Isn't the SA2 too deadly?

[falcon_120]

So I was testing SAM evassion techniques against different SAMs today and i noticed how deadly the SA2 is. Obviusly is a potent SAM with great range, but i was under the impression that its susceptibility to chaff and a high-g barrel roll should do the trick, specially from a clean F16 on a 9g turn. Well... it turns out the SA2 hold its own incredibly well (as good even as a SA11), and from short to medium range the missile follows incredibly well and high g maneuver.

Is that ok? In that other sim the SA2 can be defeated with a 4g turn, and sometime it just cant cope up with the initial turn towards the targets if its close... It probably something in the middle i guess

[BIGNEWY]

Hi, 

our SA2 has been modelled with the information available, if you think it is incorrect we would need to see unclassified / public information to show the team for adjustments. 

Other sims can not be used as evidence of an issue. 

thanks 

bignewy

[Esac_mirmidon]

Maybe something related to the SA-2 versión modelled.

Nothing in common between the 1967 SA-2 deployed in Vietnam with more modern versions like the 1995 S-75M.

[falcon_120]

Fair enough, so i would add 2 considerations:

• Is the plan delivering a 1967 SA2 sam to better reflect that era? wink to the F4 
• The current one is for sure deadly, its better to treat it as a SA11/SA10 threat, and i'm not kidding, however shouldn't the chaff/ECM resistant be maybe revisitted? I have not be able to break a lock through Chaffing my whole expendables kit while jamming and doing high g turns, but obviusly this goes in the I FEEL category, i leave it there.

[Nealius]

First-hand accounts from the '91 Gulf War repeatedly and explicitly state that the SA-2 is not a difficult threat to defeat, and that it is not particularly maneuverable. The two questions thus:

1. What version of SA-2 was fielded by Iraq in 1991?

2. What version of SA-2 is modeled in DCS?

[okopanja]

11 minutes ago, Nealius said:

First-hand accounts from the '91 Gulf War repeatedly and explicitly state that the SA-2 is not a difficult threat to defeat, and that it is not particularly maneuverable. The two questions thus:

1. What version of SA-2 was fielded by Iraq in 1991?

2. What version of SA-2 is modeled in DCS?

I find your questions really interesting and hope we get this information, but aside from technical parameters, the SAM effectiveness largely depends on the crews, their morale (not everyone are willing to sit in SAM and risk HARM hit) and tactics. How deadly SA-2 was in it's prime time can be illustrated with the fact that majority of US air casualties in Vietnam can be attributed to SAMs.

Generally speaking SAMs in DCS are too weak: majority of them gets killed too easily. The number of aircrafts you have to use and number of expanded HARMs in real life, might surprise you. Especially if the SAM crews is reasonably good and apply countermeasures that are not even modeled in DCS.

 

 

[Exorcet]

I've noticed this too. When I want to put a somewhat difficult SAM on the field, I often end up using the SA-2. I know ED was going through missiles and adjusting parameters, but I've lost track of what is considered done or not. The SA-2 is very low drag which gives it great range and agility, where as missiles like the Patriot and SA-11 fly like bricks.

[Nealius]

53 minutes ago, okopanja said:

How deadly SA-2 was in it's prime time can be illustrated with the fact that majority of US air casualties in Vietnam can be attributed to SAMs.

This is a skewed statistic, though, given the lack of RWR tech, chaff, etc. at the time. In the '91 Gulf War there are of course accounts of missiles launching unguided, radars being switched off due to SEAD presence, however there are also plenty of accounts (as well as HUD footage) of SA-2s guiding on aircraft without SEAD/EW support and having to defeat them kinematically. 

Here's one of many accounts (1:31:00~1:35:00 mark, somewhere in there), which circles back around to the question, what version of SA-2 do we have in DCS and how does it compare to what Iraq had in '91?

 

Edited February 7, 2023 by Nealius

[some1]

2 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

Hi, 

our SA2 has been modelled with the information available, if you think it is incorrect we would need to see unclassified / public information to show the team for adjustments. 

Other sims can not be used as evidence of an issue. 

thanks 

bignewy

The what about other SAM systems in DCS? Because right now against a single AI A-10, SA2 effectiveness is almost guaranteed one missile shot = one kill. While a Patriot SAM site wasted dozen missiles and still got destroyed by that single aircraft.

samPatriot.trk samSA2.trk

[some1]

2 hours ago, okopanja said:

How deadly SA-2 was in it's prime time can be illustrated with the fact that majority of US air casualties in Vietnam can be attributed to SAMs.

Even then, the Vietnamese used on average 3+ missiles for every kill they achieved, and that is according to Vietnamese stats. 

Against the B-52 formations by the end of the war, equipped with ECM and countermeasures, SA-2 effectiveness was measured in single %'s.

Edited February 7, 2023 by some1

[okopanja]

29 minutes ago, some1 said:

Even then, the Vietnamese used on average 3+ missiles for every kill they achieved, and that is according to Vietnamese stats. 

Do you have the source for the stats?

I recall that common problem with these stats quoted is that they usually come from pilots. Frequent problem is multiplication of the same event.

On the opposite side the frequent problem is that SAMs initially did not have the common exchange with other systems, so they targeted the same target, often resulting in the victim being hit multiple times. I will find the reference to this in a book which is covering the history of soviet SAMs and the their networks...

Edited February 7, 2023 by okopanja

[Eldur]

It's weird. I made the exact opposite observation. They won't shoot at all unless I fly directly overhead at at least 10-15k ft. Yes, that makes them probably more dangerous that you might think, but I would expect them to shoot a LOT earlier than "Oh hi, nice flyby. Guess you're an enemy, so how's a nice missile up your butt?".

[some1]

2 hours ago, okopanja said:

Do you have the source for the stats?

https://ospreypublishing.com/us/b52-stratofortress-vs-sa2-guideline-sam-9781472823625/

That and other books on the subject often quote 266 as the number of missiles launched during Linebacker 2 as reported by the Vietnamese, while US Intelligence gives 800-1000 launches. No matter which number you believe, against 15 bombers lost during that campaign this gives effectiveness well below 10%. 

Overall North Vietnam is said to expand 5'800 missiles during the course of the war, around 6 missiles for each plane shot down according to North Vietnamese, or around 30 missiles for each plane if you only count the aircraft officially confirmed shot down by SAMs in US statistics. 

The majority of aircraft lost in Vietnam is attributed to AAA, not SAMs as you claim. 

 

1 hour ago, Eldur said:

It's weird. I made the exact opposite observation. They won't shoot at all unless I fly directly overhead at at least 10-15k ft. Yes, that makes them probably more dangerous that you might think, but I would expect them to shoot a LOT earlier than "Oh hi, nice flyby. Guess you're an enemy, so how's a nice missile up your butt?".

Do you create a site using SA-2 template provided in DCS, or just drop some launchers in the editor? They work best when they have search and track radars operating.

Edited February 7, 2023 by some1

[Dragon1-1]

I suspect we have a very modern, upgraded SA-2. In the 80s, SAMs in Russia would have been the S-75M, which could be quite deadly, and were far superior to missiles used either in Vietnam or Iraq. Much of our ground unit roster is a holdover from LOMAC, so I'd expect that to be the basis, not the older Vietnamese SA-2, or the inferior export version sold to Iraq. The other sim models several SAM variants, with the most prominent SA-2 being an inferior model sold to North Korea.

ED should really look into expanding the SAM lineup to include a wider selection of variants. In particular, older SA-2 variants that would fit the Phantom's timeframe (well, OK, the S-75M kind of does, but only for the USSR). Remember, the very first Weasels used dumb bombs to deal with the sites. The early SA-2 had limited engagement envelope, was limited to one missile in the air per site, and couldn't pull a whole lot of Gs.

[okopanja]

1 hour ago, some1 said:

That and other books on the subject often quote 266 as the number of missiles launched during Linebacker 2 as reported by the Vietnamese, while US Intelligence gives 800-1000 launches. No matter which number you believe, against 15 bombers lost during that campaign this gives effectiveness well below 10%. 

Overall North Vietnam is said to expand 5'800 missiles during the course of the war, around 6 missiles for each plane shot down according to North Vietnamese, or around 30 missiles for each plane if you only count the aircraft officially confirmed shot down by SAMs in US statistics. 

The majority of aircraft lost in Vietnam is attributed to AAA, not SAMs as you claim. 

Losses over years for AIR Force bombers:

Edited February 7, 2023 by okopanja

[okopanja]

2 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

suspect we have a very modern, upgraded SA-2. In the 80s, SAMs in Russia would have been the S-75M, which could be quite deadly, and were far superior to missiles used either in Vietnam or Iraq. Much of our ground unit roster is a holdover from LOMAC, so I'd expect that to be the basis, not the older Vietnamese SA-2, or the inferior export version sold to Iraq. The other sim models several SAM variants, with the most prominent SA-2 being an inferior model sold to North Korea.

ED should really look into expanding the SAM lineup to include a wider selection of variants. In particular, older SA-2 variants that would fit the Phantom's timeframe (well, OK, the S-75M kind of does, but only for the USSR). Remember, the very first Weasels used dumb bombs to deal with the sites. The early SA-2 had limited engagement envelope, was limited to one missile in the air per site, and couldn't pull a whole lot of Gs.

I took a look at SA-2 composition, although at the moment I am more focused on SA-3 and SA-6, so I am not 100% confident on all possible combinations at time of Vietnam War. From what I got for search radars possible search radar options were:

- P-12, Janesej, introduced 1956

- P-15 Tropa, introduced 1955

- P-18 Terek (this one was used within SA-3 to down F-117A and F-16CG in 1999), derived from P-12, introduced 1970

- P-19 Danube, derived from P-15, introduced 1974

This means within Vietnam Era War, P-19 could not possibly fit. If ED wishes to cover the Vietnam Era and likely Yom Kimpur war, they need to implement at minimum 3 additional radars and possibly additional height and iff radars. Note that each had revisions that introduced additional capabilities.

In addition the cabins for these radars are missing (true for SA-3, SA-6 as well).

As for the missile, the DCS fires SA2V755, which is actually which has factory designation 20D and belongs to S-75M3 variant. 

The tracking radar SNR-75 also had several versions and in DCS case is SNR-75M3, which was introduced in 1975.

IMHO: for the upcoming F-4E release, the set of opponents has to be updated to feature more fidelity. Namely SA-2, SA-3 and SA-6 need significant improvements in terms of possible radars and fidelity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 7, 2023 by okopanja

[some1]

1 hour ago, okopanja said:

Losses over years for AIR Force bombers:

These look like a sum of all types of losses, including non-combat accidents. 

https://www.vietnamwar50th.com/education/week_of_july_3_2022/#:~:text=A total of 18 B,lost on July 7%2C 1967.

[Koty]

10 hours ago, falcon_120 said:

So I was testing SAM evassion techniques against different SAMs today and i noticed how deadly the SA2 is. Obviusly is a potent SAM with great range, but i was under the impression that its susceptibility to chaff and a high-g barrel roll should do the trick, specially from a clean F16 on a 9g turn. Well... it turns out the SA2 hold its own incredibly well (as good even as a SA11), and from short to medium range the missile follows incredibly well and high g maneuver.

Is that ok? In that other sim the SA2 can be defeated with a 4g turn, and sometime it just cant cope up with the initial turn towards the targets if its close... It probably something in the middle i guess

As BN mentioned, using other sims as resource is not a great move.

Anyway, it's not that the SAM is OP, its just wrong and so the methods you would use IRL do not work, while methods the SAM is specifically designed to not be affected by do work.

 

Let me start by saying the following - in a technical discussion, let's not call it just "SA-2" because that can lead to many problems thanks to not being specific enough, but instead use the actual variant names.
 

10 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

Hi, 

our SA2 has been modelled with the information available, if you think it is incorrect we would need to see unclassified / public information to show the team for adjustments. 

Other sims can not be used as evidence of an issue. 

thanks 

bignewy

In addition to the above, the missile uses the wrong guidance method, wrong tracking logic, its missing half the features that make it work IRL, etc. It's all down to limitations of currend SAM codebase, although as Chizh mentioned in the Ru section of the forum couple months back there is a plan to rework the SAMs so my hopes are high. In case of interest, I do finally have the S-75M manual.

This brings me to the next point.

10 hours ago, Esac_mirmidon said:

Maybe something related to the SA-2 versión modelled.

Nothing in common between the 1967 SA-2 deployed in Vietnam with more modern versions like the 1995 S-75M.

Vietnam used mainly SA-75MK; S-75M is not a "1995 version", it's from mid 1960s. They should behave very similar.

 

10 hours ago, falcon_120 said:

Fair enough, so i would add 2 considerations:

• Is the plan delivering a 1967 SA2 sam to better reflect that era? wink to the F4 
• The current one is for sure deadly, its better to treat it as a SA11/SA10 threat, and i'm not kidding, however shouldn't the chaff/ECM resistant be maybe revisitted? I have not be able to break a lock through Chaffing my whole expendables kit while jamming and doing high g turns, but obviusly this goes in the I FEEL category, i leave it there.

One - The S-75M we have (at least, the radar of which we already have) would already represent a contemporary to the 1970s F-4E, but I would certainly love an older variant, like SA-75M, we already got the models for the launchers anyway.

Two - with how the Dvina/Desna/Volchov work, breaking lock is not enough to defeat the system, as the operator can still manually track you by steering the TWS display onto your mark manually. SPJs are practically useless as well, best you can do is deny range information with a noise jammer or force manual track with angular deception jamming (invese amplitude modulation).

9 hours ago, Nealius said:

First-hand accounts from the '91 Gulf War repeatedly and explicitly state that the SA-2 is not a difficult threat to defeat, and that it is not particularly maneuverable. The two questions thus:

1. What version of SA-2 was fielded by Iraq in 1991?

2. What version of SA-2 is modeled in DCS?

S-75M is the answer to both, in theory. I think Iraq also had some older SA-75M(K)'s. However, seeing the inconsistent art assets, it still begs the question, which version is it supposed to be?

8 hours ago, okopanja said:

I find your questions really interesting and hope we get this information, but aside from technical parameters, the SAM effectiveness largely depends on the crews, their morale (not everyone are willing to sit in SAM and risk HARM hit) and tactics. How deadly SA-2 was in it's prime time can be illustrated with the fact that majority of US air casualties in Vietnam can be attributed to SAMs.

Generally speaking SAMs in DCS are too weak: majority of them gets killed too easily. The number of aircrafts you have to use and number of expanded HARMs in real life, might surprise you. Especially if the SAM crews is reasonably good and apply countermeasures that are not even modeled in DCS.

^THIS
Due to the S-75M in DCS using proportional navigation instead of its correct command guidance modes, its much easier to defeat than in reality.

7 hours ago, some1 said:

The what about other SAM systems in DCS? Because right now against a single AI A-10, SA2 effectiveness is almost guaranteed one missile shot = one kill. While a Patriot SAM site wasted dozen missiles and still got destroyed by that single aircraft.

samPatriot.trk 134.27 kB · 1 download samSA2.trk 73.86 kB · 2 downloads

Sorry to put it this way, but skill issue. S-75 is extremely easy to defeat.

2 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

I suspect we have a very modern, upgraded SA-2. In the 80s, SAMs in Russia would have been the S-75M, which could be quite deadly, and were far superior to missiles used either in Vietnam or Iraq. Much of our ground unit roster is a holdover from LOMAC, so I'd expect that to be the basis, not the older Vietnamese SA-2, or the inferior export version sold to Iraq. The other sim models several SAM variants, with the most prominent SA-2 being an inferior model sold to North Korea.

We have a 1960s S-75M with practically fantasy missiles, using proportional navigation like a SARH missile would. Again, I'd like to know which exact variant is this supposed to be. Again, try being more specific with the variants, you'll see there is a lot more nuance to it than just "vietnamese SA-2" or "inferior model sold to north korea".

2 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

ED should really look into expanding the SAM lineup to include a wider selection of variants. In particular, older SA-2 variants that would fit the Phantom's timeframe (well, OK, the S-75M kind of does, but only for the USSR). Remember, the very first Weasels used dumb bombs to deal with the sites. The early SA-2 had limited engagement envelope, was limited to one missile in the air per site, and couldn't pull a whole lot of Gs.

Not just USSR, the whole of Warsaw Pact at the very least. Keep in mind the oldest phantom HB is planning to make right now is a 1974 standard, Czechoslovakia received first S-75M Volchovs already in the 60s to replace original SA-75 and SA-75M Dvinas delivered in the early 60s.

No variant was ever limited to just one missile in the air either. They always could handle 3 airborne missiles.

 

If we do have the SNR-75M3 as Okopanje just sent as I'm typing this, and not just 75M, it pushes the time frame out a little bit. The missile being internally named V755 is interesting, however since the 3D model is already that of the V750, it makes me wonder if the stats fit the 20D (or any of its later derivates).

So now, in no particlar order of importance, couple of actual issues with the system:

• It is not clear which variant of the system it's supposed to represent. At the very least the models and naming are inconsistent, if someone wants to poke around in the files we might be able to figure out if at least the values fit.
• Missiles use wrong guidance logic - currently they use proportional navigation, in reality they had 3 modes to select from. Three-point method, essentially advanced beam riding (system tries to align the missile with sight line), half-lead (system tries to deflect missile alignment line to point half way between pure lead intercept point and the aircraft), K-mode, which is half-lead in horizontal plane and vertically commanded altitude (this prevents driving missile into the ground). Missiles are in reality also only capale of up to 7G manoeuvres, 5Ya23 for the Volchov might be better as it was specifically designed to deal with low-altitude and actively manoeuvring targets.
• Site is missing all of its assets, including generators and transformer unit, command and control cabins, computer cabins.
• System is missing capability to connect to Vozduch-1 datalink.
• I have not observed the capability to launch on the TV channel.

Edited February 7, 2023 by Koty

[some1]

4 minutes ago, Koty said:

Sorry to put it this way, but skill issue. S-75 is extremely easy to defeat.

Lol, it's the AI flying in both cases, and not even on Ace level. Still, it smokes the Patriot site, but can't defeat one S-75.

 

12 minutes ago, Koty said:

mentioned in the Ru section of the forum couple months back there is a plan to rework...

Yeah, like it's the case with half of DCS.

20 minutes ago, Koty said:

We have a 1960s S-75M with practically fantasy missiles, using proportional navigation like a SARH missile would. Again, I'd like to know which exact variant is this supposed to be.

Careful, as Bignewy said in the first post, "SA2 has been modelled with the information available".   

[Koty]

On the last point, as I mentioned, its working around the limitation of current code base. So not just with information available but also with the API available.

[okopanja]

48 minutes ago, some1 said:

Lol, it's the AI flying in both cases, and not even on Ace level. Still, it smokes the Patriot site, but can't defeat one S-75.

Patriot has contraversal combat records, with most kills being friendly fire. I believe Israelis did improve somewhat the combat record post 2010, however I find hawk to be much more interesting(awaiting for my book).

Edited February 7, 2023 by okopanja

[okopanja]

19 minutes ago, some1 said:

Careful, as Bignewy said in the first post, "SA2 has been modelled with the information available". 

It would be nice if Bignewy could push for more priority on SAMs in general.

I think I pointed out that even cabins are missing? Heightfinders? Iff? Power sources. ASURK-1? Vazduh-1?

Obviosly ED did choose a bit simplistic approach, but F-4E deserves decent opponents from the same era.

The best way to start having better, realistic and more challanging SEAD is to start improving the old SAMs for which the detailed technical documentation is readily available in archives.

Edited February 7, 2023 by okopanja

[Esac_mirmidon]

I mean S-75M Volga, that is from 1995, that uses some technology from the S-300.

[Koty]

48 minutes ago, Esac_mirmidon said:

I mean S-75M Volga, that is from 1995, that uses some technology from the S-300.

ah, fair enough, to be fair its too new for my taste so I'm not surprised I never heard of the Volga, but looks interesting.

[Mars Exulte]

12 hours ago, Nealius said:

First-hand accounts from the '91 Gulf War repeatedly and explicitly state that the SA-2 is not a difficult threat to defeat

 And we all know the Iraqis prided themselves on their all volunteer force, trained to such high standards they shamed even many European militaries.