SAM AI what has been changed?

[MadTommy]

I'm noticing the SAMs are much harder to defeat, i think it is the patch, but i haven't played much so it could be from the final release.

 

In the betas the SAMs were too easy to defeat in my ignorant opinion, even on excellent skill level. Turn away, release countermeasures and you almost always defeated the missile. Now I'm finding them a complete bitch... i'm curious to what has changed?.. there is no mention of them being tweaked in the change log.

 

It seems to me that they are releasing their missile when you are deeper into their threat envelope, but this is just my perception.

[Nate--IRL--]

Tunguskas are much much more lethal now in their engagement zone, than in Beta, not sure about other SAMs though.

 

Nate

[MadTommy]

^^ Thanks, ... any details available about what has been tweaked / changed? Skill level, when they engage, missile physics or something else....

 

I'm seeing it more from a mission design view point.

[Nate--IRL--]

Basically the missile physics were bugged. As it is now, if the Tunguska locks you up, you are dead unless you fly straight away from it immediately.

 

Nate

[Slammin]

Fricken WOW! That's kinda scary.

[hassata]

True to life, if I'm not mistaken. S300 is supposedly an even scarier system.

[GGTharos]

Not at all. The tunguska is a capable system, but by no means a high-Pk weapon. You should be afraid of the Tor a whole lot more.

 

The Tunguska's primary mission is to defeat helicopters, and one would presume it is much better at doing so than defeating aircraft in general. It has a backup optical guidance system specifically because it can be jammed.

 

It is also a SACLOS or beam-riding missile, so it's accuracy might be a little dubious if you jam the tracking radar.

[MadTommy]

Basically the missile physics were bugged. As it is now, if the Tunguska locks you up, you are dead unless you fly straight away from it immediately.

 

Nate

Ok thanks Nate, that would explain a lot.

 

Note to self... remove some of those Tunguskas.... my mission designed in beta 4 to be tough is now near impossible.

 

The Osa & Tor have always been nasty.. i can add the Tunguska to the list of .. oh **** run way systems. ;)

[Nate--IRL--]

Not at all. The tunguska is a capable system, but by no means a high-Pk weapon. You should be afraid of the Tor a whole lot more.

 

The Tunguska's primary mission is to defeat helicopters, and one would presume it is much better at doing so than defeating aircraft in general. It has a backup optical guidance system specifically because it can be jammed.

 

It is also a SACLOS or beam-riding missile, so it's accuracy might be a little dubious if you jam the tracking radar.

 

Indeed. the Tunguska is very defeatable IF you know what you are doing and you know where it is.

 

Nate

[Bluduh]

Wikipedia says that the 2S6 Tunguska was designed in the 70's specifically to counter the (then new) A-10. I think they are referring mainly to the 30mm cannon component. Since the A-10 was designed to be "resistant" to the 23mm AAA such as the ZSU-23-4, Chief Designer AG Shipunov (and others) decided on the 30mm auto cannon for the Tunguska because it will tear the hell out of ANYTHING, including the A-10!

 

Similarities in the fire control and sensor system requirements led them to add the SA-19 creating a truly deadly "dual" mobile air defense system. I made a simple mission with a Tunguska protecting a convoy just to watch the interaction. I "F6-ed" on to the the SAM after it launched and was amazed to see that the SA-19 is a 2 stage missile! The booster stage burns away and the second stage lights and carries the warhead and guidance stage to the terminal phase (which unfortunately was me).

 

I asked a friend (ex not-an-A-10 driver) about my scenario with a 2-ship of A-10C's against convoy guarded by a Tunguska (with the absence of a friendly SEAD package). Who would win? Without a second's hesitation he said -- Tunguska.

 

He was right. But I agree with Nate, if you have some knowledge in advance, like which vehicle in the convoy is the 2S6 (pretend you have UAV surveillance), and exactly where he is, and make a very careful approach, you can sometimes take one out with Mavs before he get you. But it's not a sure thing, especially in mountainous terrain where getting a Mav lock may take some time. Takes the Tunguska some time to get a lock too.

 

This is what I love about this sim. Geeks like us who are interested in this off-the-wall stuff can try out different scenarios with a fair amount of realism. Even though these systems are not modeled with classified data, they are pretty close.

 

Now, I want to repeat everything now that the missile performance is more accurately modeled in the release/patch than they were in the Beta (see, not too far off topic).

 

Great job ED. I love this sim?

[Bahger]

What fairly old-school SAM variant (it's owned by militia, not state-of-the-art Russian army) should I put in a mission which offers a reasonable challenge yet is defeatable by maneuver/jammer/CMs? In other words, a system that would not absolutely require SEAD cover?

[El_Roto]

I can't wait 'till I figure out the best way to defeat a Tunguska. So far it's "Tunguskas-5, El_Roto - nil". ;)

[GGTharos]

Any MANPADS and non-Szilka ZSU.

[nomdeplume]

I can't wait 'till I figure out the best way to defeat a Tunguska.

 

Has their maximum engagement altitude been altered? They used to be susceptible to JDAM/LGB from 20k+ feet, but I haven't played with them since the patch.

[El_Roto]

Angels 20? What do you think I am, an airline pilot? ;)

[aaron886]

I've found that the Tunguska is just dogged enough that you can afford yourself one evasion. If you can't make your escape window before a second shot, you just can't have the energy to defeat a second 19... assuming you're at typical 2-4000' altitudes.

 

Far from impossible to destroy, however, with a reasonable awareness of its location.

[tyrspawn]

You guys are really underestimating the power of SAMs. In the military analysis field, the A-10 is a suspect - there is a good argument to support that it would never operate effectively in a high threat environment. Mainly because it can't defeat SAMs (not to mention it cant defend itself from fixed wing threats).

 

A SAM is basically a death sentence for an A-10 - SAMs from the 1960s and 1970s are still a major threat to F-16s (google "SAMs over baghdad to see F-16s being shot down by SA-2s during the gulf war), and being engaged by an SA-10 is essentially a death sentence at ranges of 150+ miles, and 50+ meters. If an old SAM like an SA-2 is still a threat to an F-16, which is extremely more maneuverable and faster than an A-10, that's saying something. Even at full speed an A-10 would have real trouble defending any SAM system outside of MANPADs.

 

I personally think that the SAM lethality is modeled properly in A-10.

Edited March 8, 2011 by tyrspawn

[kbullet]

yeah was wondering this my self, overall SAM AI seems to have been improved. Can't underestimate them now. Strela's were a joke before, you can just fly straight into them and drop flares without any evasive maneuvers and you would still be able to trash all their missiles

[Zenra]

<snip>

 

A SAM is basically a death sentence for an A-10 <snip>

No jet, whether a lumbering A-10 or nimble F-16, can fly blithely into a SAM engagement envelope and expect to survive. At the very least it takes lightning-quick reflexes and the pilot going completely defensive to make it out alive.

 

It is clear in reading the excellent “A-10s Over Kosovo” (Haave & Haun, 2003) that the A-10 pilots had a healthy respect for even the mix of older air to air defenses fielded by the Serbians, and relied heavily on air superiority and SEAD (or “DEAD” as the F-16CJ pilots liked to refer to them) to keep them safe as they prosecuted their ground targets. No jet can do it all. Air combat requires the coordination of air superiority, CAP, SEAD, ABCCC , and other support elements whether the strike package is an A-10 or and F-16/18/22…

[RodBorza]

Good answer, very well explained.

Haven't played the release yet, but on the Betas if the situation was very heavy, I would get back to friendly territory and call the SEAD flights available. Once things got calm on my RWR, then I went to target area.

[Tyro-AWG]

Certainly newer generation (double-digit) Eastern-Bloc SAM systems are extremely capable, although current tactics and modern EW and CM mitigate some of the threat.

I can only speak from a rotary-wing point of view, but with modern CM like DIRCM, Multi-spectral flares etc, the tactics vary a lot depending on what's being shot at you (generation-wise).

Bottom line is that the pilot taking evasive action is a last ditch effort to survive and if the mission goes to plan will never happen, as most of the time, if you're evading, you're jettisoning your stores and you're sure as hell not going anywhere near what just shot at you.

Therefore, the defeat of AD comes from layers and layers of preparation prior to even walking out to the ac. A typical sortie in a low threat environment would involve;

1) The pilots in question having recieved rigorous training on evasion, EW and CM.

2) The denial of enemy access to SAM or complex AD.

3) Ongoing HUMINT/SIGINT/ELINT to determine/counter placement of AD assets, types of Radars, tactics, weaknesses, frequencies etc etc etc.

4) Programming of friendly systems specifically to counter known threat.

5) Perhaps EA and ESM sorties to provide real-time Int/Defeat of AD systems.

6) Thorough intelligence briefing to crews about known types/locations of AD.

7) Discussion prior to launch about actions on missile launch, checking and double checking of any CM fitted to the aircraft.

8) Complete secrecy about types/capabilities of CM.

9) Flight planning taking into account known AD and maximising time spent outside the threat band.

10) Evasive manouevres/pre-emptive defensive fire/CM release in high threat areas.

11) Reactive evasive manoeuvres when/if fired upon.

 

And that's in a low threat environment, I am sure you can think of somewhere that this example might fit.

[GGTharos]

No jet, whether a lumbering A-10 or nimble F-16, can fly blithely into a SAM engagement envelope and expect to survive. At the very least it takes lightning-quick reflexes and the pilot going completely defensive to make it out alive.

 

Reflexes have nothing to do with it. Unless you're drunk or half-asleep, the only thing that matters when it comes to evasive maneuvers is whether you see the missile, how far and fast it is, and your training with respect to avoiding said stick.

 

It is clear in reading the excellent “A-10s Over Kosovo” (Haave & Haun, 2003) that the A-10 pilots had a healthy respect for even the mix of older air to air defenses fielded by the Serbians, and relied heavily on air superiority and SEAD (or “DEAD” as the F-16CJ pilots liked to refer to them) to keep them safe as they prosecuted their ground targets. No jet can do it all. Air combat requires the coordination of air superiority, CAP, SEAD, ABCCC , and other support elements whether the strike package is an A-10 or and F-16/18/22…

 

SAMs are a serious hindrance, but also realize they are a low Pk system.

[hassata]

SAMs are a problem, unless you have a friggin kill switch to shut down OpFor's entire air defense network lol.

 

http://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/design/the-hunt-for-the-kill-switch

[Bekro]

I believe Gulf War created huge distrust to Russian weapons (at least for me :) although many of them were downgraded versions.

 

There are two different samples one from Vietnam which was a succes for SAM systems and The Gulf War . Although time frame is different, I am really confused as which one should be taken as a sample regarding the SAM threats.

 

Are they really a huge threat or can they bu suppressed by effective SEAD tactics

[GGTharos]

Both :)