SwingKid Posted April 24, 2005 Posted April 24, 2005 synergistic tracking, haze penetration lens Out of curiosity, do these words actually mean anything? What's the difference between "synergistic tracking" and just, "tracking"? And how does a passive sensor "penetrate" anything? Shouldn't it just be "filtering"? Some of these descriptions of the CCD seeker sound suspiciously like marketing hype. -SK
Guest ThomasDWeiss Posted April 24, 2005 Posted April 24, 2005 Just calling the K a B is a catch 22 and someone will complain. However, I agree that increasing the acq/lock range and increasing the warhead of the K is the best way to go for the next product. -Matt Please - make this a patch for 1.1! I had my wingman fire his Mavericks, and he did it 4+ nm from target, I want to do the same!
GGTharos Posted April 24, 2005 Posted April 24, 2005 Uh, you can fire the D's from 8 ... [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Guest ThomasDWeiss Posted April 24, 2005 Posted April 24, 2005 But I can't acquire the target ... You need a clear day, no haze to be able to lock on a target from any meaningful distance.
GGTharos Posted April 24, 2005 Posted April 24, 2005 Right. So stop flying in adverse conditions - the AI cheats. You don't get that luxury. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
D-Scythe Posted April 24, 2005 Posted April 24, 2005 Well GG, I sorta agree with Thomas here...even in clear conditions with Labels On, I can't lock up an BMP or T-80U until just over 3 nm, which is the staple lock up figure for adverse conditions in real life. In Lock On, with a little fog, the acquisition range drops to about 2 nm, which is ridiculous for the AGM-65K. I can't imagine what its like with labels off, Pave Penny off (i.e. targets of opp). On the other hand, the AGM-65D seems fine. I can usually acquire targets and ripple off a -65D at 6-7 nm, and up to 8 nm if I know where the target is. Maybe if ED can extend these ranges by 1-2 nm or so? And increasing the warhead size to 300 lb...that should be a good approximation of the AGM-65K. And I'm pretty sure the A-10 cannot carry AGM-65Ks on TERs.
GGTharos Posted April 24, 2005 Posted April 24, 2005 I'm sorry; why are peopel still using the K again? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
SwingKid Posted April 24, 2005 Posted April 24, 2005 ...the AGM-65D seems fine. I can usually acquire targets and ripple off a -65D at 6-7 nm, and up to 8 nm if I know where the target is. Isn't this too far? The pdf I linked above says that the AGM-65A-G versions were generally fired from 10-20,000 feet (roughly 2-3 nm). ;) -SK
D-Scythe Posted April 24, 2005 Posted April 24, 2005 They have ROE to deal with IRL, and no labels :D
Guest ThomasDWeiss Posted April 24, 2005 Posted April 24, 2005 One thing is certain, you cannot employ Mavericks in 1.1 as you did in 1.02 - the reason why is that the SAM react faster and fire at targets at long ranges, that is what cripples the Mavs in some scenarios: longer ranged SAM. I changed the initial hight from where missions starts to try to even the odds a bit.
GGTharos Posted April 25, 2005 Posted April 25, 2005 I'm sorry, but I just haven't had the same experience - sure, the -8 and 15 can launch on you before you do, but at that range they're easy to trash - you have to stay on the ball pretty much, come right aorund on target, lock, fire, and then run away. The D should give you excellent range for doing this. The K will quite obviously not, so don't use it against SAMs. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
SwingKid Posted April 25, 2005 Posted April 25, 2005 Guys - seriously. An optical weapon against a radar SAM? What are the radar SAMs doing at the front line in the first place? Shouldn't they be back defending the HQ from cruise missiles, out of enemy artillery range? -SK
Prophet_169th Posted April 25, 2005 Posted April 25, 2005 The A10 isnt a SAM hunter. You can try all day long, but thats not its mission. And if you succeed at it, call yourself lucky. If you just manage to evade the SAM, call yourself lucky. If you die, dont be surprised.
Guest ThomasDWeiss Posted April 25, 2005 Posted April 25, 2005 Mix and interlock SAM and AAA add not so good visibility and range becomes critical.
GGTharos Posted April 25, 2005 Posted April 25, 2005 Right. So you're saying that you like to fly in conditions where you wouldn't be flying such missions :D Which is nice and all, but it's just not how such a mission would go - under those conditions you'd likely be looking at dedicated SEAD aircraft (actually, udner all conditions) hunting the SAMs ... the A-10's are unlikely to be taking on anything but a Strela or Shilka ... let alone something like a Tor or Osa. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Guest ThomasDWeiss Posted April 25, 2005 Posted April 25, 2005 Right. So you're saying that you like to fly in conditions where you wouldn't be flying such missions :D Which is nice and all, but it's just not how such a mission would go - under those conditions you'd likely be looking at dedicated SEAD aircraft (actually, udner all conditions) hunting the SAMs ... the A-10's are unlikely to be taking on anything but a Strela or Shilka ... let alone something like a Tor or Osa. :D I just finished converting a pack of A-10 missions for 1.1 and that is what I did - mix field of short/medium Strela 1/10 , Igla SAM plus Shilkas with BUK and OSA SAMs in the background. The trick is to fly in a way that avoids the worst threats - and clear your way with Mavericks - that is where I had to learn: how to make the A-10 survivable, I am happy because I managed to even the odds, but it wasn't easy.
GGTharos Posted April 25, 2005 Posted April 25, 2005 Ahh so it's just an issue of the SAM improvements breaking a specific attack path? Are you doing up your missions from scratch? As I understand it using 1.02 missions at all causes problems. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Guest ThomasDWeiss Posted April 25, 2005 Posted April 25, 2005 It is the pathway - you cannot fight them the same way anymore - the SAMs now provide cover at longer ranges, so 1.1 demands a more aggressive approach: you have to take out the threat, you can't avoid it anymore. This pack was made with 1.02 - and it works OK but the odds are wrong in 1.1, I had to change the weapon loadouts and tone down the fighter threat, it was easy to do. I flew all missions with 1.1 and it is fun again to fly them. The worst to so was my last F-15 dogfight pack - I had to change the timing, number and type of fighters. At excellent the AI reacts too fast and the Eagle radar in now slower to acquire, so AI at random is more realistic.
Andrew_McP Posted April 25, 2005 Posted April 25, 2005 Guys - seriously. An optical weapon against a radar SAM? What are the radar SAMs doing at the front line in the first place? Shouldn't they be back defending the HQ from cruise missiles, out of enemy artillery range? -SK I suspect that many of us -- myself included! -- are blissfully ignorant of real world constraints on deployment. Just because the mission editor allows us to create certain scenarios doesn't mean they'd be likely to happen in the real world; whether that's because of equipment scarcity or something as simple as trying to drive AI vehicles down hillsides they wouldn't attempt in real life ;-) Perhaps LOMAC should have an extra "tactical education" button which gives people a clear introduction to real world deployments and the chances of aircraft X surviving an encounter with defence Y. Because it's a sim we all attempt scenarios which no real world pilot would try in a million years! But then that's part of the fun isn't it. Most of us probably don't use flight sims in full, hardcore realism mode all the time... and probably never did if truth be known. This may well be why flight sims have struggled to survive in an era of quick-fix gaming thrills, and why there can be so much tension in this small community... a hardcore sim with softcore pilots is always going to have problems pleasing everyone. Personally I think a lot of entertainment (a dirty word maybe ;-) could be added to LOMAC simply by changing that missile effectiveness slider into a "missile damage percentage" slider. That way missiles would always behave as ED intended (simplifying testing perhaps), but would do amounts of damage proportional to the pilot's mood and skill. With accumulative damage on the airframe this ought to provide a solution to softcore pilot woes. I'd certainly enjoy taking multiple hits some days just as much as I enjoy the thrill of taking on a SAM site knowing I only have one chance on other days. Andrew "mushycore" McP
Ironhand Posted April 25, 2005 Posted April 25, 2005 Guys - seriously. An optical weapon against a radar SAM? What are the radar SAMs doing at the front line in the first place? Shouldn't they be back defending the HQ from cruise missiles, out of enemy artillery range? -SK There are radar-guided SAMs and there are radar-guided SAMs. It's actually a matter of range. Theater-type weapons such as the S-300 or Patriot certainly would not be anywhere near the front lines. But certainly short- and even medium-range SAMs could very well be. And I supposed it depends on the opposing force's wherewithall. At one time, the primary function of an SA-17 (Buk) regiment was to support the front. And an SA-15 (Tor) regiment might very well travel in support of a motorized rifle or tank division. At the regimental level, you would find an SA-19 (Tunguska) gun/missile battalion (6 SPAAMs/battalion) accompanying each motorized rifle and/or tank regiment. So not all radar guided SAMs are back guarding HQ. Nor are the truely "heavy hitters" sitting on the front line. :) Rich YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCU1...CR6IZ7crfdZxDg _____ Win 11 Pro x64, Asrock Z790 Steel Legend MoBo, Intel i7-13700K, MSI RKT 4070 Super 12GB, Corsair Dominator DDR5 RAM 32GB.
SwingKid Posted April 25, 2005 Posted April 25, 2005 Regarding radar SAMs at the front Several items of concern - - can a radar SAM fire on the move? I thought they need to survey the local ground clutter and settle in before they can start to track air targets (hence the oft-read parameter regarding "time to become operational"). If true, this would not really be compatible with an advancing front line. - helicopter rotors can create false targets on radar, making radar SAMs less suitable for defense against these than infrared - agree that the SA-15 is attached to a division, but I thought this actually meant they would be somewhat behind the front, guarding the HQ, supply trucks and artillery, with the regiment-level air defense being deployed at the front - the SA-15 was especially designed to defend against cruise missiles, which are not usually fired at front line tanks - by the time the missile arrives, they've moved. Unsure, -SK P.S. I think SA-19 Tunguska radar may be an exception by using a higher frequency radar like the ZSU-23-4 for shorter range and possibly low PRF operation, I think this is why they can fire on the move without a set-up time
Ironhand Posted April 25, 2005 Posted April 25, 2005 Regarding radar SAMs at the front Several items of concern - - can a radar SAM fire on the move? I thought they need to survey the local ground clutter and settle in before they can start to track air targets (hence the oft-read parameter regarding "time to become operational"). If true, this would not really be compatible with an advancing front line. Depends on the SAM system. The Tor (SA-15) supposedly can acquire and track targets on the move. It normally stops to launch. Don't know the time involved but, since everything is automated, I bet it's not long. I'd love to see a video of a system like this in action. Traveling while tracking. Screech to a halt. Launch. MOVE! In fact, I think I did see a video a long time ago. But, with senility slowly encroaching, I could be remembering wrong. There are days I can't even remember what I had for breakfast. Oh. Another point worth mentioning is that several of these systems--such as the Tor and Tunguska--can use optical tracking as well. - helicopter rotors can create false targets on radar, making radar SAMs less suitable for defense against these than infrared The Tunguska (SA-19) was specifically designed for use against helos and the Buk (SA-17) supposedly can deal with them as well. The Tunguska is the one system, though, that I'd truly expect to see at the front. Wherever you'd expect find a Shilka, there you might also see a Tunguska. They were the planned replacement for the Shilka, IIRC. - agree that the SA-15 is attached to a division, but I thought this actually meant they would be somewhat behind the front, guarding the HQ, supply trucks and artillery, with the regiment-level air defense being deployed at the front - the SA-15 was especially designed to defend against cruise missiles, which are not usually fired at front line tanks - by the time the missile arrives, they've moved. You might very well be right. I don't know. OTOH, if it is, indeed, able to acquire and track targets while moving...??? Not sure where you'd actually find the Tors. Be interesting to see info on the US or NATO battle plan for AA coverage in various scenarios. I suppose, though, that with differing SAM systems and battle "philosophies", actual deployment would probably vary depending which side you were on and the exigencies of the situation. Rich YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCU1...CR6IZ7crfdZxDg _____ Win 11 Pro x64, Asrock Z790 Steel Legend MoBo, Intel i7-13700K, MSI RKT 4070 Super 12GB, Corsair Dominator DDR5 RAM 32GB.
Recommended Posts