No more easy kills felas ))))

[redfish]

Someone said Once SAM opens fire its over for him..)) says who?..why?.. Lets say a pack of A-10s are flying.. 4 of them.. in formation... willingly or not they fly into a nest.. thats it, if that happens they are dead.. there is no "ohhh that SAM is going to get it.. by whom.. they are all dead in a matter of seconds..

 

Still have to disagree. My point of view is still the same, I will have options to deal with a SAM ambush. I am still going to know there is a SAM site somewhere just using the SADL network. An example - Aircraft A (A-10c) flies along it's flightplan - Aircraft A successfully navi-guesses their way along waypoint's A, B, C, D and E. Something happens to aircraft A between waypoint's E and waypoint F.

 

Now using my years and years of expert knowledge as a part-time armchair general, I will be able to deduce something has happened at a certain lat/lon location to aircraft A. I will have options to deal with the possible SAM location. What are the engagement ranges of SAM systems being used by enemy, draw radius around the last known SADL location, Are the SAM sites hidden and are there features in the F10 terrain map that stand out as hiding spots? Are the sam's in the open? Maybe send a sneaky ground recon team to the suspected location. Or is it possible to avoid the location all together? Anyway point is moot, agree with some of your musings, disagree with others. Lots of options to choose and in a semi - dynamic war, this will be very very interesting and I just hope it is stable and doesn't crash.

 

I don't think there are fake transponders in the SIM, it would be a very good idea however.

 

Redfish

[Pyroflash]

I don't think there are fake transponders in the SIM, it would be a very good idea however.

 

Redfish

 

They aren't really transponders. A transponder is an identifying device that sends a coded transmission of some sort which other aircraft/ground systems can pick up and gather data from (altitude, relative position, squawk, and identifier in most cases).

 

Radar decoys on the other hand are radio emission systems that seek to emulate several types of search and fire control systems and their particular patterns, waveforms, and pulse frequencies. They usually take anywhere between 10 to 30 minutes to set up, and are usually small devices when compared to the actual radar systems. Some also have systems that can link to actual SAM control boxes to sync up with the real radar in order to spoof incoming missiles that have locked onto the important one. If I recall correctly several such decoys can be set up around a single system providing it with some redundancy against multiple launches.

Edited July 8, 2012 by Pyroflash

[BRooDJeRo]

So DCS is turning nto a FPS-simulator. Is DCS still to be intented to be a socalled edu-sim?

[Kaktus29]

good points..

 

.. its true, there are alternatives of how to ambush SAMs in their own game, .. but so far in real life that has happened ONLY in a un-balanced scenario where attacker greatly outnumbered the defender-Vietnam, Yugoslavia etc.. We have never seen equal amount of planes on each side and SAMs etc..

 

I was referring to this equation, IF you have equal size of force it is practically next to impossible to achieve any worthwhile and meaningful air superiority after which you can utilize other elements of air power.

 

Flying at 20000 feet all the time so you FORCE the SAM to turn radars instead of using passive systems(optic, IIR, etc..) is also bad for you, since you can't be as accurate as you would want to.. also you would be much more visible to long range detection by EW that are far away from the front and by that giving away your position that is later transmitted by radio or other way to other SAM and GAI's waiting to spring the trap..

 

 

I agree, SAM is defensive weapon, and in that it does its job wonderfully.. If we play MP i guess it will be Blue Team vs. Red Team, .. Red for instance needs to attack, Blue needs to defend, .. they both have the same amount of "money" to spend as they set up their armies(so Red team could opt for more planes and less SAMs and Blue could opt for more SAMs or more tanks or whatever.. its up to strategy..but the amount of money would be equal..and in that it would make it a challenge.. i'm afraid if the conditions would be as such it would be impossible for the attacker to ever win as historically i have said an attacker always needs at least a 2:1 ration of balance of force in order to overcome a same-technology opponent... sometimes its closer to 3:1 or more that you need.. But that would be tested on the field and proper ratios would be used to make the MP fun and not impossible for the defender or attacker)..

 

Then we can do MPs that would test your skills, that is playing AGAINST odds, .trying to overcome enemy who has twice the amount of "money" to spent on him as you play as a defender, or 4 times, .. or try to attack but only having equal amount of money or even less.. this missions would be for professionals who would use every trick in the book to surprise an overwhelming enemy.. would be nice to see such kamikaze MP as well.. but most of the time i would enjoy a real balanced MP (that means two opponents who are equally "rich" or "poor" for that matter.. )..

 

 

p.s.:AD is not just SAMs its a component of SAMs and AF, .. together i still believe they can easily slow down and practically immobilize the enemy air.. about those surprises, remember there is no warning when you are being hit by IR seeking missile (altough lately there has been developments to improve this by laser-range warnings on planes-most planes are not equipped with this and will be only in the future) .. and flying high above 20.000 feet or even more makes you a target for S-300 miles away.. but thankfully S-300 isn't really simulated in the DCS and LOMAC series because if it would be properly simulated most Virtual pilots would stop flying.. the thing would cover all of the Crimea with its range.. and if one would use brains with operating the system-using other detection rather than its own(friendly CAP, AWACS, EW, etc.. for initial guidance before active goes online in the missile after it zooms to 20km) it would be next to impossible to play in the DCS world.. So invader would have an option of being blown by passive systems as he flies hugging the ground to avoid radar detection, or blown by making himself a target at 30.000 feet.. plus there is an Air force out there to get you as well... ufff... there is no way an attack force can achieve its objects with 2:1 ration, .. i smell 4 or more :1 ratio needed to have a 50% chance of success..

[GGTharos]

.. its true, there are alternatives of how to ambush SAMs in their own game, .. but so far in real life that has happened ONLY in a un-balanced scenario where attacker greatly outnumbered the defender-Vietnam, Yugoslavia etc.. We have never seen equal amount of planes on each side and SAMs etc..

 

I was referring to this equation, IF you have equal size of force it is practically next to impossible to achieve any worthwhile and meaningful air superiority after which you can utilize other elements of air power.

 

What about Bekaa valley?

 

Flying at 20000 feet all the time so you FORCE the SAM to turn radars instead of using passive systems(optic, IIR, etc..) is also bad for you, since you can't be as accurate as you would want to.. also you would be much more visible to long range detection by EW that are far away from the front and by that giving away your position that is later transmitted by radio or other way to other SAM and GAI's waiting to spring the trap..

 

Using passive means makes the SAM in-effective. Period. If you have data-link that's great, but are you really going to turn that radar on when you have a cloud of ARMs hovering over you?

 

i'm afraid if the conditions would be as such it would be impossible for the attacker to ever win as historically i have said an attacker always needs at least a 2:1 ration of balance of force in order to overcome a same-technology opponent... sometimes its closer to 3:1 or more that you need.. But that would be tested on the field and proper ratios would be used to make the MP fun and not impossible for the defender or attacker)..

 

Then we can do MPs that would test your skills, that is playing AGAINST odds, .trying to overcome enemy who has twice the amount of "money" to spent on him as you play as a defender, or 4 times, .. or try to attack but only having equal amount of money or even less.. this missions would be for professionals who would use every trick in the book to surprise an overwhelming enemy.. would be nice to see such kamikaze MP as well.. but most of the time i would enjoy a real balanced MP (that means two opponents who are equally "rich" or "poor" for that matter.. )..

 

You don't need 'professionals'. People come up with interesting tactics all the time.

 

p.s.:AD is not just SAMs its a component of SAMs and AF, .. together i still believe they can easily slow down and practically immobilize the enemy air..

 

Yep, without friendly air cover, SAMs are just a speed bump.

 

about those surprises, remember there is no warning when you are being hit by IR seeking missile

 

What's what you have eyes for.

 

and flying high above 20.000 feet or even more makes you a target for S-300 miles away..

 

That depends. How many ARMs are flying on top of that S-300 at that time?

 

but thankfully S-300 isn't really simulated in the DCS and LOMAC series because if it would be properly simulated most Virtual pilots would stop flying..

 

BS. A SAM is a stationary defense, and there are plenty of ways to deal with it. It may not be easy, but it doesn't make the S-300 a wall.

 

the thing would cover all of the Crimea with its range.. and if one would use brains with operating the system-using other detection rather than its own(friendly CAP, AWACS, EW, etc.. for initial guidance before active goes online in the missile after it zooms to 20km) it would be next to impossible to play in the DCS world..

 

Wanna bet?

 

So invader would have an option of being blown by passive systems as he flies hugging the ground to avoid radar detection, or blown by making himself a target at 30.000 feet.. plus there is an Air force out there to get you as well... ufff... there is no way an attack force can achieve its objects with 2:1 ration, .. i smell 4 or more :1 ratio needed to have a 50% chance of success..

 

The 'invader' has the option of flying through the holes in the IADS, as well as suppressing the SAM system with ARMs. I smell you're making things up.

[Kaktus29]

am, well, you are proposing elements such as ARMs etc.. in that case things can always escalete.. i said balanced force.. if u use a weapon that can't be countered just by SAM they yes you are in a position of vulnerability.. what i tried to say is AF is very if not much more vulnerable to missile squadrons and battalions and ground forces than people realise.. as i said, historically it has been proven that you can only win as an attacker when you outnumber the enemy.. always in history it has been like this.. so if you put a 1 billion budget for the attacker and 1 billion budget on the defender i still say with 100% conviction the attacker is going to see those planes either blown up or not take of entirely..

 

Tochka, Iskander missiled can neutralize airfields very easily, .. and that mr. is how you defeat enemy air without a single aircraft .. why the awacs and fighting in air when you just disable the airfield.. those missile have range of 500 km, but that can be upgraded easily to 2000 km.. US has for this particular problem pressured russia into signing lots of agreements on limiting the range of tactical weapons such as iskander etc.. after the AF are damaged and in repair-mode there is no flying air force.. and what remains is the good old fashion ground banging tank war.. with an equal opponent (if they own Iskander i can imagine they own modern tanks .. ) ..

 

SAM does not equal a speed bump, prove me with facts where this has been so, .. and no, having 200 planes fighting an enemy with 20 planes does not count.. just as Israeli 100 F-15 don't count vs. Syrian Mig-23 who have a radar range of a 20 km and ONLY after being re-directed by EW .. a huuuuge disadvantege .. The Yom Kipur war pretty much decimated the israeli air force until egyptians ran out of ammo and USSR outweaseld to re-supply them on the other hand US kept pumping fresh planes to the israelis and they destroyed the systems with their ground force )) ..

 

If SAM would be such a speed bump US would not be whining like a little bitch every time Russia tries to sell S-300, forget S-300, tunguska to iran or syria.. talk about low confidence about AF superiority))) Israelis had the same complex of self delusion about their Merkava tanks.. they are invincible they said.. and then Hezbolah used the Syrian bought russian anti tank system and well.. tanks blew up like they had no armor at all..

 

Western superiority comes at fighting countries who are 40 yrs lagging in technology, 40 years lagging in economy, and in times of civil war..

 

The only problem with AD is its too static, not dynamic enough if you wanna go on the offensive and start hitting the enemy at home.. but with some ingenuity even that can happen by using 2 pronged attack, jumping like a frog, opening umbrella blitzing with tank divisions and opening the second umbrella while the first pack up and progresses forward..

[GGTharos]

what i tried to say is AF is very if not much more vulnerable to missile squadrons and battalions and ground forces than people realise.. as i said, historically it has been proven that you can only win as an attacker when you outnumber the enemy.. always in history it has been like this.. so if you put a 1 billion budget for the attacker and 1 billion budget on the defender i still say with 100% conviction the attacker is going to see those planes either blown up or not take of entirely..

 

History tells us that a determined air force can take on a SAM barrier and defeat it, actually, without numerical superiority.

 

Tochka, Iskander missiled can neutralize airfields very easily, .. and that mr. is how you defeat enemy air without a single aircraft ..

 

Ok cool, so where's your SAM now? You say Iskander, I say PAC-3/THAAD.

 

why the awacs and fighting in air when you just disable the airfield.. those missile have range of 500 km, but that can be upgraded easily to 2000 km.. US has for this particular problem pressured russia into signing lots of agreements on limiting the range of tactical weapons such as iskander etc..

 

US had its own long-range missiles that are not ICBMs.. Didn't you know?

 

 

SAM does not equal a speed bump, prove me with facts where this has been so, .. and no, having 200 planes fighting an enemy with 20 planes does not count.. just as Israeli 100 F-15 don't count vs. Syrian Mig-23 who have a radar range of a 20 km and ONLY after being re-directed by EW .. a huuuuge disadvantege .. The Yom Kipur war pretty much decimated the israeli air force until egyptians ran out of ammo and USSR outweaseld to re-supply them on the other hand US kept pumping fresh planes to the israelis and they destroyed the systems with their ground force )) ..

 

Actually in Yom Kippur the IAF figured out how to perform SEAD better. It had nothing to do with running out of ammo. I find it amusing how you want to claim that this or that 'don't count'. Wake up. There's no such thing as a fantasy 'equal battlefield'.

 

If SAM would be such a speed bump US would not be whining like a little bitch every time Russia tries to sell S-300, forget S-300, tunguska to iran or syria.. talk about low confidence about AF superiority))) Israelis had the same complex of self delusion about their Merkava tanks.. they are invincible they said.. and then Hezbolah used the Syrian bought russian anti tank system and well.. tanks blew up like they had no armor at all..

 

Russia should know better than to hand over S-300's to either Syria or Iran. In any case, I don't see why you're bringing that up since according to your rethoric it would be some downgraded export version anyway, so no wonder if it got defeated by ECM, ARMs, etc ... right?

 

The merkava did fine. I see you like talking about things you don't actually understand. That battle was a perfect example of poor tactics executed on the part of the Istaelis. It had nothing to do with the performance of the Merkava, which actually did quite well considering the circumstances.

 

Western superiority comes at fighting countries who are 40 yrs lagging in technology, 40 years lagging in economy, and in times of civil war..

 

Whose problem is that?

 

 

The only problem with AD is its too static, not dynamic enough if you wanna go on the offensive and start hitting the enemy at home..

 

Aw, really? No wonder it's called a speed bump.

 

but with some ingenuity even that can happen by using 2 pronged attack, jumping like a frog, opening umbrella blitzing with tank divisions and opening the second umbrella while the first pack up and progresses forward..

 

Yeah, sure. Sounds like the normal thing any advancing force would do. I wonder why?

[Kaktus29]

"History tells us that a determined air force can take on a SAM barrier and defeat it, actually, without numerical superiority."

 

such as?...

 

"Ok cool, so where's your SAM now? You say Iskander, I say PAC-3/THAAD."

 

))) ask the israelis who used patriots .. THAAD is a turd .. cancelled project.. too cumber-stone to use effectively in combat conditions.. Interceptions of Hamas fire-crackers using top of the shelf Drome or whatever they call this US taxpayer gift is a joke.. a normal SALVO that a division would fire in a war makes the system look as money laundering scheme ))

 

 

"Actually in Yom Kippur the IAF figured out how to perform SEAD better. It had nothing to do with running out of ammo. I find it amusing how you want to claim that this or that 'don't count'. Wake up. There's no such thing as a fantasy 'equal battlefield'."

 

again, . example?? .. Israelis defeted the system by ramming planes at it)) lol.. egyptians ran out of ammo) .. thats a fact. you sir.. i am still waiting for the magic tactic you said they used) .. the destruction of egyptian sams were made by soldiers on the ground not planes..check your facts..

 

"Russia should know better than to hand over S-300's to either Syria or Iran. In any case, I don't see why you're bringing that up since according to your rethoric it would be some downgraded export version anyway, so no wonder if it got defeated by ECM, ARMs, etc ... right?

 

The merkava did fine. I see you like talking about things you don't actually understand. That battle was a perfect example of poor tactics executed on the part of the Istaelis. It had nothing to do with the performance of the Merkava, which actually did quite well considering the circumstances."

 

S-300 being less effective because its export oriented only makes US look even weaker.. if its a system that is downgraded.. wtf are you so afraid of)) LOL.. do a reality check, a BUK system is a danger for US ))

 

Merkaa did fine? it was all about tactic.. am, .. sir i speak of anti-tank weapon that shreded the tanks.. and that it do very well.. and proved western technology and armor and superiority that comes with it as a mirage.. Those tanks were sliced like a hot knife through butter.-- maybe you wish i send you israeli confession of what i write?..

 

so far unfortunatelly you haven't send me any facts that show me otherwise.. hitting SA-2 who is low on ammo in a country that has 4 such system with an Air Force that number 1000 planes is not a proof of superiority of planes vs. SAMs )) Ask a general what they feel about sam weapons.. Ask Clark Wesley about how fearful they were orcheastrating attack on yugoslavia and that was a country under economic sanctions for 10 years and systems old 30 years)) .. And even then, NATO managed to destroy civilian infrastracture, .. while the Serbian ground force was left unscratched .. i remember how NATO officials said they watched in horror and amazement when after 3 months of brutal bombing day in day out how serbian armour kept rolling from kosovo one tank after another)) .. Don't want to insult you or anything, but your false belief in AF superiority is proven to be false..

[djembe]

DCSW is one thing, reality another.

 

In my experience editing missions for FC2 and BS I can say that if you put things very difficult, all pilot are shot down.

With more human intelligence on the ground will be much more difficult.

 

The trees do not affect the game yet?

I imagine a group of SAMs in a circuit inside a forest at 80km/h

You will see the SAM run as never before.

SAMs can be hidden behind the buildings, after shooting, you can change its position quickly.

Ambush...

[Pyroflash]

such as?...

 

he already gave you an example, Israel has proven time again that they can win against an opponent with comparable technology and superior force numbers.

 

))) ask the israelis who used patriots .. THAAD is a turd .. cancelled project.. too cumber-stone to use effectively in combat conditions.. Interceptions of Hamas fire-crackers using top of the shelf Drome or whatever they call this US taxpayer gift is a joke.. a normal SALVO that a division would fire in a war makes the system look as money laundering scheme ))

The PAC-3 is an upgrade on top of an already very well proven and effective system capable (as it has shown in reality) of taking on a multitude of threats with a pretty good Pk against most of them. I have no idea where you get this idea that it is a "turd" from, but maybe you should check your facts.

 

again, . example?? .. Israelis defeted the system by ramming planes at it)) lol.. egyptians ran out of ammo) .. thats a fact. you sir.. i am still waiting for the magic tactic you said they used) .. the destruction of egyptian sams were made by soldiers on the ground not planes..check your facts..

Israel did not "ram planes" at anything. Furthermore, the Egyptians were so scared of losing their precious SAM net (which they lost to SEAD (yes, the Israelis did have, and quite often used SEAD strikes against enemy SAMs) strikes and light raids anyways), that they refused to advance while they held the initiative.

 

S-300 being less effective because its export oriented only makes US look even weaker.. if its a system that is downgraded.. wtf are you so afraid of)) LOL.. do a reality check, a BUK system is a danger for US ))

The S-300 DOES represent a danger. That is why the U.S. is trying to avoid confronting it. No one ever said that it didn't. As for the Sa-11, well yes, it does pose a threat, but not something that cannot be dealt with by a well coordinated and planned attack. No SAM is an end all be all weapon, and SEAD is no joke. The parties involved take it very seriously; and to be honest, have the balls to back it up.

 

Merkaa did fine? it was all about tactic.. am, .. sir i speak of anti-tank weapon that shreded the tanks.. and that it do very well.. and proved western technology and armor and superiority that comes with it as a mirage.. Those tanks were sliced like a hot knife through butter.-- maybe you wish i send you israeli confession of what i write?..

He didn't say that the Merkava was an invincible tank or anything, it is merely that under the circumstances, it really performed well. Really, the battle was lost before it even started, modern Russian missiles or not. Also, prior to and since, the Merkava continues to be meeting all other expectations of a modern battlefield, so it is hardly a bad tank by anyone's standards; well, maybe except yours :P

 

so far unfortunatelly you haven't send me any facts that show me otherwise.. hitting SA-2 who is low on ammo in a country that has 4 such system with an Air Force that number 1000 planes is not a proof of superiority of planes vs. SAMs ))

Yes, it is a known fact that the logistics on the Arab side of that war were terrible. They expected the Russians to supply them with everything, which they were unable to do. To be honest, this was an awful assumption, as one should be prepared for the eventuality that support by a largely non-participating nation could be lost or halted due to a very large number of reasons, not the least of which being effective anti-ship strikes against merchant shipping (resource denial is also part of war).

 

Ask a general what they feel about sam weapons.. Ask Clark Wesley about how fearful they were orcheastrating attack on yugoslavia and that was a country under economic sanctions for 10 years and systems old 30 years)) .. And even then, NATO managed to destroy civilian infrastracture, .. while the Serbian ground force was left unscratched .. i remember how NATO officials said they watched in horror and amazement when after 3 months of brutal bombing day in day out how serbian armour kept rolling from kosovo one tank after another)) .. Don't want to insult you or anything, but your false belief in AF superiority is proven to be false..

Yes, a general has the right be be fearful. Any military commander that does not fear and respect his enemy is longing for a spanking. And for all you talk about the Yugoslavians having effectively survived the NATO bombings, they still lost. Edited July 8, 2012 by Pyroflash

[159th_Viper]

OK Gentlemen........Enough of the derail: The next post had better please be on topic, ie DCS Combined Arms.

Ta

[Kaktus29]

back on track..

 

New SAM simulations need to be coupled with new SEAD element.. so far we have SEAD that is AI and you have to mission edit what SAM he is going to destroy in advance.. which is silly to say the least..

 

I haven't played the A-10C so i don't know maybe they changed it.. Would like to either see improved AI here, where you can say from waypoint 3 till 9 you are on SEAD mission meaning if you encounter SAM you well, hope survive the initial SAM surprise and not jettison your HARM missiles) .. and then attack it... And AI on SAMs where they would use some data-sharing info so if AWACS or EW is tracking you some SAMs could see that picture so they could use this to strategize their surprise on you-whether attacking you ACTIVE style or passive-depending on your altitude..

 

 

Has anyone played or know the game Naval War:Arctic Circle.. its done by some devs and published by Paradox who are great at strategy/tactical games.. What i want to say is, they made a good platform from which to manage and direct and give orders to ships and so on..

 

One option the MP could be played is on a strategic/tactical sense completely.. like there is an announcement that MP will be played, Red team will have 5 billion of USD to spend on what they want as they assemble their military and Blue as well.. Who is attacker or defender could be purely by chance-or agreed upon. And then the game starts.. you don't need to have all human machines when the game starts.. since it will not be needed.. You will need at least 2 commanders who will be on opposing sides.

 

After that, people can join in (either randomly or previously agreed because they are a part of the team-contract stuff i was talking in previous posts).. and slowly but surely fill in the ranks. So, how do we prevent idiots from blowing stuff up that wasn't ordered to?.. Like a commander will get AWACS info of a strike package infiltrating into home base and wants to re-direct a CAP to this position.. but the CAP player decides to rather hunt for some frogfoot meat in some dead-end alley).. well, in the end of the game all the participants would give their VOTES, .. and vote everybody apart from themself of how they saw other people following orders or just agreeing on their technical merits in the fighting.. And if somebody did foolish things such a person would get a bad rep.. and other teams would avoid using such individual for their team.. You could see the progress of somebody getting bad rep or good rep on the MP servers.. And to avoid abusing the system every person who uses the DCS should use his own personal NICK or CODE that would be given when you buy DCS CA package..

 

 

What do you think guys? ..

Edited July 8, 2012 by Kaktus29

[159th_Viper]

......so far we have SEAD that is AI and you have to mission edit what SAM he is going to destroy in advance.. which is silly to say the least....

 

Leave SEAD/DEAD flights to the clients, ie Humans - problem solved.

[Kaktus29]

yes, but for a human to fly sead you need a plane to do this.. so far i don't know there is a possibility to use other planes other then Su-25T to do some SEAD..

 

the reason why Dynamic Eagle hasn't go deeply into SEAD is for the reason you need to then do a complete deep redesign of SAMs.. and tactics, and all kinds of trick in the back to make the system some what realistic.. maybe with the advent of SAM operated by humans we shall see new planes who will have SEAD abilitiy-like F-16, F-15, F-18 .. and on the russian side they also need to present some more planes to do some more complex missions apart from bombing stuff.. like Su-30 would be a dream multi-tasking multi-role plane.. but so far, i'm really happy with the developments .. really wish the devs all the luck in this one.. hope i get my comp in order before this all comes out))

[Pyroflash]

yes, but for a human to fly sead you need a plane to do this.. so far i don't know there is a possibility to use other planes other then Su-25T to do some SEAD..

 

the reason why Dynamic Eagle hasn't go deeply into SEAD is for the reason you need to then do a complete deep redesign of SAMs..

 

Yes, the T-Toad is currently the only flyable aircraft that can do SEAD, however it is more than adequate for the role.

 

And the reason ED hasn't delved too deeply (yet) into SEAD is simply because they have not released a DCS aircraft capable of doing SEAD strikes, no more, no less.

 

As for creating an in-game rep system, I think this has to be handled carefully if implemented. Such a system has to be made so that it can not be abused, and has to be complex enough so that it does not represent an arbitrary representation of someone's potential abilities (i.e. someone could be really good at flying CAS in the A-10C, so they get a good rep, but then sucks at CAP, however they still get tasked with high priority missions because of their "high proficiency", which in this case would be detrimental to the team. Though the alternative is no rep system, which could give commanders an equal opportunity of picking someone terrible for important jobs.

 

Though the whole point is really moot because most online flights take place within or between squadrons where at least some level of coordination and acclimation to varying levels of skill already exists.

Edited July 8, 2012 by Pyroflash

[71st_Mastiff]

is this because Ground radar for aircraft can't be implemented in DCS?

[GGTharos]

Who said it can't be?

[71st_Mastiff]

Who said it can't be?

 

I have not seen any specs as to if aircraft ground radar is working? I have not read it anywhere, for F16 F18, ect..

[GGTharos]

I have not seen any mention of ED being unable to model such radar modes, so what's this story you're making up again?

[71st_Mastiff]

I have not seen any mention of ED being unable to model such radar modes, so what's this story you're making up again?

 

 

Wasn't a story I m asking is capable of DCS doing Ground radar?

 

Jeesus I'm asking this!

 

"Can DCS model Doppler ground radar hows that?"

 

more straight forward i guess.. :huh:

 

the reason for the question is there making a F15 E so the question is does DCS model Ground Doppler radar?

[Nate--IRL--]

Wasnt a story I m asking is capable of DCS doing Ground radar?

 

Jeesus Im asking this!

 

"Can DCS model dopler ground radar hows that?"

 

more straight foward i guess.. :huh:

 

Yes it is capable - has it been done yet? No.

 

Nate

[71st_Mastiff]

Yes it is capable - has it been done yet? No.

 

Nate

 

thank you all i wanted to know... :)

 

man I felt like a dentist trying to pull teeth with out Novocain..

[Kaktus29]

"man I felt like a dentist trying to pull teeth with out Novocain.."

 

 

sometimes just stating an obvious question can derail some people off i guess)) ..

 

It is weird though, all this time and no real ground capable radar.. with all the advances they made in all aspects of simulations ..its a shame..but hopefully it will come back-back you say?..yes, it was there in a weird morphed kinda way.. I remember playing the first Su-27 Flanker back when it came out in 1996 or was it 1997 .. woow, graphics were really bad even for that time, but the atmosphere was increadible..and the S-300 they simulated was the improved version with extended range)) so it covered all of the crimea)) .. the only way you could survive is hugging terrain but that got you killed by Sting operation people waiting in the valleys)) Anyway, in that first game of their they simulated a ground well, naval ground radar..so you could locate ships and fire Kh-35 .. but it wasn't historically correct thing to do since the regular Su-27 does not have Air-to-ground capability.. only the Su-30 versions and maybe the new Su-27SM and whatnot versions..

[blahdy]

ask the israelis who used patriots .. THAAD is a turd .. cancelled project.. too cumber-stone to use effectively in combat conditions..

 

I see you are quite disconnected from understanding reality.

 

First off, THAAD is not cancelled. If you ever bothered to check facts, rather than sticking to your fanboyism, you'll find that THAAD is in active service and a very real counter-BM system at that.

 

Secondly, with respect to the Patriot PAC-2 engagements you're referring to: First, use of PAC-2 inside Israel during Gulf War (Israelis didn't use them, US did in their soil) was to defend wide area civilian population against incoming TBMs. The falling debris by TBM was enough to kill people and classify it as failure-mode when protecting civilians. But going back to your argument, you're talking about defense of point-fixed targets, such as airfield, which PAC-2s performed very well in Saudi Arabian during GW1. Merely intercepting the missile is all they had to do, to push it out of the way. The new GEM-T enhancement to PAC-2 improved in numerous areas surrounding TBM defense, and during GW2/OIF, PAC-2 GEM's successfully intercepted and destroyed every incoming TBM that it had engaged.

 

Additionally, you're confusing the PAC-2 missile with PAC-3. PAC-3 is a completely different missile that has no resemblance nor historical share with the PAC-2 performance that you're referring to. GGTharos was mentioning PAC-3, and you're sidelining to PAC-2 missiles which are irrelevant to this discussion.

 

 

Interceptions of Hamas fire-crackers using top of the shelf Drome or whatever they call this US taxpayer gift is a joke.. a normal SALVO that a division would fire in a war makes the system look as money laundering scheme ))

Iron Dome is counter-rocket system designed for protecting civilian population from limited rocket attacks, and the system performed extremely well with intercept score of over 70% even during salvo attacks. In a conventional war, Israel would not be counting on Iron Dome to defend armed formations -- standard counter-artillery tactics would be used to destroy enemy artillery units. You're clearly confused as to the actual purpose of this system.

[Kaktus29]

dude didn't you see the moderator?) remain on topic!))

 

but to answer and reply in quick fashion.. THAAD is a dud, energy hungry and as such not practical, same was with all those fancy toys of Micro-wave weapons.. a regular missile and precise radar will do the trick and even that barely..

 

I guess i was reading wrong US data about miserable PAC-2 performance in Israel during the first gulf war-yes they were send from US to Israel to protect them, it was the only way as usa said to prevent Israel attacking Iraq on its own because of retaliation.. anyway, after the congress mumbo-jumbo BS analyst showed PAC to be incapable of defending against short range balistic missiles-iraqi scuds remember were a hybrid nonsense made out of spare parts and cannot compare with a real system like Tochka and ISkander that are manoeuvring in mid air as they approach the target-making interception an impossibility..

 

About PAC-3, .. am, as far as FACTS are concerned the old-new S-300 are better than PAC-3 by a ratio of 1.5 if not more.. and with S-400 coming online noo.. i don't think so.. PAC can pack it.. it can't compete even it can't try to compete with the S-300-400 series.. Which is only normal, US priority was always agression and forward projection of military force not DEFENCE which Russia is leading in that field of technology-SAMs, etc.. USA doesn't bother with AD anyway..