AWACS

[almonds]

The only large aircraft with consumable countermeasures are tactical transports (C-130, C-17 and similar), and then it's only flare.

 

WAT!!! Lies

[pyromaniac4002]

WAT!!! Lies

 

I'm only some air force/military nerd, so I don't have a professional background to speak from like some of the other guys here do, but I'm pretty sure that's 100% correct.

[159th_Viper]

B-52H has Chaff, Flares and a myriad of electronic countermeasures in case of large aircraft being interpreted in relation to size.

[WildBillKelsoe]

Or more. In a hostile environment, there will be flights placed 'in the way' of potential incoming bandits. Flying right next to the AWACS is pretty useless.

 

is that because you give the bandit a large dish on their radar? :D

 

HEHEHEHEHEEEEE!!! :megalol:

[Eddie]

We don't load chaff onto our C-130s or C-17s, and they are the only multi-engine aircraft we have that use consumable countermeasures at all. Poor wording on my part, should have used the word "normally" in that sentence.

 

You "could" load chaff and/or flare on any aircraft, all you need is a dispenser system, and there are many available. As to if both chaff and flare can be loaded in a common dispenser depends on the dispenser system in question. Some, like the dispenser systems used by the US can, others like the dispensers we use in our fast jets are designed to carry one type of CM (you can't load chaff in the flare dispensers, and vice-versa).

 

There no technical reason at all why the E-3(any variant), or another multi-engine airframe couldn't be fitted with chaff/flare dispensers. Many operator nations just don't because it's not seen as necessary or especially effective. DIRCM systems are much better at protecting large aircraft, they are just rather expensive.

 

Can't speak for the US, but we at least have DIRCM on all our operational multi-engine aircraft, apart from VC-10. Although not cheap, it is more effective than flare.

[3instein]

Cheers for clearing up the info Eddie,

I understand more about the heavies now,

Thanks guys for all the info,

Just a thought,

You think Air Force One has one/escape pod? ;)

Mick. ;)

[pyromaniac4002]

I have uploaded and downloaded flares AND chaff on C-130s. My supervisor use to work on C-17s and he has done the same so I don't know where he got the ONLY flares info.

 

Ah okay, I thought you were saying they had the dispensers on things like AWACS or tankers.

[Geert Hooghe]

Yes the crew will be pre-briefed. Also if the A/C determines that his aircraft may become a target, he can request escort even before they take off. For DCS AO being really small, unless the AWACS is flying with really good SAM protection near it, I would put a 2 to 4 ship as escort. Put 2, 25 to 35 miles away in a counter race track pattern (in other words opposite of the pattern the AWACS is doing) and the other 2 at 100 miles. These 2 will be placed between the AWACS and the FEBA.

 

Hmmmm...good thinking...IF i get it right, i will post a .miz file with all the assets en threats we have been talking about here...and see what comes out ! Need some time because it's all pretty new to me...thnx !

 

:thumbup:

[Yurgon]

Allocation : is it correct that normally IRL the more expensive assets (F-15, F-16, F-117, etc) are normally placed in the rear of the theatre (in this sim not on airfields close to the border with Russia) to avoid being destroyed ?

 

"Expensive" is a relative term. Talking about US air assets, I'd call these rather cheap, both in terms of cost and in terms of availability (for other air forces, F-15 and F-16 might be the top product, for the US they're more like workhorses).

 

I'd exclude the F-117 from the list because a) they're long out of service, b) were (and probably are) largely classified and c) were a lot more expensive than F-15 and the ilk.

 

Even though these aircraft after fairly "cheap", I'm pretty certain that airbases will be as far away from the enemy as necessary in order to protect these assets as well as possible. With aerial refueling, that's not much of a problem. With choppers like the Apache, things look a bit different because they can't refuel (in-air) so the distance between base and target determines their playtime. That should give people higher up the chain a lot to think about the right position for a base.

 

However, if we look at the really expensive assets like B-1 and B-2, I think they routinely fly thousands of miles and are not (at least not yet) stationed in-country in Iraq or Afghanistan, and it remains to be seen how far away from the action Raptors (and F-35s, at a later date) will be stationed once they enter combat.

[Buzpilot]

We don't load chaff onto our C-130s or C-17s, and they are the only multi-engine aircraft we have that use consumable countermeasures at all. Poor wording on my part, should have used the word "normally" in that sentence.

 

You "could" load chaff and/or flare on any aircraft, all you need is a dispenser system, and there are many available. As to if both chaff and flare can be loaded in a common dispenser depends on the dispenser system in question. Some, like the dispenser systems used by the US can, others like the dispensers we use in our fast jets are designed to carry one type of CM (you can't load chaff in the flare dispensers, and vice-versa).

 

There no technical reason at all why the E-3(any variant), or another multi-engine airframe couldn't be fitted with chaff/flare dispensers. Many operator nations just don't because it's not seen as necessary or especially effective. DIRCM systems are much better at protecting large aircraft, they are just rather expensive.

 

Can't speak for the US, but we at least have DIRCM on all our operational multi-engine aircraft, apart from VC-10. Although not cheap, it is more effective than flare.

 

Do any of the DCS multi-engine planes have DIRCM ?

 

[Eddie]

No. DIRCM isn't modelled in DCS. The SU25 at least has AIRCM, although I would think its implementation is all that accurate (I haven't paid enough attention to the SU25 to say for sure).

 

I don't know if AIRCM is modelled on AI aircraft, like the Apache, though.

 

For DIRCM & AIRCM (and realistic chaff & flare) to be implemented would require advanced modelling of missiles seeker systems and likely other things such as general IR spectrum modelling (FLIR etc).

[Geert Hooghe]

Yes the crew will be pre-briefed. Also if the A/C determines that his aircraft may become a target, he can request escort even before they take off. For DCS AO being really small, unless the AWACS is flying with really good SAM protection near it, I would put a 2 to 4 ship as escort. Put 2, 25 to 35 miles away in a counter race track pattern (in other words opposite of the pattern the AWACS is doing) and the other 2 at 100 miles. These 2 will be placed between the AWACS and the FEBA.

 

2 ship F-15 taking off from Vaz and 2 F-16 going up in Gaud...just learning the ME...take a look but adjust the time of day to see something really...post your comments...thnx

 

Sorry, forgot the Russian Migs to attack...will upload a .trk file instead !

 

A first look at the mission :

Edited October 1, 2012 by Geert Hooghe

[Pyroflash]

"Expensive" is a relative term. Talking about US air assets, I'd call these rather cheap, both in terms of cost and in terms of availability (for other air forces, F-15 and F-16 might be the top product, for the US they're more like workhorses).

 

I'd exclude the F-117 from the list because a) they're long out of service, b) were (and probably are) largely classified and c) were a lot more expensive than F-15 and the ilk.

 

Even though these aircraft after fairly "cheap", I'm pretty certain that airbases will be as far away from the enemy as necessary in order to protect these assets as well as possible. With aerial refueling, that's not much of a problem. With choppers like the Apache, things look a bit different because they can't refuel (in-air) so the distance between base and target determines their playtime. That should give people higher up the chain a lot to think about the right position for a base.

 

However, if we look at the really expensive assets like B-1 and B-2, I think they routinely fly thousands of miles and are not (at least not yet) stationed in-country in Iraq or Afghanistan, and it remains to be seen how far away from the action Raptors (and F-35s, at a later date) will be stationed once they enter combat.

 

These heavy bombers fly out of airbases that are well out of country. B-2A's for example, fly all the way from the U.S. (Whiteman AFB) to wherever they are going to hit. Aircraft that are more range limited (such as the B-1B) probably operate from somewhere in Europe, but I can't say for sure. I know B-52H's are stationed everywhere from Europe to the Pacific Rim.

 

Also -1 for adding LAIRCMS into the large jets. It would be like easy mode for missile dodging. Just fly straight and level. Plus I can see it now.

 

"Look at this video on youtube of my R-73 losing track of this transport! FIX MISSILES ASAP, THEY ARE BROKEN!".

Edited September 28, 2012 by Pyroflash