception into doctrine.

 

The fact that Iraq didn't have any other EWR along the ingress and egress-routes, other than around Bagdad, where the stealthbombers were the more suitable weapon of choice, Iraqi forces never had any sophisticated capabilities against high flying threats, so this does not contradict my statement.

 

But it supports my second point:

 

Except it doesn't. The bombers had better targets to go after, while the Apache's were able to be tasked with nailing that EWR site. It's basically making the best use of resources.

 

2. Most modern conflicts are not an example of how the doctrine of a European battlefield would have been, as it is simulated in DCS, as there were no StealthBombers and the NATO-forces would have been faced with a quite different level of equipment.

 

And helis would still not be used in SEAD missions, unless they had nothing better to do. In the case of a fulda gap scenario, they did indeed have something much better to do than hunting SAMs: Blowing up the river of armor the Soviets would have been sending through.

 

 

It's even highly doubtfull that the B2s and F117s would have had such a profound success in a WW3 scenario. You can't make a doctrine or general strategy from watching bows and arrows fighting a lighting.

 

They were made for that WW3 scenario. F-117's were made to attack C&C deep behind enemy lines. Apache's weren't.

 

B2's were made for nuking things deep inside enemy territory. Apache's weren't.

[arneh]

And helis would still not be used in SEAD missions, unless they had nothing better to do. In the case of a fulda gap scenario, they did indeed have something much better to do than hunting SAMs: Blowing up the river of armor the Soviets would have been sending through.

 

Actually from Fulda Gap scenarios I've read the Apaches would take out SAMs so that A-10s would be able to take out armor more efficiently. The A-10 works much better when it isn't shot down by SAMs :) And the Apache is better at SEAD than the A-10 which has neither speed (to avoid missiles) nor as good ability to use terrain for cover as the Apache. Though admittedly it was argued if that was the best way of using the Hellfires, considering that the tanks was the big threat overall.

[GGTharos]

From fulda gap scenarios I've read and exercises I've read about, Apaches would be blowing up enemy armor, A-10's would be blowing up enemy armor, and wild weasels would be going after SAMs ;)

Further in the latest heli v SAM exercise, the helis got owned.

[MBot]

I remember aswell reading that for the Apaches, Shilkas and SA-9/13 ( and possibly SA-8 ) were priority targets to make life easier for the A-10s and other helos and therefore help defeating the flow of armor. Sound like SEAD to me.

[BRraptor]

I remember aswell reading that for the Apaches, Shilkas and SA-9/13 ( and possibly SA-8 ) were priority targets to make life easier for the A-10s and other helos and therefore help defeating the flow of armor. Sound like SEAD to me.

 

Nope, SEAD is suppression of enemy air defenses. Obviously, if an Apache pilot were faced with a shilka or strella, he will prioritize it as a target, but it doesn't mean the airframe was made for it.

 

SEAD aircraft must have room for sophisticated electronics, able to pinpoint a radar location given its RF emissions, categorize it, and use specific weaponry (HARMs, ALARMs etc) to shutdown a site from a safe range (and for this one the aircraft should have a high kinetic potential, to give its missile a range/speed advantage and to escape a possible hypersonic SAM), and to preemptively force SAM operators to shut down. Actually, a SEAD mission can be successfully accomplished without even kill the enemy, if the jammers can protect the escorted package by disallowing enemy radars from functioning (EF-111/EA-6B), or if the loitering ARMs fired can provide a deterrence force preventing the radar operators from turning on their radars (something that happened a lot in Iraq but mostly Yugoslavia).

 

Of course there are DEAD missions (destruction of EAD) for which some aircraft like A-10 and the Apache are able to participate after the radar threat has been neutralized.

 

And in Iraq the Apaches killed an EW site. A radar does not fire back. The next missions were covered with Ravens and Prowlers.

 

I'd strongly recommend those links for more information on the general subject of electronic warfare, I think this is as close as it gets to the real deal for the general public since the crucial details are of course classified.

 

http://www.ausairpower.net/iw.html

http://www.ausairpower.net/isr-ncw.html

 

Actually, it would be nice to know if DCS models radar jamming at some degree, but since there is no Raven/Prowler/Growler models I would guess no.

[haigotron]

Argh, I was just doing the South Ossetia Pirates Mission, when I got blown out of the sky by an Igla....

 

All that long journey to get there...and as soon as I spotted my targets..bam...i was a dent in the side of the mountain...my wingman was already dead...he crash at the peak of the mountain, between waypoint 2 and 3...so no one else was looking out for me :(

 

What setting to you usually use for preemptive flares? And how far out do you start deploying them?

[therion_prime]

What setting to you usually use for preemptive flares? And how far out do you start deploying them?

 

7-1-8 (both dispensers enabled) for teh win!