MANPADS

[ShuRugal]

so, i am wondering what some effective tactics for detecting/avoiding MANPADS might consist of. I keep find myself getting an engine knocked out by Iglas, and it is powerfully annoying. I know that there may be missileers in the area, but unless i enable labels, i cannot see them. The only warning i get is "SAM Launch, two o-clock!" and all i can do is pop flares, start evading, and rudder over and see if i can back-track the smoke trail.

 

Usually i never even see it, just "SAM launch!" then "BLAP! Right engine fire. Check All parameters. Main Hydraulics. Common Hydraulics. Right transmission." and all i can do is dump externals, haul ass back to the FARP, and hope nothing else shoots at me.

 

So, how do you guys deal with MANPADS? is there any reliable way (short of labels) to detect them prior to missile launch? If not, what can you do after evading the missile to locate them quickly and prevent a follow-up?

[G-Lock91]

so, i am wondering what some effective tactics for detecting/avoiding MANPADS might consist of. I keep find myself getting an engine knocked out by Iglas, and it is powerfully annoying. I know that there may be missileers in the area, but unless i enable labels, i cannot see them. The only warning i get is "SAM Launch, two o-clock!" and all i can do is pop flares, start evading, and rudder over and see if i can back-track the smoke trail.

 

Usually i never even see it, just "SAM launch!" then "BLAP! Right engine fire. Check All parameters. Main Hydraulics. Common Hydraulics. Right transmission." and all i can do is dump externals, haul ass back to the FARP, and hope nothing else shoots at me.

 

So, how do you guys deal with MANPADS? is there any reliable way (short of labels) to detect them prior to missile launch? If not, what can you do after evading the missile to locate them quickly and prevent a follow-up?

 

I avoid em all together.. Holler in a SEAD flight. :thumbup:

[TurboHog]

SEAD is not really against manpads...

 

They are annoying because they are so small, indeed.

 

The only thing I can do about them is flying very carefully and advancing slowly. Also, zooming in can help you to spot such a small object without labels. In some cases I have been able to spot a muzzle flash. But it remains very difficult to avoid them.

 

In multiplayer, me and my shark buddy applied a very effective strategy. We fly in trail formation with a 1-2 km separation. The first pilot is looking forward to spot muzzle flashes, the second pilot is able to see smoke trails from missiles that approach #1 from the side and warns pilot 1. In addition, pilot 2 quickly uses HMS using the origin of the smoke trail in his advantage and kills the MANPAD.

 

We have been able to fly in MANPAD-protected area's that way.

[G-Lock91]

SEAD is not really against manpads...

 

They are annoying because they are so small, indeed..

 

A shoulder launched SAM.. Yeah I'd still call it in.. small or not, those are usually the one's that kick your a$$. :thumbup:

[Yurgon]

The rule of thumb is: If you're unsure, don't advance. Spotting shooters is extremely difficult, but that's true in real life just as well. Scout the target area from a safe distance and don't spare Vikhrs if a Manpad is in your way.

 

If you suspect Manpads and have to overfly an area anyways, it's actually a good idea to pop flares preemptively; that'll make it more difficult for a shooter to acquire a valid lock, so you may not even be shot at.

 

Another tip would be to export the Shkval to a second monitor. I did and that and it makes spotting and identifying targets a lot easier, plus you'll spend less time with your head down so it improves overall situational awareness.

 

But really, my experience is that whenever I advance too far into uncharted territory I get shot out of the sky, so it's well worth spending an extra 5 or 10 minutes scouting and spotting the area from different positions until I feel confident there's no threat there.

[Panzertard]

Fuel (hence patience) is way cheaper than a airframe and pilot-training.

 

Patience and skillful observing, a skillful wingman with good S/A will give you the edge you need if you put it too good use.

That and some time to react (a little bit of altitude) if the worst things should happen.

 

This may not always be the case with the AI wingmen which quite often can do silly things.

[Bushmanni]

Also if you fly under 10m the heat from ground will spoof the IR seeker pretty effectively or the missile might just hit the ground or some object in the way. Flying slow and low makes you easy target for MBT and IFV main guns so you need to choose the proper tactic for the situation.

[TurboHog]

Also if you fly under 10m the heat from ground will spoof the IR seeker pretty effectively or the missile might just hit the ground or some object in the way. Flying slow and low makes you easy target for MBT and IFV main guns so you need to choose the proper tactic for the situation.

 

Not really. IR signature from the ground surface is significantly smaller than that of a running engine. In fact: heat-seeking missiles can be used against ground targets as well. The AIM-9X for example has been succesfully tested as a light air-to-ground missile.

 

But it might hit the ground or some object and you can find cover faster.

[Bushmanni]

Hugging ground might not be good against AIM-9X but for older missiles it has been tested to be valid way to defend against heat seekers. FDF helicopter unit conducted some tests on defending against fighters and concluded that it's fairly impossible to get a lock on a chopper that has its exhausts suppressed. Actual tests were made with MD-500 and Mi-8. MD-500 was very hard to get a lock on as the exhaust is under the tail boom although unsuppressed and as such the missile was constantly spoofed by IR emissions from ground. Mi-8 could be locked only from side aspect. Missiles used in the test were something used in Mig-21Bis in the 1980-1990. IRL time of day, weather and type of soil and vegetation would of course have effect on effectiveness. IRL of course ground emissions wouldn't be concern for SAM missiles whose targets a skylined.

 

In DCS Stingers and Strelas at least fly harmlessly past you if you get close to the ground. You can fly and land next to a Strela in a open field if you stay under 10m and the Strela does nothing but if you get higher it starts to turn his missiles towards you until you get low again and it loses interest. In my tests I could sometimes get even higher than that but couldn't figure out why was it. It might have been a mountain range behind me that worked as a backdrop and when I got high enough to be silhouetted against the sky the Strela finally "saw" me. But at that time this didn't occur to me that I could have tested this hypothesis. But maybe tomorrow I could manage that.

[Griffin]

Could you tell where you got the FDF info from? Would be an interesting read if public.

[Bushmanni]

Could you tell where you got the FDF info from? Would be an interesting read if public.

 

Yeah, "Lentoupseeri" by Jari Rinne (Finnish language). It's a semi-autobiography and semi-rant about Finnish helicopter procurement. He began his career as a fighter pilot but transferred to helicopters due to medical reasons and finished as the commanding officer of the Helicopter squadron. He offers some insight into Finnish strategic, tactical and geographical environment regarding tactical use of helicopters in a battlefield. It's not very detailed but a knowledgeable and exprecienced sim chopper pilot should get something out of it. He also has some cool stories about his flying career.

[Griffin]

Kiitti!

 

Ah, obviously he's very critical about the NH90 which is very effective and a maturing helicopter these days. Much of the criticism is of course true for the huge delay part.

If I see it somewhere, I might read it for such interesting stories but it might be hard to go through all that complaining. :)

 

Good info on the manpads!

Edited July 10, 2012 by Griffin

[GGTharos]

Sounds like a test conducted with some rather old, and possibly rear-aspect onlymissiles, because in reality, there were actually procedures to attack ground targets with R-60's, and helis have been shot down by AIM-9's and 120's while flying quite low.

 

Hugging ground might not be good against AIM-9X but for older missiles it has been tested to be valid way to defend against heat seekers. FDF helicopter unit conducted some tests on defending against fighters and concluded that it's fairly impossible to get a lock on a chopper that has its exhausts suppressed. Actual tests were made with MD-500 and Mi-8. MD-500 was very hard to get a lock on as the exhaust is under the tail boom although unsuppressed and as such the missile was constantly spoofed by IR emissions from ground. Mi-8 could be locked only from side aspect. Missiles used in the test were something used in Mig-21Bis in the 1980-1990. IRL time of day, weather and type of soil and vegetation would of course have effect on effectiveness. IRL of course ground emissions wouldn't be concern for SAM missiles whose targets a skylined.

 

In DCS Stingers and Strelas at least fly harmlessly past you if you get close to the ground. You can fly and land next to a Strela in a open field if you stay under 10m and the Strela does nothing but if you get higher it starts to turn his missiles towards you until you get low again and it loses interest. In my tests I could sometimes get even higher than that but couldn't figure out why was it. It might have been a mountain range behind me that worked as a backdrop and when I got high enough to be silhouetted against the sky the Strela finally "saw" me. But at that time this didn't occur to me that I could have tested this hypothesis. But maybe tomorrow I could manage that.

That's because of gamification. The stinger will happily hit your vehicle regardless of where it is, so long as it is in range and has its engines running. Strela may have a prox fuze limitation when it comes to altitude, as may most AAMs in general.

[Randolf]

so, i am wondering what some effective tactics for detecting/avoiding MANPADS might consist of. I keep find myself getting an engine knocked out by Iglas, and it is powerfully annoying. I know that there may be missileers in the area, but unless i enable labels, i cannot see them. The only warning i get is "SAM Launch, two o-clock!" and all i can do is pop flares, start evading, and rudder over and see if i can back-track the smoke trail.

 

Usually i never even see it, just "SAM launch!" then "BLAP! Right engine fire. Check All parameters. Main Hydraulics. Common Hydraulics. Right transmission." and all i can do is dump externals, haul ass back to the FARP, and hope nothing else shoots at me.

 

So, how do you guys deal with MANPADS? is there any reliable way (short of labels) to detect them prior to missile launch? If not, what can you do after evading the missile to locate them quickly and prevent a follow-up?

Hitting f10 every now and then is pretty effective tactic. It's not very realistic, but since these mandpads aren't that realistically modeled in the first place, it's not really an immersion breaker.

 

I mean, it's not like in the real field the stinger guys were just standing there on the plains waiting for either

a) you to notice them and vihkr 'em

b) you to not notice them and fly too close.

 

Personally I believe mission designers add way too many sams into their missions for them to be something a pair of sharks could realistically pull off. Difficulty should come from something else than just sams.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Randolf

[GGTharos]

Actually B) is often exactly the case in a bunch of situations. In more conventional encounters, they will be either blocking your approach axis, and thus waiting for you in a position where they are not necessarily easily observed so that they get first shot, in other cases they might be embedded with troops/vehicles and you won't know just where that shot will come from.

 

Also, it isn't like vehicles take good precautions against air attack nor to they deploy GBAD agaist it, so the 'hidden SAM threat' makes up a little for that. Unless you were unrealistically expecting every single vikhr (or every pair) to be a kill ... or to even get more than 2-3 shots at targets.

 

b) you to not notice them and fly too close.

[Randolf]

Actually B) is often exactly the case in a bunch of situations. In more conventional encounters, they will be either blocking your approach axis, and thus waiting for you in a position where they are not necessarily easily observed so that they get first shot, in other cases they might be embedded with troops/vehicles and you won't know just where that shot will come from.

 

Also, it isn't like vehicles take good precautions against air attack nor to they deploy GBAD agaist it, so the 'hidden SAM threat' makes up a little for that. Unless you were unrealistically expecting every single vikhr (or every pair) to be a kill ... or to even get more than 2-3 shots at targets.

Ya I mean, they do wait for you to get close, but they don't just stand there. I certainly wouldn't. Instead, they take cover and make themselves very difficult to be spotted from the direction of the chopper. Once the chopper is close enough, I assume they pop up and strike fast, and then hide again. Considering the poor optics we have in the shark, it must be very difficult to spot a small, hiding target from kilometers away.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Randolf

[GGTharos]

It depends on the situation, but yes, you could expect a guy to run out of a forest, take a shot, and then run back in.

 

You could generally expect to not spot them easily regardless of the equipment you have, given that real humans would hide much better, and they probably would be looking to attack you from the flanks if possible - but again, that depends on the situation. If I had the opportunity I'd try and put an AD team on a reverse slope for example far enough from the target that you'd be forced to overfly the AD team and likely never spot them.

 

Also, check out the Apache-run-in-with-iraqi AAA.

[WildBillKelsoe]

IIRC, manpads couldn't lock on if you're flying NOE and too slow. I remember campaign manpads were easy to gun point blank specially in town areas with buildings and all. Just had to be slow and very low.

[Bushmanni]

Sounds like a test conducted with some rather old, and possibly rear-aspect onlymissiles, because in reality, there were actually procedures to attack ground targets with R-60's, and helis have been shot down by AIM-9's and 120's while flying quite low.

 

Yes, most likely rear-aspect only. During winter there was no problems with locking up helicopters so there's obviously the question of environmental factors which were not disclosed by the author any more than that. If you look at TADS videos from apache you can see that during the day the Apache isn't much more warmer than the ground and there's plenty of random hot spots for the missile to choose from, depending on terrain of course. Has any helicopter with suppressed exhausts been downed by heat seeker? During the test it was found that radar will see the choppers quite well and only way to stay hidden is to get something between you and the radar so radar missiles would be the preferred choice.

 

Regarding Stingers in DCS: I once got shot from behind three times with Stingers from 2-3km away while I was hovering on a slope of a hill doing nothing about the Stingers. I had no idea I was engaged but first heard explosion when one of the Stingers hit the hill next to me but I couldn't spot the explosion yet. Next one also hit the hill and this time I saw the explosion and realized I was being shot at from behind. The third one also hit the hill. Afterwards I checked with Tacview and all of the Stingers guided on to the hill, ie. they seemed to be locked locked to a point on ground. They didn't go ballistic when they lost lock but switched target from me to the ground. So it would seem there's some kind of thermal interference from ground modeled in DCS.

 

Ah, obviously he's very critical about the NH90 which is very effective and a maturing helicopter these days. Much of the criticism is of course true for the huge delay part.

If I see it somewhere, I might read it for such interesting stories but it might be hard to go through all that complaining.

He's mostly critical about the price tag of NH90, not the chopper itself which he concluded to be more than what would have been needed. He would have preferred Russian choppers and more tanks and artillery with the rest of the money.

[GGTharos]

Has any helicopter with suppressed exhausts been downed by heat seeker?

 

I suspect the two 60's shot down by F-15's were, but I can't be certain. More telling is the fact that the Apache is being equipped with DIRCM, and so are a host of other helis.

 

During the test it was found that radar will see the choppers quite well and only way to stay hidden is to get something between you and the radar so radar missiles would be the preferred choice.

 

That depends. Clutter isn't easy for radar either, and radar guided missiles could easily have fuze issues at low altitudes. It really depends on the missile. The SA-19's solution for example is an optically guided beam-riding missile ... when the radar can't be used to guide it (both guidance systems point the beam at the target, but for cases where there is a lot of ECM, or a heli is hovering very low and perhaps behind a bit of foliage or generally if it has a back-ground, you can use the back-up optical sight). On the other hand, an AIM-120 will hit-to-kill a cruise missile that's only 2-3 times the diameter of the 120 itself while it's flying in the weeds, like you might expect a cruise missile to.

 

Regarding Stingers in DCS: I once got shot from behind three times with Stingers from 2-3km away while I was hovering on a slope of a hill doing nothing about the Stingers. I had no idea I was engaged but first heard explosion when one of the Stingers hit the hill next to me but I couldn't spot the explosion yet. Next one also hit the hill and this time I saw the explosion and realized I was being shot at from behind. The third one also hit the hill. Afterwards I checked with Tacview and all of the Stingers guided on to the hill, ie. they seemed to be locked locked to a point on ground. They didn't go ballistic when they lost lock but switched target from me to the ground. So it would seem there's some kind of thermal interference from ground modeled in DCS.

 

No, there isn't, not in the way you're thinking. What ground clutter does for you in DCS is increase the probability of a missile to bite off on a decoy, but there's no thermal clutter simulated in the way you're thinking of it.

Flying low adds another bonus in DCS: It causes the missile to 'wander' a bit off target - the lower you are, the bigger the effect, thus missiles way miss. The stinger is hit-to-kill so any miss distance for it is disastrous.

[ShuRugal]

On the other hand, an AIM-120 will hit-to-kill a cruise missile that's only 2-3 times the diameter of the 120 itself while it's flying in the weeds, like you might expect a cruise missile to.

 

 

the AIM-120 shouldn't count, any missile designed by Howard Hughes is going to carry his obsessive compulsion to complete its mission.

 

 

 

:p

[Griffin]

He's mostly critical about the price tag of NH90...

Jaa okay! I'm critical about his book's pricetag so I'll see if I can find it cheaper. :D It would be very interesting to read about Finnish helicopter ops. Not too common stuff.

 

...radar guided missiles could easily have fuze issues at low altitudes...

Does that mean that the missile will explode before reaching the target if the fuze reacts to ground? Was the fuze range around 10 m or so?

Just making sure. Very interesting information guys!

[GGTharos]

It depends on the missile and on how smart the fuze is.

 

Does that mean that the missile will explode before reaching the target if the fuze reacts to ground? Was the fuze range around 10 m or so?

Just making sure. Very interesting information guys!

[Bushmanni]

I suspect the two 60's shot down by F-15's were, but I can't be certain. More telling is the fact that the Apache is being equipped with DIRCM, and so are a host of other helis.

 

I have a vague memory that the UH-60's were shot down by AMRAAM's which would also be more logical as with AIM-9's it might have been possible to see the target was friendly. Heat seekers have no problems tracking helicopters if they are silhouetted against sky which is the situation in most cases of SAM engagements hence DIRCM.

 

No, there isn't, not in the way you're thinking. What ground clutter does for you in DCS is increase the probability of a missile to bite off on a decoy, but there's no thermal clutter simulated in the way you're thinking of it.

Flying low adds another bonus in DCS: It causes the missile to 'wander' a bit off target - the lower you are, the bigger the effect, thus missiles way miss. The stinger is hit-to-kill so any miss distance for it is disastrous.

 

Interesting, is this low altitude wandering some kind of gamey thing or does it simulate some real phenomenon and does it apply to all missiles or only heat seekers?

[GGTharos]

I have a vague memory that the UH-60's were shot down by AMRAAM's which would also be more logical as with AIM-9's it might have been possible to see the target was friendly.

 

One was shot down with a 120, one with a 9. Both pilots identified the 60's as hinds, and they did a pass for VID prior to the engagement.

 

Heat seekers have no problems tracking helicopters if they are silhouetted against sky which is the situation in most cases of SAM engagements hence DIRCM.

 

DIRCM isn't needed if your flares work. DIRCM is not cheap.

 

Interesting, is this low altitude wandering some kind of gamey thing or does it simulate some real phenomenon and does it apply to all missiles or only heat seekers?

 

It applies to all missiles, and it's an atempt to simulate missiles having more trouble near the ground ... but right now it doesn't seem to differentiate between generations of missiles.