aimmaverick Posted October 23, 2005 Posted October 23, 2005 You still havent answered my question. And second part of your post are really just your opinions which doesnt reflect real life. I have never seen mentioned from any source Strela, Osa, Buk... could engage anything else than aircraft or helicopters. Still you first have to detect small and fast target like missile. Cruise missile maybe.I dont know why are we discussing this thing in first place you should have tech specifications for all systems modelled in game. IT is published in many sources, and if it doesnt mention they have anti ARM capability than they DONT. End of discussion. You are just guessing what something can do etc... This is called wishfull thinking. Systems should be modelled according to known data&RL performance not just have fancy 3D models and then say you have many systems involved to promote gameplay and increase sales. Better less systems and these modelled realisticly. The game developers have made their hardware (Russian) more lethal than it really is. If you want lethality and realism than make SAMS having their correct engagment envelopes. (S-300 PMU 1: 150 km, Patriot PAC-2: 160 km) versus current 60-70 km???????????? Another example: Russian flyables have all bigger top speeds than stated, but US planes have smaller??? Su-27 faster than f-15? GMB. You just love your country( nothing wrong about it) and you want that your stuff is better than opfor.
Force_Feedback Posted October 23, 2005 Posted October 23, 2005 You still havent answered my question. And second part of your post are really just your opinions which doesnt reflect real life. I have never seen mentioned from any source Strela, Osa, Buk... could engage anything else than aircraft or helicopters. http://www.rusarm.ru/p_prod/airdef/bukm1.htm This is the manufacturer's site (it's in English) And yes, the Buk ingame is the BUK-M1, in the Russian version the lables and Encyclopedia state that it's the Buk-m1 and Kub-m1, so they're not the vintage 1979 versions. Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy:
GGTharos Posted October 23, 2005 Posted October 23, 2005 You still havent answered my question. And second part of your post are really just your opinions which doesnt reflect real life. I have never seen mentioned from any source Strela, Osa, Buk... could engage anything else than aircraft or helicopters. Still you first have to detect small and fast target like missile. Cruise missile maybe.I dont know why are we discussing this thing in first place you should have tech specifications for all systems modelled in game. IT is published in many sources, and if it doesnt mention they have anti ARM capability than they DONT. End of discussion. You are just guessing what something can do etc... This is called wishfull thinking. Systems should be modelled according to known data&RL performance not just have fancy 3D models and then say you have many systems involved to promote gameplay and increase sales. Better less systems and these modelled realisticly. The game developers have made their hardware (Russian) more lethal than it really is. If you want lethality and realism than make SAMS having their correct engagment envelopes. (S-300 PMU 1: 150 km, Patriot PAC-2: 160 km) versus current 60-70 km???????????? Another example: Russian flyables have all bigger top speeds than stated, but US planes have smaller??? Su-27 faster than f-15? GMB. You just love your country( nothing wrong about it) and you want that your stuff is better than opfor. You don't know what you're talking about. The SAMs DO have correct engagement envelopes AGAINST TARGETS WITH THE CORRECT FLIGHT PROFILE. Secondly 'engagement' does NOT equal 'launch'. Patriots in real life launch on ABT's from 30km away, not much farther. This is testimony FROM PATRIOT CREWMEN. Do I need to go on about how many holes YOUR assumptions have? SK has already provided a very good link with discussion by someone who is supposedly qualified to discuss stinger employment - I strongly suggest that you go read that and educate yourself. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
504 Wolverine Posted October 23, 2005 Posted October 23, 2005 Yep you heard it all here folks. It's one big russian conspiricy to take over the world. :icon_roll [/url]
Yellonet Posted October 23, 2005 Posted October 23, 2005 As for laser fuzes, do we know that they are 'thin beams' or are they deliberately spread like a barcode scanner?There are probably fuses of both types. i7-2600k@4GHz, 8GB, R9 280X 3GB, SSD, HOTAS WH, Pro Flight Combat Pedals, TIR5
Trident Posted October 23, 2005 Posted October 23, 2005 Actually everything I've read seems to suggest that laser fuzes are actually better suited to intercepting missiles due to their presicion. The fact that the Tunguska missiles are closely related to those on the Kashtan CIWS seems to support this assumption. As for Mavericks, they shouldn't be too challenging a target for modern SAMs, as they are neither that much smaller than ARMs nor faster (in fact, I'd say they're substantially slower than most ARMs, with such a large diameter and a blunt glass seeker dome they are probably just barely supersonic). I do agree that Strela (with or without radar, IMHO!) and Osa should not be able to achieve such a feat. This probably similar to the tank vs. helo problem, the capability definately exists in reality (atleast in some systems, see above) but is somewhat exaggerated in LOMAC. However I'm not so sure about Osa, it has a naval counterpart too and SACLOS guidance is used on SeaWolf aswell, IIRC. A Maverick is probably stretching it a bit though, I don't think its fuzing should be good enough to deal with such a relatively small object (it's a rather old missile).
aimmaverick Posted October 23, 2005 Posted October 23, 2005 http://www.rusarm.ru/p_prod/airdef/bukm1.htm This is the manufacturer's site (it's in English) And yes, the Buk ingame is the BUK-M1, in the Russian version the lables and Encyclopedia state that it's the Buk-m1 and Kub-m1, so they're not the vintage 1979 versions. Well that explains everything. Thanx for info which GGtharos couldnt provide me.
aimmaverick Posted October 23, 2005 Posted October 23, 2005 You don't know what you're talking about. The SAMs DO have correct engagement envelopes AGAINST TARGETS WITH THE CORRECT FLIGHT PROFILE. Secondly 'engagement' does NOT equal 'launch'. Patriots in real life launch on ABT's from 30km away, not much farther. This is testimony FROM PATRIOT CREWMEN. So again at what "profile" should targets fly to achive published Max. range criteria? Maybe mach 10 at 40000 feet? This are just excuses sorry.
GGTharos Posted October 23, 2005 Posted October 23, 2005 So again at what "profile" should targets fly to achive published Max. range criteria? Maybe mach 10 at 40000 feet? This are just excuses sorry. Try 50000' or 60000' at M1.5-2.0. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
aimmaverick Posted October 23, 2005 Posted October 23, 2005 Try 50000' or 60000' at M1.5-2.0. I tried already no big difference.
SwingKid Posted October 23, 2005 Posted October 23, 2005 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. Well, ok... that might not be quite as unbelievable as some of the other things we're now seeing, but then how did you originally come up with a Pk of "0.75"? Either way, I still don't want you grading my school assigments... ;) -SK
D-Scythe Posted October 23, 2005 Posted October 23, 2005 Hmm, did some more testing. At 100% missile effectiveness, the SAMs do indeed seem to be magical...they hardly ever miss the ARMs/AGMs. This just makes things a tad more complicated, because I prefer playing at 100%...maybe in V1.2, the fuse programming can be made a bit more elaborate? As for the whole magic anti-missile defense thing, I don't mind it (as long as it's not my a$$ on the line ;)), but I would've preferred ED have taken the time instead to expand upon the AI rather than implementing this. But think of it this way: perhaps by V1.2, the "shutting off radar" AI defense code would be implemented, so by then, we'd have both the older systems turning off their search radars in the presence of ARMs, and newer SAMs (those that should, like Patriot) engaging ARMs with their SAMs. No point in crying over this. Seems to me to be just another like just another brick laid in the foundation as progress is being made towards V1.2 really.
SwingKid Posted October 23, 2005 Posted October 23, 2005 You mean that the lasers are like "straws" from the missile and that the maverick most likely won't hit one of the straws?` That's how I understand it, correct. The modernized R-73 and R-77 switched over to laser fuzes because it was possible to trigger older radio fuzes by flying through a cloud of chaff, or potentially by ECM. However, as missiles became more precise and were tasked to shoot down cruise missiles, it was found the targets were simply flying through the gaps in the laser coverage. So now radio fuzes are enjoying a come-back, IIRC there are even some "dual" fuzes laser + radio. -SK
GGTharos Posted October 23, 2005 Posted October 23, 2005 I tried already no big difference. Then you're playing a different game. My Patriot fires on a Mig-25RBT doing 1000kts at 65000' from 65nm which is about 120km. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
GGTharos Posted October 23, 2005 Posted October 23, 2005 Hmm, did some more testing. At 100% missile effectiveness, the SAMs do indeed seem to be magical...they hardly ever miss the ARMs/AGMs. This just makes things a tad more complicated, because I prefer playing at 100%...maybe in V1.2, the fuse programming can be made a bit more elaborate? As for the whole magic anti-missile defense thing, I don't mind it (as long as it's not my a$$ on the line ;)), but I would've preferred ED have taken the time instead to expand upon the AI rather than implementing this. But think of it this way: perhaps by V1.2, the "shutting off radar" AI defense code would be implemented, so by then, we'd have both the older systems turning off their search radars in the presence of ARMs, and newer SAMs (those that should, like Patriot) engaging ARMs with their SAMs. No point in crying over this. Seems to me to be just another like just another brick laid in the foundation as progress is being made towards V1.2 really. That's because 100% takes away any 'aim drift' that is attributed to missile guidance errors induced by just about any factor you can think of out there. That's why the 50% setting is considered 'realistic' ;) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
D-Scythe Posted October 23, 2005 Posted October 23, 2005 That's because 100% takes away any 'aim drift' that is attributed to missile guidance errors induced by just about any factor you can think of out there. That's why the 50% setting is considered 'realistic' ;) :D ...but the AIM-120C blows at 50%. Me don't believe :P Why don't they program aim-drift into the entire missile slider then?
SwingKid Posted October 23, 2005 Posted October 23, 2005 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. Hmm gee how about, "confusion" -SK
SwingKid Posted October 23, 2005 Posted October 23, 2005 http://www.rusarm.ru/p_prod/airdef/bukm1.htm This is the manufacturer's site (it's in English) And yes, the Buk ingame is the BUK-M1, in the Russian version the lables and Encyclopedia state that it's the Buk-m1 and Kub-m1, so they're not the vintage 1979 versions. Good site, but it's a misleading advert. Only the "Buk-M1-2" subvariant has the anti-TBM/ARM capability. The original "Buk-M1" entered service in 1983, the Buk-M1-2 now for sale was in development until 1997. You could make arguments either way about which is modelled in Lock On, but I think we all know which one is actually in service. Not your fault though, just typical Rosoboronexport maskirovka. Good checking. -SK
Alfa Posted October 23, 2005 Posted October 23, 2005 Well, ok... that might not be quite as unbelievable as some of the other things we're now seeing, but then how did you originally come up with a Pk of "0.75"? Either way, I still don't want you grading my school assigments... ;) Well 4 ARMs launched(100%) at the Buk site - 3 were intercepted = 75% succes rate :cool: . But of course this has nothing to do with "Pk" :) . If we were taking into consideration how many SAMs it took to do that(about 7), it would be more like ~ 0.4 and that was the Buk site at its glory. Like I mentioned, on other occassions it didnt manage to intercept any of them - although this had more to do with its operation being cut short by loosing the radar to the first ARM. Now about those school assignments....hand them over :p Cheers, - JJ. JJ
Vati Posted October 23, 2005 Posted October 23, 2005 Indeed, some of the SAMs should not be even able to go for ordinance interception. Anyways, for me the bigger issue w/ AD units in lockon is their insta reaction time. You work your ass hard to sneak to the SAM site w/ terrain masking, just to get salvo in the face the same instant you pop up at close range. 1 http://www.condorsoaring.com
SwingKid Posted October 23, 2005 Posted October 23, 2005 Actually everything I've read seems to suggest that laser fuzes are actually better suited to intercepting missiles due to their presicion. That's odd, I don't have a source handy but I distinctly remember reading the opposite. What did they mean by "precision"? Isn't a fuze just a binary on/off function? The fact that the Tunguska missiles are closely related to those on the Kashtan CIWS seems to support this assumption. Like the Osa, Tunguska missiles are also seekerless beam-riders. The site takes 8-10 seconds to lock and fire on a new-detected target, and the proximity fuze isn't activated until a further 3.2 seconds after launch. Harpoons, Excoets and Tomahawks are at least trackable all the way from the radio horizon, reducing the lock-on and reaction-time problem. They've also long since separated from the aircraft. Has anyone tried this while the shooting A-10 is using ECM? -SK
S77th-GOYA Posted October 23, 2005 Author Posted October 23, 2005 Has anyone tried this while the shooting A-10 is using ECM? Yes, Tungs/Strelas will engage Mavs when the launching hog is music on. (There is a Shilka in the column with the Strela.)
GGTharos Posted October 23, 2005 Posted October 23, 2005 I haven't gotten a BUK to fire on any HARMs yet ... what's going on? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
SwingKid Posted October 23, 2005 Posted October 23, 2005 I haven't gotten a BUK to fire on any HARMs yet ... what's going on? Great. So now the people who want them to be shooting them down don't get them shooting them down, the people who don't want them shooting them down DO get them shooting them down, the people who don't like it are actually, strangely enough, kind of enjoying it, and the people who do like it think it sucks. Do I have all that correctly? Thank you. Carry on, -SK
Jason76 Posted October 23, 2005 Posted October 23, 2005 Hehe that sounds about right SwingKid. I must admit that I'm one of those that initially didn't like it, but I am actually kinda havin fun tryin to figure out the best way to get the weapons on target. It's a new dimension to the game. And I guess it's what the game devs were after in the first place. Oh and GGTharos, coul this have somethin to do with the speed of the HARMs coming in? maybe the reaction time isn't fast enough on the AI?
Recommended Posts