1.2.4 has messed with SEAD effectiveness against SA-19s

[Bahger]

There has been a huge bump in SA-19 effectiveness against AR missiles, so much so that it has invalidated almost all SEAD/DEAD in my current mission-in-progress.

 

I have two AD batteries, each consisting of a Sborka radar CP and 4 SA-19 launchers. I have tasked two flights of SEAD Tornado GR4s to shwack them with ALARMS, which in 1.2.3 they did very effectively, taking out the CPs first, then rolling back in to use their remaining ARMs on the launchers. In 1.2.4, however, SA-19s intercept ALARMS so effectively that the SEAD flights run out of these missiles long before the launchers are even half destroyed. Not only this, but an F-15E strike flight has little more luck, as the SA-19s will intercept and destroy Mavericks too.

 

I'm wondering if this is realistic behavior and, if so, if it's been dialed up too far.

 

Meanwhile, I need to fix my mission. I think I'll use "Attack Group" for the F-15s to get them to hit the SA-19 launchers with cluster munitions, hoping they won't stray into the Tunguskas' killzone below 20,000ft.

 

If the above does not work, can anyone suggest another solution? For example, is there another integrated, battlefield (i.e. not long-range IADS) medium-range system I can use instead of SA-19s where, if SEAD hits the CP, the launchers' effectiveness will be vastly degraded?

 

The problem with making the launchers a strike target is that it seems to invalidate having a SEAD flight in the first place. The DCS engine has never really simulated IADS and it seems to me now that if ARMs cannot hit SA-19 launchers (which are radar-guided, after all) how can I use SEAD against them?

 

EDIT: Well, the strikers get the SA-19s, but only after multiple passes. They are too dispersed to be killed by the CBUs, the the Strike Eagles have to come back around with mavericks, which finally get through, but by now the ingressing A-10s have been shot down.

 

I'm either going to have to find a battlefield SAM system that is vulnerable to ALARMS, or reduce the number of launchers in my batteries. Either way, it sticks in my craw to have to rely on strikers to do SEAD's work. 1.2.4 appears to have turned SA-19s into a super-weapon; since when can they intercept and destroy 80%+ of ALARMs fired at them by two Tornados per battery? I hate to see SEAD get neutralised in this way; it's iffy enough as it is, what with the way it tries to use guns against AAA and missile launchers. And unless I can find a way to decapitate a SAM battery by having SEAD hit the CP, there's no point in using SEAD in my mission. Even the first shots from 25,000ft against the CPs get intercepted. This has to be wrong.

 

I had almost finished my mission but this will take a huge re-work. Sigh.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Bahger

[Grimes]

OSA's SA-8 are somewhat comparable to the range of the SA-19.

 

I'll have to play around with SEAD again to see which sams will engage incoming missiles. I know the Tunguska had that behavior for a LONG time in the sim, but it had some issues engaging targets recently. I'm not sure if its correct behavior or not.

[Invader ZIM]

Keep your origional mission, check to see if your SA-19 site is set to Excellent AI. Now try backing the AI down one notch. If that doesn't work, back it down another and see the results. Same with the Tunguska's, back them off one notch from the highest AI setting, and I think you'll find they aren't as capable of intercepting mavericks and other small missiles.

 

I'd be interested to hear your results using the above info. Hope it helps without having to redo all your scenarios.

[Bahger]

Thanks, guys.

 

Invader, all the launchers are set to Average, the lowest AI setting. They hit at least 85% of incoming ALARMs and Mavericks.

 

I'm beginning to dread these updates. They always break my friggin' missions.

 

This level of SA-19 effectiveness against ALARMS has to be wrong.

[Humbug]

I've noticed this as well while flying the JTAC training by Dragon. Tunguskas are now almost impossible to kill. They will just shoot down every maverick thrown at them with no effort at all.

[Bahger]

OK, well, subsituting 2 Osas for for Tunguskas per battery, and removing the CP, the 4 SEAD flights can almost cope. I say almost because the accuracy of their ALARMS (with pilot AI set to Excellent) is awful, one hit per three missiles fired, so the F-15Es have to come in behind them and mop up.

 

Sometimes I just despair. Doesn't anybody test this stuff before releasing it in an update?

[Bahger]

I've noticed this as well while flying the JTAC training by Dragon. Tunguskas are now almost impossible to kill. They will just shoot down every maverick thrown at them with no effort at all.

Yes, it's stupid. I just don't think it was tested, so they'll correct it in the next update that will take 12 hours to download...and break something else. I think my mission design days are numbered, this is just a waste of my time.

[Ripcord]

Yeah I have long wanted to roll up my sleeves and really bust out a major campaign, but I keep watching you, B, and others, and I keep coming to the conclusion that it's just not quite baked yet. Getting closer, but still not quite there.

[Joyride]

Hang in there, Bahger! It's a labor of love. I spent hours today trying to sort out some convoy route AI that severely borked a mission with the update. They'll always be trying to make changes for the better, but undoubtedly, there arise issues in mission making with updates.

[Bahger]

Thanks, guys, I appreciate the encouragement. However, I'm really PO-ed about this. Four GR4s with 4 ALARMs each, going against a grand total of two SA-6 batteries containing four launchers in all...and the SEAD flights miss with 6 out of 8 missiles, so the AI A-10s coming in behind them get hit.

 

There must just be too many coders on the dev team and not enough of them actually playing the sim. SEAD was always a bit of a fudge in this engine but after all this time, they cannot even get ARMs to be effective against (rather ancient) SAM systems? Mid-level, medium-range battlefield systems (SA-19) that shoot down every ALARM and Maverick launched at them, rendering 4x GR4 SEAD jets and 2x F-15E strikers useless? It's just stupid.

 

This mission is the most elaborate and ambitious I've made, with CAS in support of a battalion-scale assault. The first thing I made, and an indispensible element, was the SEAD. Now it's utterly useless and the AI governing SEAD AR missile accuracy is nonsensical, ridiculous. As I've said before, SEAD has always been a workaround, but now it's just idiotic. How can this not have been noticed? What were they thinking? I think I'm going to give up on this mission and on mission design in this sim.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Bahger

[Invader ZIM]

Invader, all the launchers are set to Average, the lowest AI setting. They hit at least 85% of incoming ALARMs and Mavericks.

 

Thanks for that Bahger, wow! I'd say that success rate against mavericks and ALARM's is a little too optimistic for the lowest AI level. The air defense used to do that if you had them set on Excellent in the earlier game versions.

[Bahger]

So one possibility is that they nerfed ARMs in order to make SEAD missions suppressive, as opposed to directly lethal (DEAD). However, this is tactically meaningless in the absence of properly simulated IADS that can select when to emit and when not. In its current state, my SEAD against two batteries of outdated kit is so ineffectual that if I did not have strikers in trail, I may as well not have bothered with SEAD at all. DCS should have got this right by now, no excuses. Systems like AD, SEAD and arty are way too crudely executed for a sim of this sophistication.

[GGTharos]

I don't think what you're seeing is a deliberate change with respect to tactics, but I could be wrong.

 

The SA-19 is primarily an anti-helicopter SAM, and should not be capable of intercepting any ARMs. Perhaps they switched the modeling to SA-22 (IIRC the designation), but again I would caution against making too many assumptions on tactics.

 

For example, the SEAD planes don't try to saturate their targets either.

[Bahger]

The SA-19 will now intercept 90% of all missiles shot at it, Mavs and ALARMs. No weapon system in the world performs this way. It's dopey. Couldn't they have tested it before releasing this update?

[Grimes]

The Tunguska appears to only really be effective when intercepting the missiles shot AT or near it. I'm honestly ok with it using its guns to try and hit an incoming missile, but the missile to missile intercepts might be a stretch for its radar and tracking system.

 

In any case it appears that the ALARM itself is more of the issue than anything. Its current PK compared to other ARMs is quite bad. I've reported its behavior to the relevant developers. The HARM appears to be much more successful at killing and hitting targets in comparison. So changing ze Germans Tornado or an F-16/F-18 might be a decent "stop gap" to allow the mission to continue working as you initially intended.

[Bahger]

I can certainly confirm that the intercepts are missile vs. missile, and the accuracy is pure Star Wars; it intercepts 95% of incoming ALARMS and Mavericks since 1.2.4. There was none of this nonsense in 1.2.3.

 

Thanks, Grimes, I might switch from the RAF to the Luftwaffe, regretfully. I'll probably retain the SA-6 Osa systems, as they do not do sci-fi missile to missile intercepts. However, the other problem is the ALARM's gross inaccuracy against the SA-6 launchers (80% misses). Hopefully the HARM will not behave this way.

 

One small consolation: I can amuse myself by calling the new SEAD flight "Vild Veasels".

Edited May 2, 2013 by Bahger

[Exorcet]

What about the AGM-154? I had a problem like this before, switching to the 154 left the SAM's unable to intercept incoming weapons. This might still be true in 1.2.4.

 

EDIT

 

Does not seem to work, though the F-16 only fired one, it got stuck circling over the SA-19 without finding a launch solution after the first 154 was downed.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Exorcet

[otto]

I'm far from being an expert in modern weapons:

But The sa19 tunguska system uses the same 9M311 (NATO: SA-19/SA-N-11) missile family as the naval Kashtan CIWS system which is designed to engage and destroy other missiles so there could be some level of realism involved here.I don't know if it can,in real life, destroy maveriks and alarms or just cruise missiles and anti-ship.

Edited May 2, 2013 by otto

[Revelation]

I'm far from being an expert in modern weapons:

But The sa19 tunguska system uses the same 9M311 (NATO: SA-19/SA-N-11) missile family as the naval Kashtan CIWS system which is designed to engage and destroy other missiles so there could be some level of realism involved here.I don't know if it can,in real life, destroy maveriks and alarms or just cruise missiles and anti-ship.

 

Yes the SA-19 can target those as well as JDAMs, Cruise Missiles, regular dumb bombs. These objects are not "invisible" to radar.

 

When the SA-19 is paired up with SA-10/11 their primary role is to protect the SA-10/11 from munitions intent on killing the SA-10/11.

 

Another interesting tidbit that if it gets implemented will make the SA-19 a difficult target to take out, or anything they guard for that matter. SA-19s can be data-linked together and share targeting data. They can each track multiple targets and engage 2+ targets each.

 

Currently the SAM capabilities are not modeled to their fullest potential. I can tell you now that if ED gets serious with the SAMs it will wreck a lot of peoples egos.

[Bahger]

Interesting. Are you sure they can target these munitions with missiles, not radar-guided AAA?

 

Well, I did have significant density of SA-19s (4 launchers in each battery, plus CP radar) but I did not expect two dedicated SEAD flights (4 GR4s/8 ALARMS) and one strike flight (2 F-15Es/8 Mavericks) to get maybe 2 hits out of 16 launches. If this is how the Tunguska -- or other systems -- are modelled in the sim, it makes SEAD/DEAD completely irrelevant and the only way to confront SAMs will be old-school carpet-bombing. This is the kind of brute force that usually spells both bad AI and bad tactics.

 

As for "soft" modelling of SAMs in the sim, no modelling of AD could possibly be realistic without some kind of IADs capability, accompanied by launcher emission modelling. At present, I do not know whether networking SAM systems (i.e. using CPs/EWs) improves launcher accuracy or PK; I suspect the addition of these units in missions is essentially cosmetic. The real-life game of chicken between AD radars and incoming SEAD flights involves tactical control of emissions; this is not modelled in the sim either. I'm happy to be challenged by SAM systems but the above principles -- IADS networking and emissions AI -- need to be modelled.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Bahger

[Eddie]

The problem is working out which variant of the Tunguska ED are modelling.

 

The older versions such as the Tunguska-M are really only effective against helicopters and low flying jets that are being stupid. Later models do add the ability to find and engage cruise missiles and the like however.

 

The 2S6, 2S6M, and the 2S6M1 are different systems, although all are designated SA-19 Grison by Nato.

 

So far it's always seemed that the 2S6 was simulated in DCS, but now it seems that may have changed.

[Bahger]

Good intel, Eddie.

 

It's one thing to be able to knock down a cruise missile, altogether another to find, lock and kill multiple incoming ALARMs and Mavericks.