SA-13, The deadliest threat?

[Frostiken]

As it should be :)

 

Flares will decoy the missile if used effectively with the appropriate evasive manoeuvring, provided you spotted the launch in time. Program the dispenser to release about 4 sets at a time - found that helps. As regards the difficulty of finding them, well, put yourself in the shoes of a rifleman with an A10 circling overhead: Don't know about you, but I'm gonna be making myself about as scarce as Rocking Horse shite........

 

Best bet is to maintain a safe ceiling if Intel has MANPAD's in the theatre. If you have to drop down, pre-emptive release of flares (single) with eyes on stalks and a wee prayer will see you straight 90% of the time. At times like those that I miss the Sukhogruz.......

 

Well what gets me is the lethality. Every time I'm hit by one, everything on that side of the aircraft is just *gone*. Wing is chopped completely off at the base, tail is gone, engine is dead... seems a little over-the-top compared to the lethality of other missiles. If you watch with F6, some aircraft can take a Patriot to the face and still fly with all their bits intact.

 

Since when is 2 km BVR?

 

I dare you to find a small-bodied aircraft in the sky reliably, even if you *can* hear it, it is extremely hard to do so.

 

 

Source: Working a flightline where I watch aircraft takeoff - unless you follow them, you will be extremely lucky to spot one in the distance.

Edited July 2, 2011 by Frostiken

[GGTharos]

It has to do with how the fuzes function. Not fixable in the short term IIRC.

[159th_Falcon]

Just as additional comment, it can be very easy to spot an fighter, even at altitude. I fly whit Model aircraft and a friend of mine once got warned by ATC (yes, Air Traffic Control)

That he had to fly lower whit his glider cause a Cessna something just reported passing underneath it while flying base leg for approach. which is 1500 feet i believe.

 

Conclusion, this 2 meter wingspan glider was flying above 1500 feet and no one on the ground had any real trouble seeing it, especially once you know in what part of the sky to look.

(stay out of the sun though, won't be the 1st time somone loses track of his model that way)

 

So if you could scale things up, that would mean an 20 meter wingspan plane can be visually followed flying at 15000 feet without much trouble.

 

 

 

How we got warned by ATC? Our model flying club actually fly's on an active military/civil airport. We use portable radio's to stay in contact whit ATC at all times.

[Frostiken]

Following it and FINDING it are two different things.

[EtherealN]

Oh yeah, very very different things. I've had cases where I've been just a few KM off the airport and taking heed to the ATC chatter as he's talking the mail flight in, and even with the sun at my back (so he should reflect) I've often found that I can't see him until he gets taxi clearance (terminal, approach and ground on the same ATC here) and I realize I failed to catch him through the whole thing.

 

Same thing when trying to spot traffic - even knowing rough range, direction and altitude it's difficult to get to where I can say my traffic in sight.

[Kenan]

Since when is 2 km BVR?

 

So if you could scale things up, that would mean an 20 meter wingspan plane can be visually followed flying at 15000 feet without much trouble.

 

Sorry but I would have to disagree. Seeing a fighter-sized plane with your bare eyes at 2km and especially 5km altitude is almost impossible unless you have a super vision, let alone knowing exactly where to look at, at the specific point in time.

 

Since this is a simulation, if those MANPADS are operating alone, they shouldn't be given any benefit of the doubt and be so deadly at the above mentioned altitudes. It's a science fiction and it shouldn't be there.

 

Unless they have a supporting logistics, IMO the only time they should be able to knock a (fighter) plane off the sky is if it's flying low enough for them to see it.

[Yellonet]

I dare you to find a small-bodied aircraft in the sky reliably, even if you *can* hear it, it is extremely hard to do so.

 

 

Source: Working a flightline where I watch aircraft takeoff - unless you follow them, you will be extremely lucky to spot one in the distance.

 

I live near a military airfield where they regularly fly fighters and fighter sized aircraft and I have no problem locating them after I hear their engines.

Different terrain could potentially have an impact on this though.

 

But with clear sky and a good field of view it's not that hard to spot aircraft (without sound) on the sky if you continuously "scan" the sky around you, something that I imagine the crew of an AA unit would do.

 

I know this from experience as I did my military service in a air defense regiment, during an exercise we had a squadron of JA-37 flying against us simulating attacks.

I stood watching at some hills several km away when suddenly two JA-37's pop up over the crest, they were probably 3 km or more away and coming head on, but there was no problem seeing them.

It was a quite strange feeling seeing them racing towards us without the slightest sound.

I covered my ears when they passed overhead though :smilewink:

 

Anyway, 2 km isn't very far.

[Kenan]

^^If they were flying 2km altitude above you (not somewhere land level over some hills) the only way you could see them with your bare eyes, military or not, is to press the tilde key and type:

 

Cheats ON

[J. Heller]

2km? This is about 6000 ft, you would be able to see most any aircraft at that altitude if you had at least a general idea of where they are. Keep this on topic, it is about how to defeat various SAM systems in accordance with how they work in the sim. Theres no point in arguing about what it can and cant do since that probably isnt going to change.

[Frostiken]

It's not a matter of seeing it, it's a matter of finding it. The sky is a very big place and given varying visual contrasts as well as glare and simple limitations in visual acuity, ***FINDING*** the target is the hard part.

 

For what it's worth, a very wide-bodied aircraft like the F-15 at 15,000 feet is roughly the same size as looking at a dime 20 feet away. Not invisible, certainly not a wide-bodied aircraft like the F-15. If a threw a dime on concrete within 20 feet of you, it would take you a little bit of seraching to point it out. Now put this dime on a three-dimensional plane and it'll take you a lot longer, because there's a hell of a lot more concrete to look at.

 

6000 feet is awfully close and you would be able to find the aircraft pretty quickly, but it would still take you time - multiply by factors like time of day, cloud density, how low / high they are, and this is also assuming you're not standing in the middle of a god damn battlefield, in a valley, surrounded by trees...

 

Additionally, this doesn't even take into account differing aircraft dimensions - Calculating how visible something in the sky is involves pretending that the wingspan of an aircraft corresponds to it being a giant circular blob - certainly looking straight at the belly of an aircraft is going to present a high-contrast coloration and the widest possible point of visibility, but that's not the issue - we're talking about aircraft, specifically a ground-attack aircraft, flying a combat mission - it will not be flying with its belly towards you unless it's pretty much right over you. The visible cross-section of an aircraft on approach is far, far more limited.

Edited July 3, 2011 by Frostiken

[EtherealN]

Another interesting aspect is that of how it's moving. If it's an A-10 on a gun-run towards you, the normal response to a "sudden movement" won't happen. However, something suddenly popping up from behind a hill will introduce a "novelty" which is really what the human senses are best at noticing with all our senses. (The same thing as why you don't "feel" your shirt after a while, or why your own home doesn't have a smell but everyone elses homes smell funny etcetera.)

 

That said, people are different and I'd imagine they'll place troops in positions that they are suited for, so the guys asked to operate MANPADs and optically guided SHORAD would probably not be any random joe that knows how to pull a trigger. Not that it'll be Giora Epstein either, but for example I doubt I'd get selected to operate one of those same way I can't go into flying fighters. How big of an impact this has... I don't know.

[Frostiken]

I put together a sorta-half-assed example of what the A-10 looks like at different distances.

 

Note that this is only a tiny, tiny segment of the sky. There's 9 A-10s hiding in the sky, and they're all properly scaled based on, well, read the image.

 

Where's Warthog?

 

 

Can't find them?

 

Answers:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah 'easy' my ass.

 

 

EDIT: Ugh, imgur compressed the hell out of it...

Edited July 3, 2011 by Frostiken

[J. Heller]

None of this relates to the topic at hand, or at least the topic that was at hand... MANPADS are not a problem, never really have been as they are easily decoyed. Its the friggin telephone pole sized SAMs that concern me, SA-8s, 9's , and everything else up through 13. Have you ever encountered an SA-10 in this sim? Supposedly these things can use semi active homing and have the ability to use nearby search radars for guidance. All you will see is a small blip on the RWR when it launches and then another when it is on its final few miles to your aircraft. Assuming it is modeled correctly the SA-10 is frightnening due to this ability and the only way I know of to counter it is to get some what lucky and see that first launch indication and then find some cover from any and all radar in the vicinity. Makes the SA-13 I mentioned seem like a childs toy really. Fortunately I have yet to encounter an SA-10 in A-10C...though I have a feeling that wont last long.;)

[159th_Viper]

......

 

No disrespect intended with regards to your picture, but it really is, as you yourself stated, half-assed.

 

Up here in Aberdeenshire we have above-average military and civilian air traffic, be it helo's servicing the North Sea or Fast-Jets on intercept/training sorties and trust me when I tell you that real world observations do not mirror your picture at all - at best your illustration muddies the waters and does nothing to further your argument.

 

In any event, this is not a contest. Let's not get carried away, shall we.

[Frostiken]

"Up there in Aberdeenshire" do you actually have any idea how far away the aircraft you're looking at are? Is this based on professional observations? Are you actually seeing every aircraft? I'm guessing no, no, and no.

[hassata]

Where's Waldo-quite enjoyed that lol.

[cichlidfan]

In any event, this is not a contest. Let's not get carried away, shall we.

 

:smilewink:Awww, but noone has brought up eye physiology, rod & cones, peripheral vision detecting movement better....no fun!!!:smilewink:

[J. Heller]

I wish you could slap certain people out of your posts, know what I mean?:music_whistling:

[GGTharos]

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_memoranda/2006/RM4562.pdf

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/44-18-1/Ch4.htm

[Frostiken]

"Search the area near the sun by extending arm and hand as to block out the sun’s glare. (Looking into the sun without shielding the eyes will cause them to become blinded for a few seconds."

 

 

LOL

[GGTharos]

You'd be surprised at how many stupid things people do.

Hand a laser pointer to someone, first thing they do is shine it in someone's eye.

Or observe the sun directly.

[Frostiken]

It's hard to tell from those graphs since of the only two 'slow' aircraft, one is fairly small (SD-2) and one's an absolute giant (Mohawk), but it seems that something like the A-10 would be pretty well-off as far as being able to find it visually goes.

 

Also found this interesting:

 

"For example, the RF-4C at 500 ft and 400 kts has a detection chance of less than 0.1 at slant range of 1 mi even under very good conditions".

Edited July 4, 2011 by Frostiken

[GGTharos]

Not exactly - they're not covering actual search sectors as assigned by ADA as far as I can tell. Look at, for example, the probability of detecting an aircraft in a 4 deg sector. Now, if you know the axis of attack, you can search a 30 deg sector which if you do right, is really split up into a bunch of of 4-deg sector scans.

 

Of course, you decrease the overall range of detecting something in the 30 deg sector compared to the 4 deg sector, but you're doing far batter than a 180 deg sector.

 

One friend who was in the ADA mentioned they could begin stinger engagements at 9km in some cases ... I am assuming however that they were cued via datalink from a sentinel or similar radar.

[Frostiken]

Well this is also for recon aircraft - they're going to be flying straight in to snap a picture and leave - the A-10's got a lot more flexibility in terms of where it can go, how it's going to approach, and how it'll accomplish its mission. I would imagine tracking it on radar throughout an engagement and providing location updates is going to be a lot harder and more chaotic than something flying straight and level on a fixed trajectory. Point being, scanning a small sector of the sky will increase odds of detection, but the sectors of the sky from which the A-10 could approach from are unpredictable and many.

[GGTharos]

Not exactly ... I guess it depends on how competent your ADA is, as well as how well equipped.