IGLA

[GGTharos]

Why of course? IGLA's are almost invisble from the sky and could be anywhere. Just because I approach a target..for instance...a truck...doesn't automatically tell me an IGLA is there :/.

 

Yes it does. It is a target. Targets are defended. The surprise should be 'oh, there was no defense there' not, 'ZOMG IGLA!'.

 

What have either of these got to do with knowing an IGLA is there? If I download a custom mission for instance or make my own mission and get a friend to place IGLA's...how would you just "know". Unless you play with labels and don't have hidden IGLA's on the mission planner, then it's pretty difficult to know. I don't understand your logic there at all.

Then you're not up to snuff yet, young padawan ;) You assume your target is defended. You don't care where the IGLA physically is located because you cannot know. Instead you plan your approach to give you the safest ingress and egress options you can get. Everything, including how far you gun the target from and how fast you break after gunning is designed to save you from those things, or at least give you a chance.

 

When I create missions I don't place all my targets in one big convenient lump. I'd be impressed if you could spot an IGLA and a couple of AK infantry in a forest from the cockpit.

I don't need to. I'm a sneaky SOB when it comes to placing SAMs, and if you put'em there, I'd have probably put'em there so yes, I have a few ideas about where they might be. Do I need to know exactly where they are? Again, no. It'd be nice, but that's not in the cards, and it shouldn't be a factor.

 

Uhm...I agree. It was someone else saying "fly high" and equally simple answers who I was refuting. It's not always that simple.

Right. Fly high is just option #1. If you have to go low, things get trickier.

 

 

Another assumption. Auto or not, if the IGLA fires from your 12oclock, those flares are rendered almost useless. Yes, I would evade as quickly as possible, but as I said, there's about 3 seconds to do all this in. When you're not expecting it, most of that time is taken up by realizing what's happening, figuring the launch direction and then turning to evade.

That's the purpose of an ambush.

Train yourself to JINK when that missile launch warning comes on. Don't think, do. Forget that you have to line up the gun, shoot the target, drop the bombs. JINK. ALWAYS be ready to jink. Never, ever assume that this IGLA is not there. Heed this and you won't be spending any time realizing anything.

[Divinity10]

Yes it does. It is a target. Targets are defended. The surprise should be 'oh, there was no defense there' not, 'ZOMG IGLA!'.

 

Again though, you seem to imply all AA is at the target location...

 

Yes assume all targets are defended, I agree, but an IGLA on a tall hill way from the objective is rather unpredictable. Being ready for one and knowing where one will be are very seperate issues.

 

Then you're not up to snuff yet, young padawan ;) You assume your target is defended. You don't care where the IGLA physically is located because you cannot know. Instead you plan your approach to give you the safest ingress and egress options you can get. Everything, including how far you gun the target from and how fast you break after gunning is designed to save you from those things, or at least give you a chance.

 

I find assuming "I'm not up to snuff yet" to be rather patronising considering I never even initially asked how to avoid being lauched on. I do assume targets are defended but it's still down to assumption.

 

I can avoid being launched on when I know they're there and if you don't KNOW they're there, it's down to assumption which still, no matter how good you are...will be delayed in response time.

 

I don't need to. I'm a sneaky SOB when it comes to placing SAMs, and if you put'em there, I'd have probably put'em there so yes, I have a few ideas about where they might be. Do I need to know exactly where they are? Again, no. It'd be nice, but that's not in the cards, and it shouldn't be a factor.

Of course it's a factor. If I know there's an IGLA at my 9oclock...I'll keep my distance from it as much as possible and be ready to turn to 3oclock incase of a launch. Knowing where the missile is coming from is rather handy knowledge pre-evasion.

 

Right. Fly high is just option #1. If you have to go low, things get trickier.

Agreed. I'm confused on where you thought I said otherwise.

 

 

That's the purpose of an ambush.

Train yourself to JINK when that missile launch warning comes on. Don't think, do. Forget that you have to line up the gun, shoot the target, drop the bombs. JINK. ALWAYS be ready to jink. Never, ever assume that this IGLA is not there. Heed this and you won't be spending any time realizing anything

I do jink automatically, but it's happened on more than one occasion where I've jinked INTO the direction of the IGLA so that's why I tend to dive hard first and put a turn in as soon as I've found the direction. I find this has kept me alive more times than the former.

 

Trust me I'm always ready to get out of there, but I think blindly jinking is a 50/50 chance when it comes to IGLA's.

 

I never assume any target is undefended and I never even mentioned half the things you assume I didn't know. I appreciate your input but I find some of it is kind of patronising.

 

Anyway....

 

All I was asking for was other peoples techniques on evasion in the case of an IGLA launch.

I agree with automatically jinking but I personally prefer...personally...to know the direction before I commit fully.

 

With normal SAM's I fully agree with you and do jink instantly...but with IGLA's you've got seconds and don't have time to turn back the other way.

Edited December 4, 2010 by Divinity10

[GGTharos]

Your MLWS tells you direction. That's it.

[Divinity10]

Your MLWS tells you direction. That's it.

 

I know. Still, people may have found other factors which helped such as the one person who mentioned getting low to the ground to hopefully cause the missile to hit the ground. Information such as that can be handy, if not just for me but for anyone else with the same quesiton.

[Scarface]

Modern MANPAD > Hog. So in a fight the money is against you from the start. What you are left with is trying to minimize the chance of being fired at. These things that keep you out of harms way are the valuable bits of information that should be ingrained, instead of trying to dodge bullets.

 

I try to fly as if I actually care about my virtual self and jet, keeping myself and the jet in reusable condition for as long as possible is priority #1. If I can't kill something with an unfair advantage, I will just have to leave and come back when I've got the advantage.

[Divinity10]

Modern MANPAD > Hog. So in a fight the money is against you from the start. What you are left with is trying to minimize the chance of being fired at. These things that keep you out of harms way are the valuable bits of information that should be ingrained, instead of trying to dodge bullets.

 

I try to fly as if I actually care about my virtual self and jet, keeping myself and the jet in reusable condition for as long as possible is priority #1. If I can't kill something with an unfair advantage, I will just have to leave and come back when I've got the advantage.

 

I agree keeping out the firing line is important but sometimes things don't go the way we plan, hence my initial question. You can have knowledge ingrained and you're still going to get launched at from time to time, even if it's incredibly rare. This thread is based on what people do in that situation.

 

As I said in my original post:

 

Anyone got any evasive technqiues to dodge these buggers? Normal SAMS are fine, but IGLA's...So annoying. (Not getting in range would be the top idea but I mean for when they manage to get a drop on you).

Edited December 4, 2010 by Divinity10

[vrv]

If I remember correctly Hogs had the most problems with MANPADS during Operation Desert Storm. If you were lucky and it was at night you might spot the flash of the launcher but besides that there wasn't anything else. I know of at least three or four pilots shot down by Iraqi MANPADS. As for the Hog < MANPAD debate sure if I'm in its play area. But when I am at 13,000 ft. Helenkova and her MANPAD arsenal can't really do anything. If you know where they are at a GBU will solve that problem. ;) I always run CMS programs while ingressing and egressing though regardless of whether it's a gun run, bomb run, etc.

[nomdeplume]

Evasion techniques aren't really any different from any other IR-seeking missile launched at you at close range:

 

• spam flares like they're going out of fashion - they probably won't help against an Igla, but they might, so it can't hurt to try
  
• try to run away from the missile - only really viable if it's fired from long range and you already happen to be running away from it
  
• try to run the missile out of energy by making it work hard to reach you (put it on your beam, pitch up and down) - again, only really viable if the missile is fired from far enough away
  
• try to run the missile into the ground - usually difficult to do without running yourself into the ground due to the short range they're fired at, but sometimes this will work (however: it's very likely to make you an even easier target for the next missile)
  
• try to outmaneuver the missile by turning tightly into it - difficult, since the missiles are designed to outmaneuver you
  

Even if you do everything perfectly, the best you can hope for is to change the odds from "certain death" to "almost certain death".

 

I think the point being made is that warfare isn't "fair and balanced" - there doesn't have to be a way to get out of every single situation you find yourself in, and sometimes the only viable course of action in a particular situation is to die. There's things you can do to increase your chances of survival from 1% to 5%, but it's still pretty bleak.

 

The purpose of air defenses isn't really to shoot down enemy planes, but to prevent those planes from being able to strike your valuable assets in the first place. So if you're in a situation where mid/high-altitude SAMs are preventing you from flying outside of MANPADS range, and the enemy is suspected to have sufficient supplies of MANPADS that flying low 'anywhere' will put an aircraft at risk, then the AD has done their job: the target cannot (safely) be attacked by aircraft.

 

Realistically, your side will assess the likelihood of low-flying aircraft reaching the target, and decide if the target is valuable enough to be worth that risk. If they commit to attacking it, some losses are to be expected.

 

From a game point of view, the mission designer needs to design a mission that is fun to play. For most players, that means that success or failure is largely (or entirely) determined by the player's skill, not by a roll of the dice. This basically means that if you want your mission to be able to be completed by the player, there must be some kind of vulnerability in the air defenses that can be exploited by the player to allow them to complete their mission.

 

So what I'm trying to say is: putting MANPADS is random places that the player is likely to fly through without warning the player is kind of a dick move. Yes, it's somewhat realistic, but it's not much fun. If you create an impenetrable air defense network, then the player will not be able to penetrate it.

 

If you want to make your mission 'exciting' for the player but still survivable, you need to ensure they're being fired upon by less effective weapons. Replace the Igla with a Stinger and merely spamming a few flares will put the odds of survival on the player's side. Alternatively, you can design your mission as a puzzle for the player to solve; but for that to work, it needs to be solvable. "You have to fly low or you'll be shot down, but if you fly low you may by shot down completely at random" is not really solvable.

[Divinity10]

If I remember correctly Hogs had the most problems with MANPADS during Operation Desert Storm. If you were lucky and it was at night you might spot the flash of the launcher but besides that there wasn't anything else. I know of at least three or four pilots shot down by Iraqi MANPADS. As for the Hog < MANPAD debate sure if I'm in its play area. But when I am at 13,000 ft. Helenkova and her MANPAD arsenal can't really do anything. If you know where they are at a GBU will solve that problem. ;) I always run CMS programs while ingressing and egressing though regardless of whether it's a gun run, bomb run, etc.

 

Ah interesting, I'll look into the downed pilots. I take it they used the A-10A in Desert Storm then? Since the C has the launch detection (The module on the rear of the A-10C, between the rudders right?). Would an A10 actually engange a MANPAD with a bomb or AGM if it spotted it on the TGP? I'm always interested to know what the air force are willing to use on infantry or if there are any limits to the cost of the weapon vs the target cost/importance.

 

Evasion techniques aren't really any different from any other IR-seeking missile launched at you at close range:

 

• spam flares like they're going out of fashion - they probably won't help against an Igla, but they might, so it can't hurt to try
  
• try to run away from the missile - only really viable if it's fired from long range and you already happen to be running away from it
  
• try to run the missile out of energy by making it work hard to reach you (put it on your beam, pitch up and down) - again, only really viable if the missile is fired from far enough away
  
• try to run the missile into the ground - usually difficult to do without running yourself into the ground due to the short range they're fired at, but sometimes this will work (however: it's very likely to make you an even easier target for the next missile)
  
• try to outmaneuver the missile by turning tightly into it - difficult, since the missiles are designed to outmaneuver you
  

 

Thanks for the points there. I've just been testing evasion for a couple of hours. It seems after it all, for me that the best way to dodge them efficiently is to check the direction of the launch and then evade in the opposite direction so hard that the plane almost stalls and sort of falls a little. The IGLA's final moment before it impacts seem to really dedicate itself to a straight line so if you can turn just in time, it flings past. Like you said, a second launch is lethal but generally you're out the area by then or at least have your ass to the target. Gotta say though, those IGLA's....they really know how to ignore flares well.

 

I put myself up against a couple of different SAMS throughout the test, as well as IGLA's and out of all them, I found Strela 10/13 the easiest to survive. The stingers came second easiest for me, not because they weren't addicted to chasing flares, but because their launch range makes them a factor harder (but not by much).

 

I'm going to try having a Strela 10 launch at me later while I'm in 50%- of it's engagement range. That should boost up the challenge quite a bit.

 

Even if you do everything perfectly, the best you can hope for is to change the odds from "certain death" to "almost certain death".

Yeah, I found that one out the hard way. I would have thought a SAM vehicle would have been deadlier but it seems the shoulder mounted IGLA really does trump it in everything but range.

 

 

I think the point being made is that warfare isn't "fair and balanced" - there doesn't have to be a way to get out of every single situation you find yourself in, and sometimes the only viable course of action in a particular situation is to die. There's things you can do to increase your chances of survival from 1% to 5%, but it's still pretty bleak.

 

The purpose of air defenses isn't really to shoot down enemy planes, but to prevent those planes from being able to strike your valuable assets in the first place. So if you're in a situation where mid/high-altitude SAMs are preventing you from flying outside of MANPADS range, and the enemy is suspected to have sufficient supplies of MANPADS that flying low 'anywhere' will put an aircraft at risk, then the AD has done their job: the target cannot (safely) be attacked by aircraft.

 

Realistically, your side will assess the likelihood of low-flying aircraft reaching the target, and decide if the target is valuable enough to be worth that risk. If they commit to attacking it, some losses are to be expected.

Yeah the IGLA really does seem to give you very little chance of surviving. That's not a complaint, I'm just surprised how efficient it is compared to the oh so popular stinger.

 

Oh I can definitely see the mission being based around the level of air defense threats, it's just hard to imagine they can accurately guess a target has 3-4 IGLA's hidden around somewhere. Not saying they can't, but I imagine it's a hell of a task in comparison.

 

I take it in modern day Afghanistan etc, the threat from AA/AAA is pretty low? I've seen a few video's and like someone previously said, Restrepo where they call in CAS, however not all them seem to flare on Ingress and they are easily within SAM range. Are the expectancies of insurgents having such tech pretty low? I can't imagine stingers are too hard to come by these days, especially since the ol' CIA gave them a fair few.

 

 

From a game point of view, the mission designer needs to design a mission that is fun to play. For most players, that means that success or failure is largely (or entirely) determined by the player's skill, not by a roll of the dice. This basically means that if you want your mission to be able to be completed by the player, there must be some kind of vulnerability in the air defenses that can be exploited by the player to allow them to complete their mission.

 

So what I'm trying to say is: putting MANPADS is random places that the player is likely to fly through without warning the player is kind of a dick move. Yes, it's somewhat realistic, but it's not much fun. If you create an impenetrable air defense network, then the player will not be able to penetrate it.

 

If you want to make your mission 'exciting' for the player but still survivable, you need to ensure they're being fired upon by less effective weapons. Replace the Igla with a Stinger and merely spamming a few flares will put the odds of survival on the player's side. Alternatively, you can design your mission as a puzzle for the player to solve; but for that to work, it needs to be solvable. "You have to fly low or you'll be shot down, but if you fly low you may by shot down completely at random" is not really solvable.

To be honest, when I was making the missions I underestimated the effectiveness of the IGLA. I was expecting it to be somewhat similar to a stinger.

 

I agree that most people wouldn't like a hidden ton of AA in random places but I only make the missions for myself and I find hiding a SAM on a hillside halfway down a waypoint lets me get more effective at unexpected launches. I think I may change them to stingers or something however as IGLA's really are rage quit material at times lol. Although if I get good at dodging IGLA's, dodging other AA will be a breeze in comparison.

 

I base most of my missions from Middle Eastern operations anyway so rarely is there even AA in a mission, and if there is, it's a stinger with a group of infantry somewhere.

Edited December 4, 2010 by Divinity10

[nomdeplume]

I would have thought a SAM vehicle would have been deadlier but it seems the shoulder mounted IGLA really does trump it in everything but range.

 

Yeah, it does seem strange, but I guess once the missile is fired, the launching platform doesn't really matter - it's all down to missile design. Maybe while designing for weight and ease of use, they just got lucky with the design of the Igla-S?

 

I take it in modern day Afghanistan etc, the threat from AA/AAA is pretty low? I've seen a few video's and like someone previously said, Restrepo where they call in CAS, however not all them seem to flare on Ingress and they are easily within SAM range. Are the expectancies of insurgents having such tech pretty low?

I'm hoping people who follow such things will be able to chime in here.

 

My best guess is that it's actually kind of difficult to effectively deploy MANPADS. I mean, you send a guy out to a forest on a hill somewhere where maybe an enemy aircraft will come by at some point, but what's the chances that when it does come by the guy will actually be alert and on the ball enough to get a lock and fire before the plane is leaving effective range?

 

In the sim we can really only place well-trained, motivated, effective MANPADS operators. Maybe it'd be interesting to have them start disabled, and only have them become enabled after you've been in proximity to them for a certain amount of time. That way if you're just flying past, at worst they'll be taking a shot at your tail from near maximum range, but they'd still be a deadly threat if you decide to hang around an area.

[GGTharos]

It is VERY unlikely that MANPADS would have been operated at night.

 

If I remember correctly Hogs had the most problems with MANPADS during Operation Desert Storm. If you were lucky and it was at night you might spot the flash of the launcher but besides that there wasn't anything else. I know of at least three or four pilots shot down by Iraqi MANPADS. As for the Hog < MANPAD debate sure if I'm in its play area. But when I am at 13,000 ft. Helenkova and her MANPAD arsenal can't really do anything. If you know where they are at a GBU will solve that problem. ;) I always run CMS programs while ingressing and egressing though regardless of whether it's a gun run, bomb run, etc.

[Griffin]

Ah interesting, I'll look into the downed pilots.

 

Read this: Warthog: Flying the A-10 in the Gulf War

A very interesting and dirt cheap book.

 

The Hogs were safest at night. The enemy couldn't hear them when above 5000 ft. Sometimes they got shot at by SAM's (SA-2) and the trick was to spot the motor flame before it burns out. I don't remember reading anything about MANPAD's at night but in daylight it was a different story.

[Divinity10]

Yeah, it does seem strange, but I guess once the missile is fired, the launching platform doesn't really matter - it's all down to missile design. Maybe while designing for weight and ease of use, they just got lucky with the design of the Igla-S?

 

I'm hoping people who follow such things will be able to chime in here.

 

My best guess is that it's actually kind of difficult to effectively deploy MANPADS. I mean, you send a guy out to a forest on a hill somewhere where maybe an enemy aircraft will come by at some point, but what's the chances that when it does come by the guy will actually be alert and on the ball enough to get a lock and fire before the plane is leaving effective range?

 

In the sim we can really only place well-trained, motivated, effective MANPADS operators. Maybe it'd be interesting to have them start disabled, and only have them become enabled after you've been in proximity to them for a certain amount of time. That way if you're just flying past, at worst they'll be taking a shot at your tail from near maximum range, but they'd still be a deadly threat if you decide to hang around an area.

 

Yeah that's a very good point about the IGLA user not always being alert, never thought of that. I can imagine target identification being a bit tricky as well.

 

I like your idea of having the MANPAD's start disabled.

 

Read this: Warthog: Flying the A-10 in the Gulf War

A very interesting and dirt cheap book.

 

The Hogs were safest at night. The enemy couldn't hear them when above 5000 ft. Sometimes they got shot at by SAM's (SA-2) and the trick was to spot the motor flame before it burns out. I don't remember reading anything about MANPAD's at night but in daylight it was a different story.

 

Ah thanks alot, I'll look into it.

[OutOnTheOP]

Personally, I'm having a hard time reconciling the relative high performance of the Igla compared with Stinger. Both were designed around the same time, and have had roughly the same development cycle. And as far as flare rejection goes, that is largely a software issue, and no offense to any Russians on the board, but US software, sensors and avionics have always been a bit ahead of the Russian equivalents.

On top of that, the Igla has a directed (forward-oriented) warhead that fires a "shotgun blast", while Stinger has (IIRC) a continuously expanding rod annular blast warhear. This means Stinger should be more lethal in "near miss" detonations.

Given the similar layout of control surfaces and missile mass, maneuverability should be comparable, so your ability to outmaneuver either should be equal.

It should also be noted that FIM-92 has recorded 270 kills, while Igla has a confirmed... two, that I know of. Not that that means anything; many more Stinger have been fired in combat, I'm sure.

Anyhow, the only way I can really understand the poor performance of Stinger in DCS is if they're modelling the now-archaic FIM-92A series, circa 1985 or so. In which case, SA-14 would be a more fair comparison, I think. Perhaps ED just doesn't have access to the specs for the more modern missiles, or was provided conservative estimates

...which leads to Stinger use in Afghanistan circa 2001-2010. Seriously, guys? You honestly think the batteries and coolant canisters lasted this long without expiring? That the missiles themselves survived 20 years of crude storage without degradation? That crews stayed current on their use for a couple generations without refresher training? And even if they had, the old FIM-92As provided to the Afghans were pretty susceptible to countermeasures compared to today's models- kind of how SA-7 and SA-14 are trivially easy to spoof these days (I have this on good authority from helo pilots; SA-7 is DUMB).

[vrv]

It is VERY unlikely that MANPADS would have been operated at night.

Not necessarily at night but early morning / late evening also the geezers and kids Saddam put out on the front lines weren't exactly the most brilliant so it wouldn't surprise me if they had tried it. I wasn't saying that they were launched at night just that one of the Hog pilots commented that theoretically you might be able to see the flash.

[JACN]

Hi,

 

Any hint about using flight (and wingman) to attack a target defended by iglas/stingers?. I´ve found *quite* easy to handle my flight to deal with -the easier to spot- SAM armour threads...but SAM manpads are always a nightmare for them since always almost all the flight result badly damaged or downed at the begining of the attack.

 

I think ED should improve the flight AI on this respect or at least (a good improvement I think) giving us the chance to force the flight to employ a minimum safe altitude (3000-5000 ft). I´ve not found such possibility in the comms menu and once a flight member attempts even a *stand-off* missile attack they are hit because their altitude at the end of the run is too low and well inside the manpads range.

 

Aside, I´ve seen they use very poor CMS tactics, since they drop few flares and at a very low rate. And I´m talking about high skills flight...

 

A little desperated here :(

 

Álvaro

[Frostiken]

I don't really understand the lethality difference. I got hit by an Igla and it annihilated my aircraft, and then you can see other aircraft take a Slammer and shake it off... I even think I saw a SU-27 soak a Patriot.

[Ptroinks]

I don't really understand the lethality difference. I got hit by an Igla and it annihilated my aircraft, and then you can see other aircraft take a Slammer and shake it off... I even think I saw a SU-27 soak a Patriot.

 

Good point! I took an SA-11 hit (the one time an SA-11 didn't blow me out of the sky :) ), and although my aircraft was damaged, I didn't lose any systems and was able to continue with my mission.

[LostOblivion]

I agree, I suppose ED should spend more time making the AI a lot more raffined, as how it is now is sometimes desperately annoying. I know ED is focusing a lot on realism in it's own right and obviously down-priorotize aspects such as computer controlled air units over other stuff like model detail and flight dynamics accuracy, but as I believe A-10C brought a lot of "gamers", if that is even a term, into DCS, it would certainly be popular for them to consider spending time on improving the AI. This would also be something that'd transfer onto future modules as for fixed rotor aircraft, and would only benefit them in the long run.

 

An example, is just how AIs fly straight ahead dangerously right into a hill, and don't seem to even notice it, and when 5-20 meters above ground, jolt up into the sky and then level out again... Rinse and repeat.

 

Also, commanding AIs to not go below a minimum altitude is a good idea.

 

(Ptroinks, I'm from Norway too!) :D

[JACN]

Also, commanding AIs to not go below a minimum altitude is a good idea.

 

I do believe something that easy would help A LOT against manpads, aswell as some restriction in the maverick use. It would be great if minimum maverick distance to the target could be commanded to the flight.

 

Right now the flight keep their track firing mavs until they almost end above the target and at very low altitude. Then they start a quite stupid break manouvre which only further delays their *hot-zone*egression, bleeding at the same time all their energy in an useless turn which leaves them without true manoeuvring capability against a SAM. Aside, reaching this point, and given the proximity to the threat, it would be better if they´d try to overfly at higher speed the target or try to climb for a safer altitude instead of that useless high energy bleed turn. All in all, those aditional "escape" manoeuvres are observed in the DSMS setup...

 

Álvaro

[Frostiken]

I was flying alongside an AI at 11,000 AGL, and told him to engage the tanks in front of us with Mavericks. He proceeded to corkscrew to the ground, got to 2,000 AGL, flew right into a bunch of BMP-2s, blew up and died.

[JACN]

Definitely, ED should look into this in their next patches. Although SAM threats can be *easily* handled by human piloted aircrafts, it results absolutely frustrating and disastrous for the rest of the AI flight... :(

 

Álvaro

[Frostiken]

Been playing more with SAM / MANPADs, and yeah, the IGLA seems to be one of the most powerful threats around. Even the AIM-9 has nothing on the IGLA as it's both easily spoofed (the IGLA seems almost impossible to lose) and runs out of energy quickly. Even with the AIM-9 hits the target it's no guarantee of destruction, whereas every time I get hit by an IGLA I take a tremendous amount of airframe damage. Typical damage seems to be the loss of an entire wing section, loss of control surfaces, and in at least one example, a single IGLA took off my right wing at the root, the entire tail empennage, and the right motor was KIA.

 

I sincerely doubt that the IGLA, even under good conditions, has the power to completely tear off parts of airframe.

 

In the meantime I was monitoring other airborne combat threats - I noticed that a MiG-29 could survive a hit from an AIM-120, if the AIM-120 even hit (typically it seems the AI will fire off half of its Slammers at a single target, because only one ever seems to hit). Against Stingers, they almost never hit their targets, typically just running out of energy.

 

I think I'd rather take a bunch of IGLAs and strap them to my A-10 in lieu of the AIM-9s o_O

Edited May 10, 2011 by Frostiken

[Frostiken]

So um, bump? Just saw a MiG-29 fly directly at a Patriot battery and shake off two missiles (they detonated probably ten feet behind the MiG, it left with a minor fuel leak in the left wing). I later lost an engine and my entire right wing from an Igla...

[159th_Viper]

So um, bump?...

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=59946