Tunguskas shooting down Mavericks?

[Force_Feedback]

Or, you could set the missile difficulty on 99% (everything but full right), then ***poof*** all your problems disappear, and you can find a new "bug" to whine about.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Hey, come on now Force, if it weren't for "whining", ED wouldn't have much to go on for subsequent patches. Let's just call it constructive criticism...which may become points of investigation for the ED team. I don't think anybody means to slag them. ;)

[SwingKid]

However, after I tested this, I saw that the Tunguska were shooting down the Mavericks with its missiles... it apparently has no problem tracking such a man-sized object with its radar... the missiles most likely have proximity fuses so as long as they (the tunguska's) can track the incoming missile a near hit will do.

 

Yeah, but a Tunguska missile's proximity fuze uses four lasers - useless against an incoming Maverick. So it's contact or nothing. If the SAM was accurate enough to contact a Maverick head-on, it wouldn't need a proximity fuze.

 

-SK

[GGTharos]

I do not really agree, Alfa: adapting your tactics is only possible if there are some regular patterns to be discerned in enemy capability. According to your story, however, chances are that sometimes a SEAD package will be decimated (I want to stress this is unseen in the last 25 years!), sometimes one plane makes the kill: no military force would take such a risk.

 

I am running through all the missions I have with BUK/Tunguska/S-300 sites, and unfortunately: these missions have all to be modified, since no way I am getting through with my strike packages anymore.

 

Certainly if you put your launchers well apart and have multiple radars in the running, SAM sites are very, very hard to disable in 1.11.

 

In the gulf war, the frustrating thing was radars were shut down, so that although strike packages went in with no problems, the SAM sites kept intact: more than a thousand HARMS have been fired.

 

This has led to the more modern combined tactic of "DEAD": you shoot HARMS, then a high-flying block 40 or mudhen drops an LGB to the same site.

 

Even this tactic is impossible in 1.11 world: the sams just blow everything out of the sky.

 

So even if we find and develop new tactics, it won't be very realistic ones, certainly not the ones of the F-15C/A-10A timeframe.

 

Uh, you didn't have realistic tactics BEFORE either, since SAMs wouldn't shut down and ARMs were one-shot-one-kill.

[SwingKid]

THat's why I'm saying, when you launch a maverick at a Tunguska in LOMAC you can consider that it's already 'looking at you' and it sees the missile separation.

 

At what range?

 

Note that in order to engage co-azimuth targets, the MiG-29S needs them to be separated by 10 km in range before it can resolve them as distinct. The Maverick never gets that far.

 

Ok, Buk is somewhat better - its range resolution is 400-700 meters, but you get the idea. Tunguska's quoted reaction time to lock up a new target is "8-10 s" - the missile separation of a Maverick will be detected visually long before it can be tracked on radar. So, a Stinger would be a better choice to engage a Maverick than a Tunguska, because it has a better reaction time - and I think most would agree that's already hard to believe.

 

-SK

[SwingKid]

Example: 2x F/A-18C armed with 2x AGM-88 each attacking a full Buk site(1x tracking radar + 4x launcher vehicles) - I ran the mission twice and saw the Buk site intercept 3 out of 4 HARMs after which the Hornets would either be destroyed(if the fourth succesful missile was to take out a launcher vehicle) or succeded in disabling the Buk site if the fourth missile was to take out the tracking radar - then I started writing my report thinking that I had a clear picture of how effective the Buk site is against HARMs, but just for good meassure ran the mission a third time for confirmation.....only to see the first launched HARM getting right through the Buk defences, taking out the tracking radar and thus rendering the Buk site as such completely useless....with one missile.

 

Is this some fancy way of saying it has ~60% hit accuracy against HARMs? :)

 

Even the most generous literature for fourth-generation Buk-M2 model (that doesn't exist in service AFAIK) gives it only 40%.

 

(Although I concede with some surprise that there exists documentation after all of yet a SECOND air defense system anywhere on this planet at least theoretically expected to be able to intercept ARMs)

 

-SK

[Guest IguanaKing]

At what range?

 

Note that in order to engage co-azimuth targets, the MiG-29S needs them to be separated by 10 km in range before it can resolve them as distinct. The Maverick never gets that far.

 

Ok, Buk is somewhat better - its range resolution is 400-700 meters, but you get the idea. Tunguska's quoted reaction time to lock up a new target is "8-10 s" - the missile separation of a Maverick will be detected visually long before it can be tracked on radar. So, a Stinger would be a better choice to engage a Maverick than a Tunguska, because it has a better reaction time - and I think most would agree that's already hard to believe.

 

-SK

 

Good for you, SK. I'm glad to see a dissenting opinion among the ED team, that's the way results take place (I hope, anyway). No offense to anybody else, but, I must say that it looks to me a little more like you have done more than just reading internet stuff on this.

 

As for me, not knowing jack from bone about programming :rolleyes: , I think a link between all missiles in FC has been established (again, just speculating, I actually have no clue about the computer stuff). Maybe the "effectiveness" some day could be tiered based on more-realistic settings for each system. :D

[Guest EVIL-SCOTSMAN]

i just set up a quick mission, 6 tungs and 6 tv and 2 ir mavs.

 

all mavs were wiped out by tungs, and once the tv mavs decided my target wasnt good enough for them and decided that they will go do there own thing.

 

I aint complaining about the tungs killing the mavs, but for christ sake fix the mavs so that they actually go toward there targets. I wasnt too close, i was about 5-7k away from them had full lock via screen and mavs went sky high...

 

but yea i think it makes it more interesting with mavs being able to get shot down, makes multiplayer better as now you probably have to have a wingman to go hunting, especially if these things are in the area.

 

One aircraft as bait and the other as hunter, or you could just fire a mav from each a10 and that would do the trick, unless tungs can magically track and shoot at 2 diff aircraft at the same time...

 

P.S.

tungs were set at different difficulties, ranging from average to excellent

[S77th-GOYA]

After replaying the mission in which the Strela shot down the Mav it appears that it is actually launching at the mav. I thought maybe it was launching at an a/c and just lucked into the mav. But it's missle explodes if it misses the mav. It is a moving Strela-1 and the mav is coming in from 3 o'clock. The mission was made with 1.1 and all ground vehicles are set to excellent.

[AndyHill]

Maybe in the future a scan pattern can be implemented for some of the SAMs, and they may have to limit where they're looking to get reasonable tracking and so on ;) For now, they insta-see everything.

 

I'm not good enough a person to pass judgement on the new feature, but I was just wondering if I'm the only one thinking that this would already easily constitute good enough compensation for not being able to shut down the radar?

[GGTharos]

No, not really - it's something entirely different meant for a different purpose.

[SwingKid]

After replaying the mission in which the Strela shot down the Mav it appears that it is actually launching at the mav. I thought maybe it was launching at an a/c and just lucked into the mav. But it's missle explodes if it misses the mav. It is a moving Strela-1 and the mav is coming in from 3 o'clock. The mission was made with 1.1 and all ground vehicles are set to excellent.

 

Confirmed. The discrepancy in what people are seeing appears to come from whether or not there is a Dog Ear radar in the group. If there is, then the accompanying Strela-10s and Strela-1s will shoot down Mavs, regardless day or night. So far I saw 2 kills for 2 shots. If there is no Dog Ear, then the Strelas seem to have too slow of a reaction time to detect incoming Mavs - they don't even attack my A-10 until I've overflown them.

 

-SK

[GGTharos]

Seems about right to me.

[Alfa]

I do not really agree, Alfa: adapting your tactics is only possible if there are some regular patterns to be discerned in enemy capability.

 

I dissagree. Traditionally SEAD(using ARMs) in Lock-on has been more or less of a "one shot - one kill"....dead accurate ARMs against defenceless SAM sites. This is no longer the case, so you take this into consideration and change your tactics accordingly - e.g. instead of firing a single ARM and waiting for it to impact, you fire two missiles instead of one or/and coordiante your attack with a wingman in order to overwhelm the enemy SAM site.

 

According to your story, however, chances are that sometimes a SEAD package will be decimated (I want to stress this is unseen in the last 25 years!), sometimes one plane makes the kill: no military force would take such a risk.

 

I have no idea what you are talking about there tflash :) .

 

1). My "SEAD package" in that example consisted of two HARM carrying Hornets against a Buk site. To the extend the "SEAD package was decimated" it was due to poor AI tactics on the part of the SEAD aircraft - i.e. continiuing to close in on a fully intact SAM site depite having expended all their ARMs ...presumably with the intention of trying their luck with internal guns(lol) - the Hornets were outside engagement range of the SAM site and if they had just turned around and conceded defeat once their ARMs had failed to take out the radar component of the site, they would not have been "decimated". But this is a well known shortcoming with the AI in Lock-on and has nothing to do with the new SAM logics introduced in V1.11 - except that it makes this AI shortcoming more apparent than it was before :)

 

2). the second outcome where a single HARM disabled the Buk site was *the exact same mission* - again two Hornets going against a Buk site....only this time around the first fired HARM got through and killed the all important Buk radar vehicle after which the Buk site was "decimated" by the Hornets, since it had been rendered useless and had no way of defending itself against further attacks.

 

I am running through all the missions I have with BUK/Tunguska/S-300 sites, and unfortunately: these missions have all to be modified, since no way I am getting through with my strike packages anymore.

 

Sorry tflash, but that was to be expected....like I said above, SEAD missions in Lock-on have been far to easy to accomplish and if you pin an entire mission´s playability on the success of a SEAD flight, taking it for granted that it will succeed, then your mission is too simplistic in nature to begin with....the fact that you have been able to get away with it until now, but wont anymore does not mean that the new SAM logics are faulty.

 

Certainly if you put your launchers well apart and have multiple radars in the running, SAM sites are very, very hard to disable in 1.11.

 

This is highly dependant on the nature of the SAM site. E.g. a KUB site is the easiest thing in the world to defeat for an ARM carrying SEAD flight, while Buk and especially S-300 sites indeed are very difficult to overwhelm.....and so they should be!

 

Which leads me to...

 

In the gulf war, the frustrating thing was radars were shut down, so that although strike packages went in with no problems, the SAM sites kept intact: more than a thousand HARMS have been fired. This has led to the more modern combined tactic of "DEAD": you shoot HARMS, then a high-flying block 40 or mudhen drops an LGB to the same site.

 

You cannot just draw direct comparisons like that - the Iraqis didnt have the level of SAM technology we are talking about in connection with Buk and S-300 sites - there is a world of difference in tech level between these and older systems. SAM operators in this conflict would shut down their systems in an attempt to deny enemy ARMs to have a radar spike to home on....because this, and setting up "decoy radars", was the only thing they could do in order to keep their older SAM systems alive - which in turn lead to counter tactics by their opposition. It is a cat and mouse game in which you will try to get the upper hand with whatever tools you have at your disposal and continiue to adapt your tactics according to the actions of your enemy.....this is in fact the very point I made earlier and the one you started by saying you dissagree with :o

 

The difference in SAM tech level is very apparent in V1.11.....e.g. as I mentioned earlier, a KUB site has no way of defending itself against an ARM carrying SEAD flight, and if anything is too vulnerable because we havent yet got a SAM AI that will turn off radars as a matter of routine or when sensing imminent danger that it has no other way of dealing with.

 

Even this tactic is impossible in 1.11 world: the sams just blow everything out of the sky.

 

You mean that because the SAM sites in question have the ability to intercept ARMs and therefore wont shut down at the first sight of danger, you cannot use a tactic of having LGB or AGM carrying aircraft taking them out instead :confused: .....for heavens sake tflash :biggrin: . It is a case of completely reversed logics - this kind of tactic is used against sites that turn off their radars and thereby deny the use of ARMs. Like I said above - the fact that sites like the KUB doesnt do that despite having no other way of staying alive in fact makes such sites too vulnerable to ARM attacks and the above LGB/AGM tactic unnecessary.

 

So even if we find and develop new tactics, it won't be very realistic ones, certainly not the ones of the F-15C/A-10A timeframe.

 

Again - this is a matter of perception. It seems to me that you expect SEAD scenarios that reflect capabilities of 60´ies or 70´ies SAM tech level operated by a third rate fighting force against state-of-the-art missile technology operated by the world´s prime fighting force and become dissapointed when the tactics used in this connection wont work/are irrelevant when setting up mission scenarios that include 80´ies or 90´ies SAM tech level in Lock-on.

 

Thats how it comes across to me anyway :)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[WhiskeyRomeo]

Just tested it, and on average setting, it's pure bullshit (the starter of this thread), I fired mavs at both the Tunguskas themself and at other targets, guarded by tunguskas, they did try to intercept them, but without success (none of the agm-65D were hit in any way).

With everything @ default settings Tunguskas were having very good success vs AGM-65s in game I flew tonight.. OSA SAMs also did well killing inbound MAVs. Watched Tunguska engage a MAV with both missile AND gun several time.

 

At one point a moving convoy with Tunguska and a static Strela cooperated to engage a Maverick. At first it was just the Tunguska launching. After the Tunguska moved close enough to the Strela (for data link maybe?) it also started launching at MAVs.

 

AGM-65s killed by SAMs arent reported in the MP kill messages. And in the Debried screen you can see the SAMs launch... but no reports of hits or kills on the MAVs.

[SwingKid]

Seems about right to me.

 

I don't understand, what is right? Strelas should be hitting Mavericks now? Or Strela-1s can see in the dark without IR? I'd like to know what I'm disagreeing with please. :)

 

-SK

[Alfa]

Is this some fancy way of saying it has ~60% hit accuracy against HARMs? :)

 

Nothing "fancy" about it. It was simply what I saw happening - which would amount to a realised pk of 0.75 in first run of the mission and 0.0 in the second.

 

Even the most generous literature for fourth-generation Buk-M2 model (that doesn't exist in service AFAIK) gives it only 40%.

 

Well in that case I suppose my two mission outcomes would prove that everything is wrong in V1.11 then.....or what?

 

(Although I concede with some surprise that there exists documentation after all of yet a SECOND air defense system anywhere on this planet at least theoretically expected to be able to intercept ARMs)

 

I think this would depend on the nature of the ARM....considering that the ability to do this is down to missile interceptability entirely. The Kh-31P ARM is exactly the same missile as the Kh-31A, does this mean that you think no SAM system in the world is capable of intercepting this anti-ship missile?

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Alfa]

Good for you, SK. I'm glad to see a dissenting opinion among the ED team, that's the way results take place (I hope, anyway). No offense to anybody else, but, I must say that it looks to me a little more like you have done more than just reading internet stuff on this.

 

I see - so the rest of us(the ones that dont agree with your opinions) are all ignorant and "just reading internet stuff on this"?.

 

I have read all your arguments in this thread, and frankly I am not too impressed by the level of insight they contain either....."no offence".

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[SwingKid]

With everything @ default settings Tunguskas were having very good success vs AGM-65s in game I flew tonight.. OSA SAMs also did well killing inbound MAVs. Watched Tunguska engage a MAV with both missile AND gun several time.

 

Osas too huh? Not bad for a command-guided SAM that doesn't have a homing seeker in the nose...

 

:(

 

-SK

[WhiskeyRomeo]

Osas too huh? Not bad for a command-guided SAM that doesn't have a homing seeker in the nose...

Interesting. I wasn't aware of its fusing system. I had an OSA kill 4 Mavs in 4 launches I made. Only got the kill since it emptied all its onboard missiles.

 

Still...its made the A/G game more challenging. It's almost safer to be flying in the A-10s now since the SAMs seem heavily weighted toward engaging MAVs (which makes sense) than engaging my A-10. Will have to fly some more before I decide if its a good thing or not.

[GGTharos]

I don't understand, what is right? Strelas should be hitting Mavericks now? Or Strela-1s can see in the dark without IR? I'd like to know what I'm disagreeing with please. :)

 

-SK

 

 

Oh nothing, I'm just babbling on ;)

 

In the daylight it's quite fine - since they're getting 'look there' info from the DE against the attacker.

[Guest IguanaKing]

I see - so the rest of us(the ones that dont agree with your opinions) are all ignorant and "just reading internet stuff on this"?.

 

I have read all your arguments in this thread, and frankly I am not too impressed by the level of insight they contain either....."no offence".

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

 

No, I have no problem with those who disagree with my opinion. I just see a lot of stuff here that really doesn't have much basis in reality. This is a question of extremes and, quite frankly, I don't believe the extreme being modeled here is a realistic representation.

 

OK...with that out of the way...:icon_jook

[GGTharos]

No, I have no problem with those who disagree with my opinion. I just see a lot of stuff here that really doesn't have much basis in reality. This is a question of extremes and, quite frankly, I don't believe the extreme being modeled here is a realistic representation.

 

OK...with that out of the way...:icon_jook

 

What's modelled now is less extreme than what was modelled before. And in fact, a lot of that stuff does have a basis in reality. There were -hours- spent researching the topics, convicing people, finding evidence and reaching an consensus.

 

Some of what's modelled right now may be wrong, but you're every bit as wrong for dissing what's been done.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Its actually a good thing that these systems are being modeled, I just think it went a little too far. ;)

 

What I said before was a pretty friggin' stupid thing to say though. I apologize.

[SwingKid]

It was simply what I saw happening - which would amount to a realised pk of 0.75 in first run of the mission and 0.0 in the second.

 

3 out of 5 = average 38%? Interesting methodology. Hey... were you the guy that marked my exam?? :mad:

 

I think this would depend on the nature of the ARM....considering that the ability to do this is down to missile interceptability entirely. The Kh-31P ARM is exactly the same missile as the Kh-31A, does this mean that you think no SAM system in the world is capable of intercepting this anti-ship missile?

 

Is there an aircraft in the world that can launch it?

 

-SK