How to SEAD in A-10C

[hachiman]

Hi

 

Any good threads or videos on how to SEAD? I can do AAA, but just staying high and dropping Guided Munitions on them, but missile units i don't know how to handle.

 

Any tips appreciated.

 

Thanx

[Steel Jaw]

Best tip I can think of is to call F16 weasels in.

 

The Hawg should never try its luck at Iron Hand.

[159th_Viper]

All SHORAD is easy pickings for the Hog with Mavs. MERAD (Buk, Kub, Hawk) also doable but requires terrain masking, forced correlate mode. S-300, go home and leave it to the Big-Boys (Toadies) to take care of.

[hachiman]

All SHORAD is easy pickings for the Hog with Mavs. MERAD (Buk, Kub, Hawk) also doable but requires terrain masking, forced correlate mode. S-300, go home and leave it to the Big-Boys (Toadies) to take care of.

 

 

Thanx Viper. Is there any tutorials anywhere on what you describe?

[PhoenixBvo]

lmgtfy.com

[159th_Viper]

Thanx Viper. Is there any tutorials anywhere on what you describe?

 

Not that I am aware of. If you are interested I can give you tracks to have a look at. Just let me know the specific scenarios you wish me to cover/SAM's you want to engage.

[Sierra99]

Download "dragons Mission pack" and practice in the mission "The Bay".

 

You will learn quickly that terrain masking is your friend.

 

The best way to attack a known SAM is to identify it well out of its range...get your ducks in a row as far as weapons, master arm, etc... Fly straight at it until it flips a missile at you...

 

Turn, 180 degrees and dive at the deck and run till the missile goes ballistic...

 

Repeat until unit has expended all its weapons...

 

Fly at target and finally kill it...

 

AMMV

 

Sierra

Edited December 3, 2012 by Sierra99

[Shein]

if you can fly low enough, some of the longer range sams have a tough time locking you up. Did it once to a buk. Course flying THAT low can be dangerous enough in of itself; and YMMV and all that jazz.

course, it is exhilarating...

[Watari]

the best method for me was having so much air under your ass as u can get.

 

1.FL over 20k minimum.

2. staying 15 miles away for targeting

3 go in adjust the aircraft to the target and shoot the agm 65H(!) in

Force Correlate mode. (boot switch middle) under 12m.

4 escape 180° to tgt.

 

that works very nice for "the bay"

 

the "low in" method works for me very good for single Sams on mountain or a single sam on a strategic position.

 

if u only some seconds too low or not covered in "the bay" you have an ass full of that cruise missiles.

 

i think in this missions have fun priority for realismus

[Hamblue]

If you're in multiplayer you could simply wait for someone else to get shot at. Once you see the missile trail they're easy to kill with Mav's.

 

The other way is to wait until you see them on the RWR. Then back off a little and enter a circle pattern while you search with your TGP.

[MTFDarkEagle]

S-300, go home and leave it to the Big-Boys (Toadies) to take care of.

 

It all depends on the terrain ;) IF (yes big if) there is mountainios terrain around, use that for cover. Pop-up, launch mavericks and get the hell back down in cover again. Possible, not ideal :)

[Eight Ball]

Turn, 180 degrees and dive at the deck and run till the missile goes ballistic...

 

Is it really usefull to turn 180° with the hog ?

I can see how it would be with a jet, going full AB and trying to put some distance between you and the missile (even if it goes faster than you) or at least the launcher.

But with the hog isn't it better to make a 90-150° turn and keeping an eye on the missile ?

Just asking

[Eddie]

Is it really usefull to turn 180° with the hog ?

I can see how it would be with a jet, going full AB and trying to put some distance between you and the missile (even if it goes faster than you) or at least the launcher.

But with the hog isn't it better to make a 90-150° turn and keeping an eye on the missile ?

Just asking

 

As ever, it depends. You are correct that in many cases the Hog simply doesn't have the energy to evade missiles by dragging or even beaming, but it does depend on the situation.

 

In DCS, due to the less than great AI SAM operators you can drag/beam a missile simply because they are launched at the limits of the system's MEZ. But if you were to be launched on well inside the MEZ then you'd have little chance of defeating the missile using the drag/beam alone.

 

As for keeping an eye on the missile, if you're in a situation where you can't terrain mask effectively, then yes, keep the missile in sight if possible and defend using countermeasures & manoeuvring.

 

The biggest mistake sim pilots make when it comes to defending against SAM/AAM threats is manoeuvring too early and expending all their energy before the missle get close enough for said manoeuvres to be effective. This especially an issue in the Hog where you have precious little energy to start with, and it takes a long time to regain any energy you loose.

[159th_Viper]

But with the hog isn't it better to make a 90-150° turn and keeping an eye on the missile ?

Just asking

 

With medium range stuff like the Buk or Kub or Hawk, maybe. As regards to short-range SAM systems, the only decent system in my opinion is the 9K331. If he launches, chances are awfully good you're dead as he will always launch within the NEZ (thankfully) as opposed to days of old where all launches were at RMAX.

 

As stated above, it depends on the individual threat.

[Eight Ball]

Ok, noted !

 

Many thanks for the answer guys :)

[Steel Jaw]

As ever, it depends. You are correct that in many cases the Hog simply doesn't have the energy to evade missiles by dragging or even beaming

 

Crucial and not to be overlooked.

 

As a long time (v) Weasel in the Falcon F16, a big part of Iron Hand is being able to dodge the missiles fired at you: the '16 has the power to do that, the Hawg most certainly does NOT.

[Cookie]

I just got done reading "Viper Pilot" by Dan Hampton. He was an F-16 pilot and flew Wild Weasel missions for almost his entire career.

 

It was interesting to note that he really, really, really despised using the AGM-88 HARM. To him that weapon was absolutely useless, because at best it could supress the thread, but not kill it. Instead of spamming the area with HARMs he much preferred going in close, dancing with the SAMs using the proper techniques (maneuvering, always maintaining visual contact with the missiles, using towed decoys and of course chaff and flare), wrestling the SAM site down that way by making it expand all its ordnance and then going in and dropping a CBU-87 on it (many times he didn´t even do that but just strafed the site instead).

 

If he had Mavericks available he used them to kill the SAM sites from a little further away, but he still needed to fight his way in because the SAM sites he was going up against had much better range than his Mavericks. It was not uncommon for him to have three or four missiles against him in the air at the same time, and he clearly states that more often than not his survival was down to pure luck.

 

However, he very clearly states that this is the only way a Wild Weasel mission really works. It´s not really SEAD that is desireable, but DEAD. HARMs are nice for SEAD and keep the launching platform safe, but they don´t achieve anything in the long run.

 

That´s also why - in his opinion - the strong emphasis towards UAVs is a very big mistake. They may be able to perform SEAD missions, but will always lack the situational awareness necessary to perform a DEAD mission.

 

All in all quite an interesting book. He also has some very nice things to say about the A-10 and especially A-10 pilots, while being not so nice about other platforms sometimes. ;) Oh, and if you´re french you may wanna avoid reading that book altogether... :D

Edited December 4, 2012 by Cookie

[Steel Jaw]

Read the book twice now, excellent book, he pulls no punches about UAV "pilots" and shoe clerks and RIOs (I always thought RIOs were a joke myself). Excellent read.

 

I did not get the impression he thought HARMs were useless, just that they weren't a panacea to Iron Hand: you still have to get down into their chilli to finish the job.

 

But, again, the Hawg is a HORRIBLE platform to practice Iron Hand in: the Bad Guys are going to shoot back, and when they do, the Hawg does NOT have the power/energy to dodge/defeat them.

Edited December 4, 2012 by Mower

[Heater]

Best tip I can think of is to call F16 weasels in.

 

The Hawg should never try its luck at Iron Hand.

 

+1

[Eight Ball]

It´s not really SEAD that is desireable, but DEAD

This.

What's the difference between suppression and destruction ?

[Steel Jaw]

I think SEAD and DEAD are self explanatory, no? Depends upon the tasking and/or mission priorities of the package.

[Eight Ball]

Well no, I wouldn't ask if they were to me =/

 

English isn't my first language and I fail to understand the nuance between the 2

In french, Supprimer (suppress) and Détruire (destroy) roughly have the same meaning.

 

What I'm asking is what exaclty differs from the 2.

 

What's a typical SEAD mission and what's a typical DEAD mission ?

Edited December 4, 2012 by Eight Ball

[Rusty_M]

I'm sure someone who actually knows will come along with a better answer, but I'd guess that Suppression would involve maybe a temporary deactivation of the air defence platform, for example, to prevent a HARM from hitting.

 

If it's suppressed, it can get back up and running, if it's destroyed, it has been broken and rendered useless.

[EtherealN]

A simple example would be this:

 

SEAD: put a bunch of strikers out there with HARMs, thereby making it too dangerous for the enemy to operate either SAM sites. SAM sites turned off: it's safe for your other assets to operate in the area.

 

DEAD: You're not happy with just suppressing them, you want to kill them. Example would be the opening Toimahawk salvoes in Libya.

 

A SEAD mission has the advantage that you can perform it as a temporary measure; your SEAD flight effectively "escorts" the strike/CAP packages, letting them do what they need to do, and then all of you just go home. Works even if you don't know where the sites are. (Turning on the search/track radars on the site would be met with a HARM salvo, so the enemy has to just sit there doing nothing.)

 

In reality, SAM sites don't sit there constantly beaming their radar lobes around like they do in typical simulators - they'll use multiple assets as part of an integrated defence system to get information and activate sites when a shot is judged possible (or required for the intel they need). Therefore the SEAD flight will be on station to ensure that if someone activates in the hope of getting a shot at your strikers or CAP or whatever, they'll have to pay for their shot with their own lives. Since (most) people are not suicidal, the shot doesn't happen and the enemy air defences are "suppressed".

 

DEAD flight on the other hand would be actively trying to find and destroy the sites. You see this in Flight of the Intruder, for example, where the DEAD flight actually wants to be fired upon by SAM defences - because then they can fire back and kill the site. (Takes real balls to fly that kind of mission.)

 

Another example from infantry warfare would be "covering fire"; you fire at a position not in the intent of killing the enemy, but rather in the intent of making sure they don't fire back while your friends move across an exposed location. So SEAD would be the "covering fire" and DEAD would be when you're actually shooting a person.

Edited December 4, 2012 by EtherealN

[Steel Jaw]

SEAD = temporary interruption of air defense site effectiveness

DEAD = permanent (unless rebuilt/repaired) elimination of the air defense site.

 

SEAD might be used to support a strike package making a one time hit on a target;

DEAD might be used to clear a corridor through air defenses or eliminate same in a n area where many strikes and CAS missions are expected to be tasked.

 

(Etheral beat me to it but hope this helps too.)