Realistic SAM Sites

[f15e]

We have all these extremely realistic aircraft and helicopters however the SAM sites are extremely arcadey and simple, they don't even have a fraction of the most important features like TWS and repositioning for mobile vehicles. This is an issue that has been plaguing DCS for a number of years and i am tired of this extremely sterile environment I have to fight in. Same goes for electronic warfare but that is a whole other issue in dcs. All we get is the message that there a plans to change it but is it actually on a priority list or is it some plan that is a few years away? 

[Northstar98]

It would be absolutely lovely.

A couple of years back (IIRC) there was a 3rd party IADS module planned but it seems to have been abandoned. ED had plans of their own but no details as of yet.

Personally though, and I'm sorry to say this, but I feel like it should be said, I find it quite difficult to believe that we'll be seeing significant changes in this area for the forseeable future. I mean, it's nearly been 2 and half years since the S-200 released and it still doesn't even have the right search/acquisition radars. Let alone have the right guidance profiles. What's worse is that we've had a 3D model for a radar, of perfectly adequate quality, appropriately animated and in the right format, that's not only more suitable for the S-200, but fits a decent chunk of our maps and was very prolific, being a staple Cold War Eastern Bloc radar. Yet, for over a decade, it's been relegated to wholly non-functional eye candy on the Caucasus map alone.

Sticking with radars, it's been more than 2 and half years since the trailer mounted Tin Shield released and it still can't be used with the SAM system it's actually accurate for. It also cannot be used in the role that it's more commonly utilised IRL, as a general purpose EWR. Both of these are items that would be fixed with just a small addition on a single line in 2 .lua files, something that should take no more than a minute or 2 at most.

If it's taking this long to just get these items (which, apart from 3D work for the former, should honestly be trivial), how long is it going to take for say, FCRs to get their respective modes modelled? For the S-75 and S-125 to be treated as command guided with their proper profiles (i.e. half-lead/lead and 3-point, instead of SARH with proportional navigation)? For backup optical modes for applicable systems to be implemented? For the SM-2MR to actually behave like an SM-2MR, instead of an SM-1? And on and on and on. Let alone stuff like tactics, IADS-like functionality (I mean, even there the purely cosmetic EWRs on some maps are problematic enough) and electronic warfare.

Looking at the title, when it comes to SAM sites, battery components for all but a select few are quite thin, for the S-75 it's the minimum and the S-200 isn't even that. There still aren't things like placeable revetments and for the Caucasus and the SoH/PG map, real-word SAM sites (such as what's seen on Sinai and at some sites in Syria) aren't even present!

Okay, rant over. I'd love to be proven wrong here, but given that the absolute basics, that should be the bare minimum are taking multiple years to implement (if they're even still planned) it's really, really difficult to be optimistic about this.

Edited February 16, 2024 by Northstar98
Grammar, minor addendum/correction

[Exorcet]

I think the SAM issue is one of the larger ones in DCS currently. From what I gather, ED seems to think AG is preferred to pure AA. Maybe that's true for most players, but I find it hard to get into AG with SAM's as they are. They barely do anything to warrant the I in AI since they just sit emitting until something gets close enough to be fired upon. When the Hornet came out I thought SEAD would be the most fun AG mission to fly, but it turns out it takes a lot of setup to make SAM's exciting.

While SAM systems could be improved massively in a lot of areas, I think as a first improvement they need is having some kind of life to them even more than they need detailed systems or radars. At a minimum they need to try to hide emissions and work together with other radars around the map. That alone would make them many many times more engaging and threatening than they are now without putting a burden on mission editors to spend forever setting up triggers or IADS scripts.

Then of course, like all AI, they also need some human fallibility. Without that we run the risk of going too far the other way and creating nigh unbeatable super weapons. Ideally some delay time in communication between units/groups, uncertainty on the part of the AI on what they're shooting at, especially if friends and foes are in the same area, and some kind of aversion to being shot at by the enemy.

[Furiz]

AI in general needs lots of work, ground and air AI.

I'd love to see SAMs shutting down when HARM is fired, that would make it much harder to kill. In fact you would need one capable AI wingman (if in single player) or human wingman to kill that SAM. Then they magically turn on when they know you are in range, how do they know. IADS is much needed.

Same for AI in the air, they know who you are and where you are from miles and miles away even with no Datalink or Radar or any IFF.

But I guess ED knows this and works on this, the thing is that AI is really hard work and their team is not that big so we will have to be very patient.

[f15e]

4 hours ago, Furiz said:

AI in general needs lots of work, ground and air AI.

I'd love to see SAMs shutting down when HARM is fired, that would make it much harder to kill. In fact you would need one capable AI wingman (if in single player) or human wingman to kill that SAM. Then they magically turn on when they know you are in range, how do they know. IADS is much needed.

Same for AI in the air, they know who you are and where you are from miles and miles away even with no Datalink or Radar or any IFF.

But I guess ED knows this and works on this, the thing is that AI is really hard work and their team is not that big so we will have to be very patient.

I doubt that they are working on this, all we keep hearing is that they have plans and nothing else meanwhile their resources are directed to other things. 

[razo+r]

6 minutes ago, f15e said:

I doubt that they are working on this, all we keep hearing is that they have plans and nothing else meanwhile their resources are directed to other things. 

Thats... what a plan means... A plan does not necessarily mean they are activly working on it. Their plan could be that they finish feature X before they start working on feature Y.

Edited February 15, 2024 by razo+r

[SharpeXB]

13 hours ago, Furiz said:

I'd love to see SAMs shutting down when HARM is fired,

Oh they do. I’m not sure what settings there are for this. Perhaps it’s the AI skill level. But in multiplayer the AI shuts down the very instant you press the weapon release like the button itself shut them off. Maybe a little delay would be realistic. 

Edited February 15, 2024 by SharpeXB

[Furiz]

13 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Oh they do. I’m not sure what settings there are for this. Perhaps it’s the AI skill level. But in multiplayer the AI shuts down the very instant you press the weapon release like the button itself shut them off. Maybe a little delay would be realistic. 

 

I know they script them in campaigns to shut down, maybe server has scripts too.

[rob10]

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Oh they do. I’m not sure what settings there are for this. Perhaps it’s the AI skill level. But in multiplayer the AI shuts down the very instant you press the weapon release like the button itself shut them off. Maybe a little delay would be realistic.

Very likely Skynet script.

[peterbrownbyu]

SEAD/DEAD has the potential to be one of the coolest missions in DCS. There are simple changes they could make that would yield night and day results for the better, and the sky's the limit as far as how much depth they want to put into these systems. It's been frustrating seeing so little change on this front over the past decade or so, but it seems like ED is starting to realize that this is one of the most pressing issue with their game now, so I'm hopeful the wild weasel wannabes among us will start to see improvements

If I were king of ED, I'd propose the following, organized loosely from more realistic to more ambitious:
1: Basic IADS logic. No more constantly emitting radars, and let them communicate and share info between one another. Skynet is a great starting point, as others have mentioned. It's simple, but even if these were the only changed ED made it would still improve the situation dramatically.
2: Add all the relevant radars. Early warning radars, height finders, search radars, track radars, etc. Get them all in there with basic functionality. And by golly update the 3d models on some of these older ones
3: Add the SA-4
4: Implement or improve the different engagement modes starting with the easy ones like TWS or home on jam. Eventually I'd love to see some real crafty SAM operators doing optical shots or locking on late after launch. 
5: Add AI jamming platforms like the EF-111 and the EA-6B, and ELINT platforms like the rivet joint. Hot take, but if ED brings SAMs up to standard, going 1v1 against a SAM site should not be a viable strategy anymore. IRL SEAD efforts have relied heavily on jamming since the '60's. Obviously that will require a rework of how jamming works in the game, but that's a different series of rabbit holes for a different thread
6. Accurately model the characteristics of the radar emitters themselves. As in make the waveform of the thing accurate. Put it on the right frequency. Make a CW radar behave like a CW radar. Model changes in PRF for pulse radars. I wanna be able to pick out different radars on an oscilloscope, or recognize them by sound. I understand any time EW is mentioned, DCS players respond with the knee-jerk "THAT'S CLASSIFIED" response. Obviously this level of detail is not possible for every system in the game, but you could get damn near true to life for the SA-6 and previous systems. This would be 80 percent of the work required for accurate EW in the game, at least from the SEAD perspective. Which would lead us to the ultimate holy grail of Air Defense / SEAD:
7. Playable SAMs, and
8. Playable EW aircraft, like the F-4G or one of the ALQ-99 platforms

Wags laid out a sort of vision for an IADS system in DCS here at 1:37:50. It sounds like some great first steps. I hope we see changes like this in 2024. This has the potential to be the best mission set in the game, and I hope improvements are made sooner than later

[ACS_Dev]

I am curious, there have been some good points here, has ED seen this thread and if so can they say anything regarding their plans for fixing this problem beyond 'we are working on it'? We did get some decent models for the SA-10 recently, and there have been other systems added in the 4 years that I have been playing. I have seen that many systems now have defined frequency operating ranges. Beyond that and tweaking values within the existing system, it seems little to no progress has been made.

We already have a SEAD-focused platform (the F-16 Bl.50-ish) and will soon get another (the F-4). It will get fancy new seeker heads that only work on certain kinds of SAMS. SAMS that themselves seem to mostly, if not universally, use the same guidance method and absurdly simple logic. At the same time, the vast majority of the systems we do have are not befitting opponents to ED's flagship modules. It is impossible to currently build a realistic environment that even approaches peer warfare when the most potent system we have is  the S-300PS (or SA-2, depending on who you ask), an extremely outdated system that is around 40 years old at this point. We do not have the capability to simulate EW in any meaningful manner and ED has yet to give us the tools to build simulations ourselves.

This creates a particularly sad state of things, at least in my opinion. The brand-new Kola map will release at some point with a set of campaigns depicting (from what I have read) some sort of war between the west and east involving both of ED's flagship jets. A 2024 (hopefully) campaign by some of the best developers on a 2024 map featuring 2018 and 2019 modules, stuck with 1980s systems and 2000s code. It hasn't even released yet and we already know that the matchup will be completely nonsensical.

Around 7 months ago I did pretty extensive research on the topic and came up with a few recommendations:
-Give scripters the ability to read the cockpit arguments of client aircraft so that they can build systems dependent on things like ECM switches/buttons.
-96K6 Pantsir-S1 SA-22 for short range air defence. Late 2000s system. Alternatively we could get the Tor M2, but I think it's a long shot.
-9K37M1-2 Buk-M1-2 SA-11 for medium-to-long-range. Late 90s/Early 2000s system, not the same as the Buk-M2 (SA-17) or M3 (SA-27) that you see more often these days.
-S300 PMU-2 SA-20B for long range. Predecessor to the SA-21.
Nothing came of it (yet).

 

[f15e]

3 hours ago, ACS_Dev said:

I am curious, there have been some good points here, has ED seen this thread and if so can they say anything regarding their plans for fixing this problem beyond 'we are working on it'? We did get some decent models for the SA-10 recently, and there have been other systems added in the 4 years that I have been playing. I have seen that many systems now have defined frequency operating ranges. Beyond that and tweaking values within the existing system, it seems little to no progress has been made.

We already have a SEAD-focused platform (the F-16 Bl.50-ish) and will soon get another (the F-4). It will get fancy new seeker heads that only work on certain kinds of SAMS. SAMS that themselves seem to mostly, if not universally, use the same guidance method and absurdly simple logic. At the same time, the vast majority of the systems we do have are not befitting opponents to ED's flagship modules. It is impossible to currently build a realistic environment that even approaches peer warfare when the most potent system we have is  the S-300PS (or SA-2, depending on who you ask), an extremely outdated system that is around 40 years old at this point. We do not have the capability to simulate EW in any meaningful manner and ED has yet to give us the tools to build simulations ourselves.

This creates a particularly sad state of things, at least in my opinion. The brand-new Kola map will release at some point with a set of campaigns depicting (from what I have read) some sort of war between the west and east involving both of ED's flagship jets. A 2024 (hopefully) campaign by some of the best developers on a 2024 map featuring 2018 and 2019 modules, stuck with 1980s systems and 2000s code. It hasn't even released yet and we already know that the matchup will be completely nonsensical.

Around 7 months ago I did pretty extensive research on the topic and came up with a few recommendations:
-Give scripters the ability to read the cockpit arguments of client aircraft so that they can build systems dependent on things like ECM switches/buttons.
-96K6 Pantsir-S1 SA-22 for short range air defence. Late 2000s system. Alternatively we could get the Tor M2, but I think it's a long shot.
-9K37M1-2 Buk-M1-2 SA-11 for medium-to-long-range. Late 90s/Early 2000s system, not the same as the Buk-M2 (SA-17) or M3 (SA-27) that you see more often these days.
-S300 PMU-2 SA-20B for long range. Predecessor to the SA-21.
Nothing came of it (yet).

 

I agree with all the replies however just complaining and ranting will do nothing, I wish there would be another way to let ED know about how this is such a big issue in DCS which they either don't pay attention to or just don't want to do anything about it. 

Edited February 16, 2024 by f15e

[Furiz]

12 hours ago, f15e said:

I agree with all the replies however just complaining and ranting will do nothing, I wish there would be another way to let ED know about how this is such a big issue in DCS which they either don't pay attention to or just don't want to do anything about it. 

 

Reverse psychology?:) that doesn't work either,

I'm sure ED knows the issues, it is not the first time this was mentioned, and as Wags said it is something ED is working on. But it is going to take time cause IADS and realistic SAMs will need some sort of AI modeling, which is very hard work.

[Tom P]

The issue is this. "Veterans" of DCS think the SAMs can be easy. While on the other side ED has users saying that the SAMs are to difficult. There has to be a balance for the player base so people keep playing. 

In reality if you want "realistic" SAMs you're probably not going to make it back, unless you want some early Vietnam SA-2s

[draconus]

6 hours ago, Tom P said:

There has to be a balance for the player base so people keep playing.

Balance is made by mission creator.

[Tom P]

Should've been a IRL cool guy fighter pilot than. 

[Exorcet]

12 hours ago, Tom P said:

The issue is this. "Veterans" of DCS think the SAMs can be easy. While on the other side ED has users saying that the SAMs are to difficult. There has to be a balance for the player base so people keep playing. 

In reality if you want "realistic" SAMs you're probably not going to make it back, unless you want some early Vietnam SA-2s

Difficulty is part of the point, but adding smart SAM behavior doesn't have to take away our options for setting up AI. They can still have skill levels, alarm states, triggered actions, etc. We can also control how many there will be and if intelligence is provided on locations.

Ideally we should be able to go right back to static always emitting SAM's (may be useful for training missions) even after this change. The new behavior could be tweakable as well with options for SAM aggressiveness, reaction times, etc.

Things will be perfectly workable as long as all AI units are brought to a similar standard. Smarter SAMs should have to deal with preemptive AI SEAD launches, jamming, and the fear of being destroying.