Warthog vs. Anti-Aircraft Assets

[StrongHarm]

I enjoy trying the community missions available. If you haven't tried them, check out the mission section of the forums for some real creative ideas.

 

I've noticed that an increasing number show excess anti-air assets sprinkled around the AO. In reality I believe the reason most Hawgs land back at homeplate post mission is that they have proper SEAD support. Though I know the Hawg is employed for certain types of SEAD, the question is; does anyone know of RL A-10C doctrine or situations that call for SEAD and CAS in the same mission?

 

The following outlines an example mission I created that employs proper pre-sortie support, as I believe might take place prior to CAS insertion. I'll upload it to the mission section of the forums, so feel free to use the triggers as a template for handling SEAD if you agree with the method.

 

__________________________________________________

Video and mission outline:

 

Mission 1 of 4: Build-Up in Patara Valley

====================

Highlights:

- SEAD reports mud tally and kill

- If you breech the AO before SEAD complete, support bugs out to prevent blue on blue

- Mission indication if AA clear

- You can request intel on AA location (F10) for each one still active (if SEAD fail)

- Enemy convoy bottleneck on two roads(MM61/MM63) FTW

====================

 

FLASH MESSAGE:

The lead mechanized forces for an impending full scale Russian invasion are moving toward Tiblisi. Your elimination of these support vehicles will soften the blow of the main incursion.

Two elements of Apaches are currently executing SEAD ops to eliminate no less than ten Russian anti-air assets in preparation for your strike.

 

STRIKE ORDER, USAF EUCOM

*****************************

1. Take off from Vaziani, fly NOE low and hold low at WAYPOINT ONE(1) over Tblisi

2. Standby for indication that anti-air assets have been eliminated

3. On command, proceed to WAYPOINT FOUR(4) following NOE low along the Mtvari river to ingress the enemies rear flank

4. If no immediate visual, contact JTAC for talk on to targets to the EAST and to the SOUTH

 

TARGET: Russian support vehicles

 

LOCATION: ELINT tracks forces moving east inside WAYPOINTS THREE to SEVEN(3-7)

Due to restrictive terrain and lack of roads, firelines are expected to form at grids MM63 and MM61

 

SUPPORT ELEMENTS:

AWACS - MAGIC 7-1 (E-3D Hawkeye) at 127.5 MHz AM

CAP - SPRINGFIELD 1-1 (F-15C Eagle) at 127.5 MHz AM

SEAD NORTH - UZI 1-1 (AH-64D Apache) at 127.5 MHz AM

SEAD SOUTH - UZI 2-1 (AH-64D Apache) at 127.5 MHz AM

AFAC NORTH - UZI 3-2 (OH-58D Kiowa Warrior) at 30 MHz FM

AFAC SOUTH - UZI 4-2 (OH-58D Kiowa Warrior) at 31 MHz FM

 

Edit: Mission uploaded

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=84697 . Single or multi capable.

Edited January 28, 2012 by StrongHarm

[Spectre_USA]

I fully agree to your opening statements.

 

If a serious SAM/AAA threat is still viable in the AO, `hogs have no business there.

 

That being said, I am unsure about Apaches as SEAD strikers, especially since

V1.1.1.1, as the armor has quite the low-speed, low-level, (read helos), anti-air

missile defense.

 

I look forward to flying this, as it sounds more like "real-life" than most missions

out there for SP, which seem to use the edict, harder is better/more real...

[winz]

If a serious SAM/AAA threat is still viable in the AO, `hogs have no business there.

Yes, and no... AAA is daily job of the hogs, and in the gulf war the hogs were used for DEAD. They hunted for SAM radars (SA-2, SA-6...), covered by wild weasels in case the iraqis decided to use them againts the A-10.

The reason for this that IRL IAD operation are much smarter, then the simple 'allways on, fire anything that comes in range' that we got in DCS.

 

edit: and IRL you cannot be never sure if a serious SAM thread is present, so a SEAD cover is often present.

Edited January 27, 2012 by winz

[TigersharkBAS]

I've noticed that an increasing number show excess anti-air assets sprinkled around the AO. In reality I believe the reason most Hawgs land back at homeplate post mission is that they have proper SEAD support. Though I know the Hawg is employed for certain types of SEAD, the question is; does anyone know of RL A-10C doctrine or situations that call for SEAD and CAS in the same mission?

 

Hallejuhah brother. Testify. As much I enjoy and appreciate the missions made by the community the fascination with SAM hunting drives me insane. I really get quite frustrated with missions who add some kind of SAM destruction by A-10s as a winning condition of the mission.

 

I can only deduce that it is some hang over from Viper drivers who liked SEAD mission in Falcon and are trying to mimic the experience in A-10, but as you mentioned, Hawgs are not sent in to clear SAMs. They may need to take out AAA around the area (especially non radar guided AAA) but going up against SAMs is simply not in Hawg doctrine.

 

The only reason I can think of SAMs in a mission (that is...non MANPAD) is to help cordon the player to a specific area or to add an element of SAM avoidance to the mission (like the In the Weeds mission). Otherwise, sending Hawgs up against them is unrealistic IMHO.

[chokko]

personally, i like a bit of excitement in a mission

 

no-one is stopping you from contributing to the community and sharing your own missions

[roob]

Anywhere one can download these missions? :D Seems nice!

[StrongHarm]

personally, i like a bit of excitement in a mission

no-one is stopping you from contributing to the community and sharing your own missions

 

I was afraid someone might take my comments this way. It wasn't my intention to be critical toward anyone's missions, and I meant no offense. My goal was to identify a growing trend and suggest an alternative.

 

Concerning Apaches in a SEAD role; I would encourage you to read about the opening days of Desert Storm. There's a reason why (besides the Eagle wiping their fighters up) we didn't lose any strike aircraft, despite over 10,000 iraqi anti-aircraft assets in theater.

A combination of the following:

1. Satallite imagery

2. Junior Spooks combing over the images for anti-aircraft emplacements

3. HARM !

4. Tomahawk

5. EC-130s shutting coms down between AA batteries

6. Apaches and AA sweep corridors

 

I personally witnessed 300+ Apaches fly over prior to the opening strikes.. it looked like a swarm of mosquitoes. They would fly in NOE with assigned air corridors and sweep forward taking out AA emplacements as they went. Although I agree that SEAD ops are usually greedily horded by the USAF and wild weasel aircraft, the Apache can and does serve in this role with success... especially the D variant.

 

If you fly Blackshark, try some popup maneuvers to see how effective helos can be in SEAD/DEAD. You hover behind terrain cover, pop up / acquire / fire, then drop back behind cover. This can be acheived with one good jolt to the cyclic if done correctly. Fun stuff!

 

I love flying the KA-50.. I actually have a variation of this mission where you're in the helo group performing SEAD before you call the Hawgs in. And now it's out.. the real reason I used Apaches for SEAD ! heheh

[StrongHarm]

Anywhere one can download these missions? :D Seems nice!

 

Download @ http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=84697

[hassata]

Thanks for the mission :thumbup:

[Spectre_USA]

Just downloaded, hope to get some stick time this evening to check it out.

 

I appreciate the explanation of the use of MMW radar equipped Apaches.

 

I do recall the reports, back when I was still ADAF, of the AH-64's being first in

on "go" night. I bet the memory of seeing those dragonfly swarms IRL brings

goose-bumps.

 

Thanks for the mission, I look forward to giving it a spin...

[MadTommy]

Flying mission with no creditable threat might be 'realistic' but it is also dull as dish water.

 

IRL mission last for hours and more often than not use no munitions and engage nothing.. doesn't make for good entrainment after a long day at work!

 

I much prefer dodging SAMs while searching for targets.. its what makes the sim exciting. Not that all mission need to have SAM threats to be fun.. but i understand why many do.

[StrongHarm]

Flying mission with no creditable threat might be 'realistic' but it is also dull as dish water.

 

IRL mission last for hours and more often than not use no munitions and engage nothing.. doesn't make for good entrainment after a long day at work!

 

I much prefer dodging SAMs while searching for targets.. its what makes the sim exciting. Not that all mission need to have SAM threats to be fun.. but i understand why many do.

 

I would agree with that. We virtual pilots don't have a sober window.. hours long briefings.. preflight walkarounds.. all the other crap that IRL pilots need to deal with. You speak truth. I would suggest that SEAD would take care of fixed AA, then mobile AA may come into the AO to counter the Hawg threat for the enemy. You'll see that in the next mission Battle for Patara Valley. If a certain amount of armor is taken down before a certain time, AA starts to spawn (simulate counter-offensive). I also have a trigger in there that allows a switch in the hosts cockpit to spawn an SA-15.. that took a lot of time to figure out. That would be good to use in multiplayer if someone gets bored! heh.. But I digress.. I didn't start the thread to brag about my missions.. AA/SEAD employment IRL vs virtual

[Grimes]

Manpads, AAA, Shilka, and Strellas are enough of a threat in my opinion to keep things interesting while still maintaining a little bit of realism. Any SAM threat larger than that and realism tends to go a little out of the window. However when used sparingly, I feel that Tunguskas, Tors, and Osa's can be easily handled by A-10C pilots within the sim. But yeah, things can get a bit silly when the player is asked to handle absolutely everything, especially when the triggers required 100% of a group to die.

[Druid_]

^ agree completely. With todays modern imagery, its unreal to build a mission with multiple unknown SAM units randomly scattered around. Although SEAD flights weren't always available to packages in desert storm, it wasn't unusual for a mission to be aborted if the zone was too hot.

 

Personally I dislike unrealistic missions where the SAM threat is high and you are still expected to complete the task without any SEAD support.

 

 

Also I have a problem with the ability of DCS AI SAMs to see through trees/buildings, have unrealistic responce times and not suffer from ground clutter problems at all. So flying around at 100 ft agl is little protection if the SAM has LOS.

[OutOnTheOP]

I like the higher-threat missions because they're fun, and I like having some medium-high range threats (either air or SAM) because it forces the player to change his tactics. In missions where there's just SA-9, MANPADS, and AAA, the sortie inevitably turns into a bomb-truck milk run; straight in at 30K AGL, drop guided bombs from straight and level, turn around and go home. Snooooooore.

 

However, it's unrealistic to make destruction of the SAM threats a success criteria, and there's certainly such thing as too many SAMs.

 

Personally, I see 1 SA-9/13/8/15/2S6 per tank or IFV company as a reasonable ratio. 10 tanks/IFVs per mobile SAM platform.

 

one SA-6/11 mobile medium-range battery (no more than 4 launchers) per tank/IFV battalion is about right. (and these should be farther back, nearer where the artillery positions are than the leading armor!)

 

Missions with a dozen medium-range or long-range SAMs covering a platoon or two of armor is silly.

 

I'm not a big fan of having fixed or semifixed sites (including SA-10) around, because they'd have been dealt with long before the A-10s were fragged to the area.

 

*edit* I totally agree that the response time for some of the SAMs is totally ridiculous. They seem to never have any ambiguity over whether you're a valid track, whether you're hostile, or whether you're worth engaging. On the flip side, they're also pretty stupid about consistently engaging at maximum range. Older systems setting up from the march, and MANPADS are particularly bad about their too-quick responses. When I pop up over a ridgeline, it's just not realistic for an SA-18 team to spot, identify, track, and engage me in two seconds.

Edited January 28, 2012 by OutOnTheOP

[StrongHarm]

... have unrealistic response times and not suffer from ground clutter problems at all. So flying around at 100 ft agl is little protection if the SAM has LOS.

 

I'll check to see if that's written up in the issues db. Concerning response times: I read a defense paper that said that the ZSU takes more than 3.5 minutes to switch to manual. It went on to say that the A-10 countermeasures were created specifically with the Tung's radar in mind, so probability of success is almost 100%. Considering this, the Hawg would be virtually immune to the most widely used mobile AAA vehicle employed by it's most common enemies if terrain masking is employed. A realistic response time might be unbalancing in DCS. However, I've found that if you take a shot at the ZSU from 3nm+ with PAC engaged on a steep and stable slope, you can kill it almost every time without taking a single round. Ahhh.. isn't our Hawg a beauty!?

Edited January 28, 2012 by StrongHarm

[Grimes]

My understanding is that the A-10 was designed to be able to engage AAA with the GAU-8 outside of the AAA effective combat range. And as long as you break off at something like 1 nm, you probably can't get hit by the target you are shooting at.

[MadTommy]

Manpads, AAA, Shilka, and Strellas are enough of a threat in my opinion to keep things interesting while still maintaining a little bit of realism. Any SAM threat larger than that and realism tends to go a little out of the window. However when used sparingly, I feel that Tunguskas, Tors, and Osa's can be easily handled by A-10C pilots within the sim. But yeah, things can get a bit silly when the player is asked to handle absolutely everything, especially when the triggers required 100% of a group to die.

 

I mostly agree, but i like Tungushas.. as i think they are a tipping point / or the premium threat.. you can deal with them in the A10c if you know how and can find them, but they are damn dangerous.

 

Also personally I find a Strela 10 the most dangerous as they give no warning.. :cry:

 

I like SAMs in the AO.. but i agree with StrongHarm they should not be the primary target but something to avoid or overcome to reach a target.

 

One thing i hate about SEAD flights.. they just come in like super flights, see everything and often kill everything with such ease there is little point even bothering.. might as well just place some dead SAMs and at the mission start.

[StrongHarm]

.. might as well just place some dead SAMs and at the mission start.

 

The referenced mission has Apaches in the AO as you're starting up. They go after the AA assets, but if one element is killed (north and south) then you're warned that AA remains in the deficient sector. Or.. if you breech the AO before they report AA down (individually, then total) then they bug out and SEAD is up to you. You can then hit F10 to request the MGRS of the last known location of threat, for each threat still alive. But by the time you startup, take off, then get in pattern over Tbilisi, they're usually at about 6 of 10 destroyed. Holding the pattern for 5min usually allows them enough time to mop up. In my testing I found that about 20% of the time one or the other Apache element is destroyed or damaged to the point that they bug out and you have to finish that sector. You can also use AFAC to talk on to AA before the armor, as they have "AFAC assign target" for each AA, ordered before open AFAC. Feel free to view the triggers and use them if you like the logic.

 

Mostly, I like watching the Apaches while my INS spins up. I also have a mission where you fly the Blackshark in their place. I may create a co-operative where KA-50s and A-10Cs do the mission together in multiplayer.

[Grimes]

One thing i hate about SEAD flights.. they just come in like super flights, see everything and often kill everything with such ease there is little point even bothering..

Yeah that can be a slight issue. However limiting their weapons, making AI groups 'invisible', and limiting the types of units they can attack can force the AI to not rambo everything. The thing that bugs me is that the 'invisible' setting has so many damn drawbacks. I wish you could set that all group types and specific groups are invisible on a group by group basis. So that your main objective is invisible to the AH-64s who have another target, but the same group is visible to friendly ground forces.

 

 

might as well just place some dead SAMs and at the mission start.

Heh, if it was done randomly you'd have a simulation of a simulation. So you can simulate while you simulate. :D But seriously, both ways are completely acceptable I think. It just takes abit more effort in selling the idea that a sead flight took place when it actually didn't.

[Druid_]

One thing i hate about SEAD flights.. they just come in like super flights, see everything and often kill everything with such ease there is little point even bothering.. might as well just place some dead SAMs and at the mission start.

 

IRL SAM sites will switch on and off to avoid SEAD not to mention the decoys that some of the more advanced systems have that aren't modelled. However as a miz builder you can mimic this behaviour by setting a trigger at the SAMs range and using it to randomly switch its radar on and off. Maybe even have a few trigger circles within its range also to change the radar on/off times. i.e. The closer the target, the greater the PK factor and quite possibly the longer the SAM operator would be prepared to radiate. Using this method its possible the SAM sites might outdo the AI SEAD.

 

Give it a try. It would be nice to know how accurate the DCS modelled HARM/ALARM is if the radar is switched off just after launch. I know it will home in on INS posn but IRL its not that great at near to max launch range since the radars position is sensed more accurately the closer it gets.

[MadTommy]

Yeah a good way to limit the use of SEAD but still allow it to do ts role would be good... some good ideas here.

 

I'll try some tests with SEAD & radar switching off & on scenarios..

 

I must admit i assumed the SEAD would kill any AA threat radar on or off, as they seem to see AAA threats with no radar with no restrictions well beyond eyeball range.

[MadTommy]

IRL SAM sites will switch on and off to avoid SEAD not to mention the decoys that some of the more advanced systems have that aren't modelled. However as a miz builder you can mimic this behaviour by setting a trigger at the SAMs range and using it to randomly switch its radar on and off. Maybe even have a few trigger circles within its range also to change the radar on/off times. i.e. The closer the target, the greater the PK factor and quite possibly the longer the SAM operator would be prepared to radiate. Using this method its possible the SAM sites might outdo the AI SEAD.

 

Give it a try. It would be nice to know how accurate the DCS modelled HARM/ALARM is if the radar is switched off just after launch. I know it will home in on INS posn but IRL its not that great at near to max launch range since the radars position is sensed more accurately the closer it gets.

 

Ok i've had a very quick look..

 

I thought you could affect radar state in Advanced Options.. but this is not an option.. You have the choice of making things 'invisible' or 'turning AI off'.

 

I suppose turning AI on & off is the best option to simulate this...

 

EDIT:

 

Ok i did a test with AI on & off. 3 scenarios.. Osa Vs F-16c bl.52d (fully armed)

 

1st: Osa AI on for 10 seconds.. then A1 off.. F16c outside Osa range when AI on. F16 either never sees it or ignores it.

 

2nd: Osa AI on for 10 seconds.. then A1 off.. when F16c inside range..Oas AI on.. F16 engages and kills with anti-radar missile.

 

3rd: Osa AI on for 10 seconds.. then A1 off.. when F16c inside range..Oas AI on for 10 seconds then off again.. F16 engages and kills with Maverick while Osa AI is off.

 

So.. if the SEAD flight detects the SAM but then the SAM AI goes off it goes in for the kill anyway...

Edited January 28, 2012 by MadTommy

[StrongHarm]

I know it will home in on INS posn but IRL its not that great at near to max launch range since the radars position is sensed more accurately the closer it gets.

My understanding is that the traditional HARM needs to be within a very close range to get a fix and still hit it's target if the radar is no longer hot. I saw a report recently that Ratheon has received an RFP to build an HDAM system that will store GPS/INS info autonomous of the aircraft, after a very short window if the threat radiates. I wonder what the cost per missile is though...

 

Grimes, isn't it possible to set SEAD to "Attack group XX", then within the same waypoint, and in order after "attack group", a "Weapons Hold".. to restrict their attack and leave everything visible? I've not tried it.

 

One method to simulate cat/mouse between HARM and AI-AA is to set an AI task on SEAD for weapons hold, then add it to a trigger based on conditions. So SA-X(AI-OFF), F-XX(AI Task, Weapon's Hold)... SA-X(AI-ON), F-XX(AI Task, Weapon's Free). I find myself using AI Task more and more.. very useful.

 

For those of you interested in limiting your AA and SEAD in the future, I use the invisible method in the referenced mission. Take a look at the triggers and

to see how it all plays out.

[jeffyd123]

cool strongHarm's back!

 

you gonna be flying at the 1st or ?

 

good to see you bud