Tunguskas shooting down Mavericks?

[Guest EVIL-SCOTSMAN]

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

 

 

also tested strelas, no dog ear's , strelas enagaged mavs but missed majority of the time.

[SwingKid]

There were -hours- spent researching the topics, convicing people, finding evidence and reaching an consensus.

 

Indeed, all very true...

 

What's disappointing is that that "consensus" seems to have been pure placebo, since this outcome wasn't it.

 

:(

-SK

[SwingKid]

also tested strelas, no dog ear's , strelas enagaged mavs but missed majority of the time.

 

Were there any other radars in the group or nearby, besides Dog Ears?

 

Or maybe you waited until their longer, "no-Dog-Ear" reaction time passed, and launched on them only after they woke up?

 

Or were these AI-fired Mavericks?

 

-SK

[Guest EVIL-SCOTSMAN]

only tungs, and strelas.

 

it could be that they were trackin me and just waiting to launch, as you say maybe the reaction time had passed cuz i popped up pretty high and about 15k out just to test things out, so maybe if i was lower they might not of engaged.

[GGTharos]

I tested with strelas and they never fired. Are people testing in 1.1 missions?

 

Because for me, 1.11 strelas do NOT engange mavericks.

[SwingKid]

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".

 

Hey! You leave my friend alone, or I'm going after post #85!

;)

-SK

[Guest EVIL-SCOTSMAN]

GGT

nope it was a clean mission i just made tonight.

[GGTharos]

Thanks Scotsman. This is pretty strange then, that we're getting different results :)

[Guest EVIL-SCOTSMAN]

np GGT

 

tbh i really like the shooting down of missiles, it just adds that extra touch of i dunno what. but irl it can be done so why not have it in the game.

Give me 2 months and i will probably wish i never said that, but for me, am loving it :D

[SwingKid]

tbh i really like the shooting down of missiles, it just adds that extra touch of i dunno what.

 

"comedy"?

 

Yeah, I like watching MiG-21s shoot down F-22s... :)

 

"It's funny because it didn't happen to me"

 

-SK

[Guest IguanaKing]

Heh...I like watching people trying to catch flies with chopsticks. :D

[Guest EVIL-SCOTSMAN]

i just tried exact same mission again but i deleted the tungs and 1 shilka, strelas never fired on mavs and only fired on me when i was 500m - 1k away from them.

 

so i dunno whats going on ?

[Jason76]

Well here's my overall take on this situation...

 

Many times realism has to be sacraficed for gameplay; I think the game devs clearly had good intentions when they implemented this missile defense capability. They wanted ground attacks to be more challenging and more fun - and hey, it probably is more fun the way it is now.

 

Having said that, however, I think ED overstepped the bounds of plausibly realistic with this new patch. It's just too extreme for the enemy defense to REGULARLY shoot down incoming Maverick missiles. Maybe if it happened 1 out of 50 or 1 out of 10 times even.

 

I've been doin some tests with A10 vs. Tunguska and the results are usually this: at average AI difficulty, the Tung will get a chance to shoot 2 missiles at the Maverick (maverick launched at range). The 1st missile usually misses about 7 out of 10 times, and the second missile hits about 2/3ds of the time. If you up the difficulty level of the Tung, the 1st missile usually hits, and when it happened to miss (only happened once i think), the 2nd missile obliterated it. This was at a setting of 90% missile effectiveness.

 

Anyways, it's just too unrealistic to have this magic missile defense, and even though lock-on never claimed to be ultra -realistic, it's too extreme. So i am really hoping that this might be adressed in the near future, not in a new version of the game (i love every other feature of the 1.11 patch btw), but in a small patch fix. Hopefully, having the SAM crews focusing on targetting aircraft instead of ordnance.

 

Please?? *crosses fingers* :icon_jook

 

 

P.S. I've tested this some more and the results vary. In some circumstances (locations/positions) the Tung only fires 1 missile at the AGM. I have also seen the Tung miss it's first shot at excellent diff level. One thing is for sure.. the Tung will ALWAYS engage the agm threat if it is the priority (the attack aircraft is well out of range).

[S77th-GOYA]

I just watched the 25T SEAD training track. It needs work.

 

I also set up a mission and watched Excellent Tungs fail to engage ARMs.

[Jason76]

It seems that the Tungs engage the Mavs if they are the closest threat and no aircraft is nearby. So launching AGM 65D Mavericks at long range will always result in the Tung trying to intercept the missile.

[tflash]

Well, I still hold on to my somewhat strange position of being both very happy with the patch AND squarely sceptic about and opposed to Tungs hitting mavs. But from this discussion I already learned that:

 

- presence of a Dog ear makes a big difference (was the case in my missions also)

 

- the missile effectiveness slider becomes a usefull parameter (I never touched it in my whole Lockon history!)

 

- the skill level also has an impact

 

- AD's really seem to be able cooperate and rely on each others radar performance

 

This all makes the environment very, very challenging. I guess the simulation didn't so much suffer as I sometimes implied, but on the contrary becomes much more dynamic. We will certainly have to do more in-depth threads like these to study the details of a lot of AD scenario's.

[Alfa]

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

 

:confused:....

 

Anyway, I think to get a picture of the effectiveness of a SAM system, you would need to take into consideration how many missiles it actually has to fire in order to intercept a particular target - in the first and second run of the mission in question, the Buk would typically need to launch somewhere between 8-12 missiles - 3/4 of its combined stock - to intercept 3 HARMs. In the third run the Buk site launched 2-3(cannot remember exactly) 9M38M1s that missed the first launched HARM, which in turn hit the Buk radar and disabled the site as such.

 

I think you will find that to be a SAM effectiveness level against HARMs well below your "40% accuracy" ;)

 

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

 

Are you sure you really want me to answer that? :)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Alfa]

Well, I still hold on to my somewhat strange position of being both very happy with the patch AND squarely sceptic about and opposed to Tungs hitting mavs. But from this discussion I already learned that:

 

- presence of a Dog ear makes a big difference (was the case in my missions also)

 

- the missile effectiveness slider becomes a usefull parameter (I never touched it in my whole Lockon history!)

 

- the skill level also has an impact

 

- AD's really seem to be able cooperate and rely on each others radar performance

 

This all makes the environment very, very challenging. I guess the simulation didn't so much suffer as I sometimes implied, but on the contrary becomes much more dynamic. We will certainly have to do more in-depth threads like these to study the details of a lot of AD scenario's.

 

Good post tflash :)

 

I am not going to claim that every SAM system in V1.11 will have perfect(read realistic) performance characteristics in every situation - all I am saying is that my experience from the testing tells me that the situation is far more complex than what might first meet the eye.

 

a). because different SAM systems have very divers capabilities.

 

b). because the same SAM system has divers capabilities against different types of missiles.

 

c). because, as I tried to describe with my reference to a particular mission, the outcome of an engagement between one SAM system against one missile type can vary greatly between "sessions" despite no alterations what so ever being made to the mission.

 

d). because, as you pointed out, extra radar assets and other types of SAM systems in the vicinity adds to the complexity of a scenario and greatly increases the combined effectiveness of the AD units.

 

There is a much higher "fidelity level" to the whole SAM area in 1.11, thats why it really doesnt work to assess this new functionality based on the playability of some old SEAD missions - because they were designed with much more simplistic SAM logics as basis.

 

Anway, just my 2c worth :) .

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[aimmaverick]

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.

 

 

ALL I CAN SAY IS OMFG. LOOKS LIKE REALLY ALL SAMS HAVE THIS CAPABILITY OR JUST MOSTLY RUSSIAN MADE? WHATS YOUR REPLY TO THIS DEVS???

[aimmaverick]

Developers, why does BUK system have anti-radiation missile capability if in RL cant do it? Only the latest version CAN do it. And how in the Gods name can OSA sam also have this capability? Does this systems have data links to exchange picture with other radars nearby? Even if so, the guidance accuracy of system and missiles it uses is the most important.

[Yellonet]

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

You mean that the lasers are like "straws" from the missile and that the maverick most likely won't hit one of the straws?`

 

And are there really that many missiles that can hit such a small target head on? What can it be, 20-30 cm diameter?

[Yellonet]

- the missile effectiveness slider becomes a usefull parameter (I never touched it in my whole Lockon history!)

Aren't the default setting supposed to be the realistic one?

[Yellonet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tflash

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.

 

Quote:

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.

 

Quote:

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.

 

Quote:

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...

 

Quote:

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.

 

Quote:

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.

 

Quote:

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.

Quite harsh, but all true ;)

[AndyHill]

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 :)

 

The airplane AI shortcomings are another thing that makes me a little sceptical about the new SAM feature. So the SAMs weren't very intelligent and not shutting down their radar when necessary, but their opponents have never been sultans of Smart either.

[GGTharos]

Developers, why does BUK system have anti-radiation missile capability if in RL cant do it? Only the latest version CAN do it. And how in the Gods name can OSA sam also have this capability? Does this systems have data links to exchange picture with other radars nearby? Even if so, the guidance accuracy of system and missiles it uses is the most important.

 

 

Get OFF your high-horse. Why would you think that any radar-guided system would be incapable of engaging something it picked up on radar? An older system may have much lower Pk (it's likely a guidance programming issue than anything else) but there's no reason why, once having a track on radar, it CANNOT attempt to intercept an ARM.

 

As for the OSA, stuff happens and slips through, and the OSA might be one of those thing. Does the OSA have command detonation? If so, then perhaps engaging maverick missiles isn't quite so unrealistic. That thing also -does- have a proximity fuze, so, again ...

As for laser fuzes, do we know that they are 'thin beams' or are they deliberately spread like a barcode scanner?