How to detect and counter an incoming IR SAM?

[Jona33]

I believe that the problem is that if you have radar indications and then a missile warning it doesn't realise it's an IR missile (understandable) and therefore keeps a chaff program presumably linking the missile launch with the radar indications.

[Hoggorm]

Probably...

[Cookie]

For those down low attack runs I leave it on semi, but switch the program manually to D and start pumping out chaff and flares when tipping in. Takes just two pushes with the thumb (on a TM Warthog HOTAS anyway) and is a very nice allround-program.

 

If missiles actually start flying I just give it another push with the thumb and bring up program E. Same as D, but doubles the amount of stuff you drop.

 

Those two programs have been all I ever needed so far.

 

For a dedicated ground attack aircraft the A-10 sure does carry quite a low number of flares though... Wonder why that is, since flares are not too heavy, don´t use up too much space and are cheap.

[Eddie]

For a dedicated ground attack aircraft the A-10 sure does carry quite a low number of flares though... Wonder why that is, since flares are not too heavy, don´t use up too much space and are cheap.

 

LOL. God knows what you're going to do when you start flying a fighter that only has between 30 and 60 flare. :megalol:

 

For a fighter/attack aircraft the A-10 carries a quite a large number of flare, certainly more than most types.

[SUBS17]

Interesting feedback from all. Thank you!

 

Do you use manual, semi or full auto on the CMS?

 

I've used semi mostly as it changes the jammer to correct type and selects a program based on SAM launching a missile. However I do not find it to be working very well with IR missiles. It does not change into a flare program...

 

Auto I find useless as it will empty my chaff and flare before I even get close to a threat.

 

Finally manual I find difficult to use in the heat of battle. It might just be a training issue though..?

 

I use AUTO which effectively releases chaff/flares and jams automatically. It will be activated by other aircraft launching missiles such as mavericks so be aware of that when you use it. As for Manpads I do the Gauntlet run and the missiles often miss because I am so low. AAA on the other hand will still get you at close range but IR SAMS can be avoided and miss if you are low enough and do not fly over them.

[Cookie]

LOL. God knows what you're going to do when you start flying a fighter that only has between 30 and 60 flare. :megalol:

Well, a figher needs chaff, not flare. I never felt the need to have more flare in a fighter, while I constantly do so in the A-10. In fact I usually go ahead and leave chaff at home so I can take more flare along.

 

The situations in which you need chaff are not like those when you need flare. When a radar guided missile is being fired at you, you have a lot more time to deal with it. You had advance warning via the RWR, you usually have altitude you can work with, you can beam the missile. You drop a few chaff before initiating a break and maybe one or two in between just for good measure.

 

Whenever an IR missile is fired at you however, things usually are way different. You have no advance warning at all, the time between launch and impact is very short, you usually don´t have much altitude to work with, outmaneuvering the missile is nearly impossible unless you have a visual right away and time your breaks perfect. All in all, it´s usually much more of an OMGWTFBBQ situation than with radar missiles. Your best - and sometimes only - option is to pump out those flares like there is no tomorrow, because there might just as well not be one for you if you don´t do it right away.

 

For that simple reason it is my personal opionion (and that´s all we´re talking about here) that the A-10 does not carry enough flare for the kind of mission it was originally designed for: Flying 100ft above the Fulda Gap in WW III.

[PFunk1606688187]

Flying 100ft above the Fulda Gap in WW III.

 

I thought that this conceptual mission profile was effectively debunked once the A-10 actually saw combat where much of the pre-Gulf War doctrine was shown to be nonsensical.

[S77th-konkussion]

Buy a Track IR. For a million reasons besides the topic at hand. Besides- it's the law.

[Moa]

I thought that this conceptual mission profile was effectively debunked once the A-10 actually saw combat where much of the pre-Gulf War doctrine was shown to be nonsensical.

 

I think it depends. In the Fulda Gap scenario there is no way you can kill all defences. If you go high you will die for sure, so the only way to survive is to be low.

 

In the Gulf War most of the larger defences were killed by Wild Weasels and Stealth Fighters. Going in low didn't make sense but it was still attempted.

 

Same thing in Libya. Defences were limited enough they could be destroyed and then aircraft could operate high.

 

In Afghanistan and Iraq there were no defences left so aircraft could operate high.

 

Whether aircraft must operate high or low in the next conflict they are used depends on the density of defences. In most cases they can be used high. Against an opponent with so many systems they cannot be wiped out in reasonable time (eg. attack the US, China or Russia) then aircraft will be operating low. It is very dangerous low (below 2000 feet) in this situation, but that better than suicide at higher altitudes. This is why the B1 was designed for low-level penetration and the B-52 retrofitted for low level, it was not possible to survive at high levels against Warsaw Pact defences.

[cheap charlie]

is anyone using the tracker with a short throw projector? Im thinking of using a microphone stand to have the scanner about 2 feet from my head, that might work.

[Yurgon]

I thought that this conceptual mission profile was effectively debunked once the A-10 actually saw combat where much of the pre-Gulf War doctrine was shown to be nonsensical.

 

Wasn't it the other way round? Flying low was all the Hog pilots had ever trained for, but there was exactly no use flying low in an area with practically no elevation to speak of. Flying low in Iraq meant they would get all the disadvantages of doing so while at the same time gaining no further advantage. To turn the odds in their favor, they started to fly high.

 

I don't think flying low became nonsensical for A-10s because of the Gulf War. It was simply very inefficient in the Gulf War. Pick a new theater (and the air defenses along with it), and doctrine for the A-10 may be back to the way it was before: fly low, use terrain cover.

[Stinky]

terrain cover:

[PFunk1606688187]

Wasn't it the other way round? Flying low was all the Hog pilots had ever trained for, but there was exactly no use flying low in an area with practically no elevation to speak of. Flying low in Iraq meant they would get all the disadvantages of doing so while at the same time gaining no further advantage. To turn the odds in their favor, they started to fly high.

 

 

I don't think flying low became nonsensical for A-10s because of the Gulf War. It was simply very inefficient in the Gulf War. Pick a new theater (and the air defenses along with it), and doctrine for the A-10 may be back to the way it was before: fly low, use terrain cover.

 

Well the Fulda Gap scenario is basically a suicide scenario where it was pretty much assumed that even if you managed to do your job and not die you'd probably get wiped out in the nuclear strikes that would inevitably come.

 

Also, the massed proliferation and ease of use but incredible relative effectiveness of shoulder fired SAMs is a pretty huge threat. Even if you could dodge one, or two, how could you effectively fight that way?

 

A few Stingers made mince meat of Russian air crews once the Mujahideen got hold of them and there are plenty of mountains and depressions in Afghanistan.

 

Like, in DCS I rarely fly low because you never know where the IR SAM could be hiding. Flying low as a means to avoid fire is just not something that makes sense given the reaction time necessary to dodge an IR SAM.

 

IR SAMs are basically Viet Cong ambush for aircraft. It feels to me like running in the open past a machine gun. You could do it, and maybe even survive, but I don't think it would really make sense as a doctrine.

 

To my mind the only sensible solution to constant threat is to minimize your exposure to it. Flying super low doesn't seem to solve this because the wrong dip or valley could just bury you before you even have time to read the azimuth on your RWR. With an active radar you at least have a reference point for it, you can spy it and plan around it, but IR SAMs give you little warning absent intel. Its easier to fly high and dodge into the gaps in the radar coverage than fly low and take a chance on an IR SAM, at least thats my feeling. I try to only expose myself when I have to.

[Yurgon]

Well the Fulda Gap scenario is basically a suicide scenario where it was pretty much assumed that even if you managed to do your job and not die you'd probably get wiped out in the nuclear strikes that would inevitably come.

 

If thermonuclear war was inevitable, why waste precious ground attack forces instead of nuking the Russians first? Sure, us Germans might have objected because of the fallout, but who else would have cared if nuking was inevitable? :lol:

 

But seriously, I don't think any of the forces at the time trained to die on the battlefield, they all trained to survive and win that war.

 

Also, the massed proliferation and ease of use but incredible relative effectiveness of shoulder fired SAMs is a pretty huge threat. Even if you could dodge one, or two, how could you effectively fight that way?

 

Well, the reason for fighting the A-10 war NOE style was that higher up the threat from fighters and radar guided SAMs would be even bigger. They lacked the stealth, speed and altitude that might have given them a chance to survive up high. Down low was what they were built for and what the pilots had trained for. I guess they would have rather taken their chances with MANPADs than with long range radar SAMs.

 

On the other hand, it would be interesting to hear how A-10 pilots would want to employ their aircraft if the Fulda Gap scenario was still valid today. Asymmetrical wars like Iraq and Afghanistan can't be compared to a clash NATO vs. Warsaw Pact (if the latter still existed).

 

A few Stingers made mince meat of Russian air crews once the Mujahideen got hold of them and there are plenty of mountains and depressions in Afghanistan.

 

Missile warning and avoidance systems have also come a long way. I read a very detailed analysis of the dangers to modern attack choppers a while ago (I think the analysis was about a decade old) stating that guided missiles are a threat that can be dealt with. The biggest threat to choppers were omnipresent RPGs. They may miss 9 times out of 10 (probably more like 99 out of 100), but that 1 hit is all it takes. They're cheap, and they're available in massive quantities.

 

IR SAMs are basically Viet Cong ambush for aircraft. It feels to me like running in the open past a machine gun. You could do it, and maybe even survive, but I don't think it would really make sense as a doctrine.

 

Basically, I agree. But the A-10 still lacks stealth, speed and altitude. If it was used against an enemy with strong air defenses, its chances of survival down low may be higher than up high (once again). I think it really depends on the scenario whether it makes more sense to fly NOE or angels 20.

[PFunk1606688187]

If thermonuclear war was inevitable, why waste precious ground attack forces instead of nuking the Russians first? Sure, us Germans might have objected because of the fallout, but who else would have cared if nuking was inevitable? :lol:

 

But seriously, I don't think any of the forces at the time trained to die on the battlefield, they all trained to survive and win that war.

Because the mad ridiculous machine of war had men trained and propagandized to fight and win for their nation but even then the only inevitable conclusion was nuclear war because when somebody started to lose they'd just drop tactical nukes to halt the advance of the enemy, which would mean the enemy would do the same which means it would trigger a strategic nuclear attack which means that why bother with the tactical strike alone and not just escalate to a full scale nuclear first strike the moment you smell a russian tank pushing outsite its side of Germany?

 

There's a reason nobody ever tested these theories. There was literally no way it wouldn't end in nuclear war, hence the constant fear and paranoia of the time.

 

 

 

Well, the reason for fighting the A-10 war NOE style was that higher up the threat from fighters and radar guided SAMs would be even bigger. They lacked the stealth, speed and altitude that might have given them a chance to survive up high. Down low was what they were built for and what the pilots had trained for. I guess they would have rather taken their chances with MANPADs than with long range radar SAMs.

 

On the other hand, it would be interesting to hear how A-10 pilots would want to employ their aircraft if the Fulda Gap scenario was still valid today. Asymmetrical wars like Iraq and Afghanistan can't be compared to a clash NATO vs. Warsaw Pact (if the latter still existed).

Just saying thats what they were trained for doesnt' justify the doctrine. British airmen in WW2 flew in the Vic formation for quite some time even though the German Finger Four was clearly superior. British airmen shot down Germans despite their less than ideal formation doctrine as well.

 

Frankly I think any idea of using slow ground attack aircraft kind of seems moot in any scenario you don't have Air Superiority. You can theorize about how to keep the thing alive, but maybe the mission on its own was ridiculous. The A-10 project itself had the Vietnam War as a catalyst, another asymmetrical and at times COIN scenario where the A-1 Skyraider shows its worth, and while there were a handful of occasions where a Skyraider ran into a Mig, mostly it was American air superiority all the way.

 

TBH the upper upper's reservations about the A-10 may well have been totally valid in a proper Warsaw Pact encounter, however that never came and all we have for a conventional test of the A-10 is Iraq 91 and Iraq 03. The What ifs are just that really, at this point.

 

 

Missile warning and avoidance systems have also come a long way. I read a very detailed analysis of the dangers to modern attack choppers a while ago (I think the analysis was about a decade old) stating that guided missiles are a threat that can be dealt with. The biggest threat to choppers were omnipresent RPGs. They may miss 9 times out of 10 (probably more like 99 out of 100), but that 1 hit is all it takes. They're cheap, and they're available in massive quantities.

I don't think Helos necessarily reflect an accurate threat picture for a fixed wing aircraft, even one as "slow" as the A-10. In an attack run an A-10 is probably going over 600-650 km/h so an RPG hardly seems a credible threat, especially since the closest slant range an A-10 is likely to come to a target is just under its GAU zero range of about 4000feet, even then the break and climb is likely to be very erratic and hard to track.

 

I've read that shoulder mounted SAMs are alarmingly common on the black market and incredibly cheap compared to a massive overlapping battery of different SAMs and early warning radars. On top of this their firing envelope is so small that should you walk into it your time to acknowledge and evade is a handful of seconds versus upwards of 45+ seconds with long range SAMs, which gives you way more time for the slow aircraft to make a proper maneuver. With IR SAMs you get one break turn to evade and if you did alright you can make another if another missile is coming. But I don't envy that option.

 

 

Basically, I agree. But the A-10 still lacks stealth, speed and altitude. If it was used against an enemy with strong air defenses, its chances of survival down low may be higher than up high (once again). I think it really depends on the scenario whether it makes more sense to fly NOE or angels 20.

Frankly I think its crazy to think of any ground attack aircraft being used against an enemy when you dont' have SEAD on station. A-10s wouldn't go in before the SEAD, and since we don't have any F-15Es in this game yet (for player use) we can't really model realistic scenarios for us, but I doubt very much an A-10 would go to war and see a RWR spike and not have some F-15 to call on or not be really pissed cause the F-15s told him it was all clear.

Edited November 15, 2012 by P*Funk

[Moa]

While modern aircraft still carry flares the more advanced systems carry sensors and lasers to automatically detect IR missile launches and blind the sensitive seekers (the pilot doesn't have to react).

 

This is equivalent to having infinite continuous flares in this game.

 

MANPAD IR missiles are not the threat they once were for aircraft suitably equipped (modern combat aircraft and even some airliners).

[SUBS17]

IR Jammers are modelled on the SU25T and they work against IR SAMs.

[Eddie]

IR Jammers are modelled on the SU25T and they work against IR SAMs.

 

Not the same thing Moa is referring to. At least as modeled on the SU-25T.

 

Have a read about DIRCM systems such as AN/AAQ-24.

[Akula]

That's where mutual support comes in place.

 

Yup, so make sure you wear a bra when flying ;)

[USCav]

Not the same thing Moa is referring to. At least as modeled on the SU-25T.

 

Have a read about DIRCM systems such as AN/AAQ-24.

 

I want this. God would it ever save my ass... As someone who is just now getting the hang of flying without labels on, and lacks TrackIR SAMS.

Edited January 6, 2014 by USCav

[ENO]

What aircraft do you most commonly fly Cav?

[uscav19d]

What aircraft do you most commonly fly Cav?

 

Almost exclusively the A10C.

[ENO]

Learn to orbit from 13000+ and use your zoom key. Or stay further away and learn the intricacies of the tgp. Granted the scrambler is easier but we will likely never have anything like it other than flares and preemptive flaring doesn't seem to work. Generally by the time you're maneuvering and punching out flares aggressively enough it's already got you. If you don't know how to manually configure flare programs then let's have a chat about that too.

[GGTharos]

F-15's don't do SEAD. They're not equipped for it, but some F-16's do, and F-18's. Some better than others due to available hardware.

 

A-10Cs will receive geo-located SAM contacts on their data-link from those F-16's, something that isn't modeled in the game.

 

However, it still isn't entirely unlikely than an SA-8/15/19/22 will show up on the RWR, as those are SHORAD and more difficult to deal with.

 

SEAD won't necessarily destroy those, but may help operating with those SAM in the vicinity of your aircraft - it's all the name 'Suppression of Air Defenses'. You launch a HARM and everyone shuts their radars down. If they don't, ok, they got an A-10, but they probably just lost a significant part of their IADS in return. It's very cat-and-mouse.

 

Frankly I think its crazy to think of any ground attack aircraft being used against an enemy when you dont' have SEAD on station. A-10s wouldn't go in before the SEAD, and since we don't have any F-15Es in this game yet (for player use) we can't really model realistic scenarios for us, but I doubt very much an A-10 would go to war and see a RWR spike and not have some F-15 to call on or not be really pissed cause the F-15s told him it was all clear.

[PFunk1606688187]

F-15's don't do SEAD. They're not equipped for it, but some F-16's do, and F-18's. Some better than others due to available hardware.

 

Took a necro to show off my ignorance from 14 months ago. :megalol: