Tunguskas are shooting down mavericks

[Rider1]

So what if you are a single ship? What if you are playing multiplayer on a public server and you are single ship. Tonight I had 6 mavs, 3 S6 spikes on my RWR, and 2 Black sharks that were trying to get in that area but were getting hammered by the SAMs.

 

So I set up a nice orbit and found the first one.. 6 mavs later it still was not killed.. so what's the tactic.. Eject and get in a new plane and haul 6 more mavs out? and repeat? Nah... You just quit the game out of futility.

[MagnumHB]

So what if you are a single ship? What if you are playing multiplayer on a public server and you are single ship. Tonight I had 6 mavs, 3 S6 spikes on my RWR, and 2 Black sharks that were trying to get in that area but were getting hammered by the SAMs.

 

So I set up a nice orbit and found the first one.. 6 mavs later it still was not killed.. so what's the tactic.. Eject and get in a new plane and haul 6 more mavs out? and repeat? Nah... You just quit the game out of futility.

You were playing Rampant Bear on Eno's, yes? Not sure if you were still around, but I eventually took out one of the Tunguskas with a low-level pop-up attack from behind a hill with a Maverick shot at ~3 miles. It's certainly a more exciting attack profile than I'm used to, but I'm curious to see what tactics Eddie has in mind.

[Eddie]

So what if you are a single ship? What if you are playing multiplayer on a public server and you are single ship.

 

Still easy. I'll post up an ACMI file later (if I remember), but it's as easy closing to around 4.5 Nm so the SA-19 will fire upon you, launch your Mav and then defend against the incoming missile.

 

AI SAM operators in are still somewhat inept (even more than the Iraqis were in fact) so the SA-19 will continue to support the missile fired upon you rather than trying to enage your Maverick. The SA-19 will be unable to switch track to your Mav and fire before impact, after it drops the missile it fired at you.

 

SA-19s are the least dangerous SAM "threat" system currently in the sim, to fixed wing aircraft at least. I really can't see what all the fuss is about.

[159th_Viper]

So what if you are a single ship?

 

As said above, draw launch, fire Mav, turn onto the 3/9 line, have a cup of tea, page through the Hustler while you wait for your Mav to impact - No countermeasures necessary.

 

Herewith in-cockpit view:

 

sazvfKMVWS8

Edited May 9, 2013 by 159th_Viper

[Peally]

Thanks for the vid Viper. I don't know if that tactic would have been particularly viable in the server last night due to other unknown threats but it's good to know in some way that it's possible.

 

While Magnum did pull off some impressive shots from cover, before I left (as a shark pilot) we ended up pulling in SU-25Ts and just launching 4+ HARMs at single targets to take them out.

 

I'm still not entirely sold on their high level of effectiveness, but I'm also not convinced the feature itself is way out there.

[Eddie]

Thanks for the vid Viper. I don't know if that tactic would have been particularly viable in the server last night due to other unknown threats but it's good to know in some way that it's possible.

 

This is why aircraft don't operate as single ships IRL, you are both more vunerable and less effective. I never have undetstood the concept of joining multiplayer only to fly around on your own. And your first order of buisness is to avoid threats, not engage them.

 

Remember, killing air defence itself is not why you're there (or should I say, it shoudn't be why you're there). Your job in the Hog is to either coordinate with and provide support to friendly groud forces (CAS), or cross the FLET and disrupt or destroy hostile ground forces, primarily armour and artiliery (Air Interdiction/AI). Contrary to the popular belief around here, CAS is not the A-10s primary mission, it is AI. Usually within 20-30 NM of the FLOT, with the fast jets working targets beyond 40 NM behined the lines.

 

Of course there are always exceptions, as demonstrated during Desert Storm. But they are exactly that, exceptions.

 

As for the SA-19 itself, remember any AGM-65/88 that is fired at it will have an LOS rate of zero. The missile will be static in the sky to the target, it'll just be getting bigger, that makes for a rather easy target. If however you see what happens when you fire AGM-65/88 etc. at a target near one or more SA-19s you will see that they will fire upon said missiles, but their Pk will rapidly drop to zero as the target's LOS rate increases (ie the target is in a different position).

[Kaktus29]

actually if SAMs would be much more simulated and would cooperate between themselves most simmers would be in a world of hurt..

 

SAM's as they are(in the game) don't move, don't use the shoot-and-scoop tactics.. don't use passive systems to engage.. not to mention the enemy air force also doesn't really work together with their SAMs..

 

If all this works as one, i don't think CAS pilots would be doing anything but dying.. Using CAS means you pretty much already have demolished the enemy air defence and have some semblance of air superiority .. otherwise CAS looks like suicide missions... and still people find something hard to defeat a single Tunguska with an inept AI operator..

 

 

How about "fake" sams.. you know, decoys? wouldn't it be nice to have for every SAM you deploy you get 4 copies of blow-out dolls SAM.. to spread around thus making sure its harder to detect a SAM.. when they are in passive mode that is.. also not much vegetation on the ground to make SAM hide when in passive mode.. all this coupled with improved AI that moves the SAM batteries would make miracles in realistic training against them not mentioning defeating them while at the same time dealing with enemy air force.. plus the ground forces clashing and screaming why is that CAS not saving their asses yet? ..

[Peally]

No doubt, if we had modern SAM installations the sim would be pretty futile (but that's up to mission makers).

 

What about HARMs? I'm not super educated on their effectiveness but considering they're designed for killing SAMs in as timely a fashion as possible is 4 HARMs to take out one Tunguska anywhere in the bounds of realism?

[Kaktus29]

@peally.. i wouldn't say HARM is ineffective..but just food for thought.. NATO launched about 900 HARMs on Yugoslavia even though Serbia had maybe 40-60 targets that emit any kind of radiation.. so you can see how effective they are..and even then most didn't destroy SAM's but decoys..

 

In real world its hard to measure the effectiveness of SEAD if you dont' know beforehand the system you are fighting.. the frequencies, the doctrines..positions, signals.. if all that is unknown and you go in armed with anti-radiation missiles you aren't going to do much.. first passively the enemy will watch this huge wave of planes heading towards you..they will wait until they are all "enveloped" with SAMs .. and then they will say "fire" and you will have the most spectacular end of 800 planes from the sky..

 

SAMs work only when in synergy with other sam's and planes.. Long-high altitude SAMs are designed to force you to fly low, .. low-short Sam's are to force you to fly high.. which means you need a whole package with you in order to hunt sam's.. and even that works only if you have intelligence that at least points you in the right direction as to where the sam's are..

 

so, you get yourself strike packages armed with HARMs, and other ARMs.. then you have Jammer planes trying to blind the sam's ..then you have fighter cover to protect against enemy air-intercept.. so all in all you have this big huge blurb of 100 planes or more in order to take out SAM's you dont' know where they are.. all this time on the ground you can't deploy CAS to protect your troops so you have your units already dying and being blown by enemy tanks or infantry.. so air power works if you are fighting a small nation that doesn't have the numbers or the tech.. if same quality and weapons nations strike each other there is no way the aggressor can survive the initial impact..

Edited May 9, 2013 by Kaktus29

[EtherealN]

@peally.. i wouldn't say HARM is ineffective..but just food for thought.. NATO launched about 900 HARMs on Yugoslavia even though Serbia had maybe 40-60 targets that emit any kind of radiation.. so you can see how effective they are..and even then most didn't destroy SAM's but decoys...

 

Sure, but analyzing numbers like that are hard considering that SEAD does not depend on actually destroying anything.

 

Remember: the S stands for Suppression, not Destruction. :)

 

(The weapon can be used to actually destroy them as well, of course, but skilled operators will have their ways to make this difficult. Stationary sites however might find themselves in trouble, especially aginst newer versions of the HARM.)

[Kaktus29]

@etherealN ..i know what S stands for.. also this means you have bunch of planes wasting fuel and HARMs so you can get this S.. while in terms of real opponents that can strike back means you have 100 planes in the air (70 of them with SAM's in their mind) while 30 is fighter escorts.. so the enemy can then deliver 100 fighters thus eradicating the whole group.. its a liability to have SEAD flying all the freaking time..

 

S stands for suppression the other way around also.. you get all kind of gear, planes doing stuff so they can get that "S" while it would be much wiser to have those planes equipped in air-to-air configuration since if you loose a couple of rounds there SAM's really aren't going to be a problem anymore)lol..

 

but as i said..this is for a real war between two equal opponents.. if you are raiding someone who is 10 times smaller, poorer and less equipped than its hard to parade HARM as a weapon that delivers victory over SAMs..

[maturin]

I'm still not sold on tungs and tors being able to shoot down mavs. Just because they should in theory does not mean it can happen in RL. Show me references, data, combat foote, or something that proves this.

Err... how the hell do you expect anyone to do that? Mavericks have never been fired against anything remotely modern, much less state-of-the-art Russian AAA.

 

95% of the combat in this sim is purely speculative.

[Skoop]

Err... how the hell do you expect anyone to do that? Mavericks have never been fired against anything remotely modern, much less state-of-the-art Russian AAA.

 

95% of the combat in this sim is purely speculative.

 

My point exactly, so how can tungs and tors be 100% accurate and shoot down 2 or 3 Mavs all inbound at once like I've witnessed in this sim after the update ?

[Skoop]

@etherealN ..i know what S stands for.. also this means you have bunch of planes wasting fuel and HARMs so you can get this S.. while in terms of real opponents that can strike back means you have 100 planes in the air (70 of them with SAM's in their mind) while 30 is fighter escorts.. so the enemy can then deliver 100 fighters thus eradicating the whole group.. its a liability to have SEAD flying all the freaking time..

 

S stands for suppression the other way around also.. you get all kind of gear, planes doing stuff so they can get that "S" while it would be much wiser to have those planes equipped in air-to-air configuration since if you loose a couple of rounds there SAM's really aren't going to be a problem anymore)lol..

 

but as i said..this is for a real war between two equal opponents.. if you are raiding someone who is 10 times smaller, poorer and less equipped than its hard to parade HARM as a weapon that delivers victory over SAMs..

 

You do realize that we would have f-22s with air superiority and f-35s with sead missions, thus gaining the same air superiority over top of the line Russian AD that we enjoyed over Iraq and Serbia.

 

All this talk of sead is making me lust for DCS f-18c....the wait is killin me.

[Buzpilot]

Are we heading towards a sim that have eastern units upgraded to todays theoretical capacity, and western units at useless standard?

You might just as well close the shop, and go home. No point in a DCS F-18 that can fly all day sending hundreds of missiles, that won't hit anything, exept defenseless trucks.

 

From what I can read here, nobody seem to understand how useless this sim is becoming. Exept for spoiled russian kids, they just love this :)

Edited May 10, 2013 by Buzpilot

[Eddie]

Are we heading towards a sim that have eastern units upgraded to todays theoretical capacity, and western units at useless standard?

You might just as well close the shop, and go home. No point in a DCS F-18 that can fly all day sending hundreds of missiles, that won't hit anything, exept defenseless trucks.

 

From what I can read here, nobody seem to understand how useless this sim is becoming. Exept for spoiled russian kids, they just love this :)

 

Erm, you do realise that many (most in fact) weapon systems, air, land, and sea on all sides are missing capabilities. Essentially many systems in DCS are dumbed down and/or less capable than they should be.

 

While its true that for defensive/offensive capabilities missing from aircraft, especially western ones, such as ECM, RF decoys, etc do make defeating air defence systems harder than it should be in some cases these gaps can't be filled overnight. It's going to take a while and must be done one step at a time.

 

We UK/US (& others) have systems that can destroy inbound missiles, rockets, artillery shells, mortars, and bombs. What makes you think the Russians don't?

[Buzpilot]

We UK/US (& others) have systems that can destroy inbound missiles, rockets, artillery shells, mortars, and bombs. What makes you think the Russians don't?

 

I'm not saying russians don't have, but it's hard to mission makers to make a mission, if old units, behave like new and should look different. Making it impossible to make a mission for older planes. Without having to leave out a bunch of units.

 

And come on, do we have any western units in this sim that can shoot down artillery Shells, mortars, or even bombs in here? Even a Ticonderoga Cruiser is defenseless against 3-4 incoming cruise missiles. (almost pure Luck if it kill more than one of them)

Edit; Just checked to see if it's still true, The Ticonderoga Cruiser hits Kh-35 mach 0.7?, 50% of P-500 at range, 4 out of salvo of 8. The CIWS hit none (first P-500 that hit, took out the CIWS )

Tacview-20130510-083040.txt.rar

Edited May 10, 2013 by Buzpilot

[Skoop]

I think maybe a middle ground to reach for this debate might be to decrease the accuracy, I mean they are almost 100% accurate and put up a surprising rate of fire with those missiles. Or even slow down the rate of fire.

 

Wait until you see 4 tungs on the move firing and working together like is saw in rampant bear the other nite, it's hell.

[Buzpilot]

Wait until you see 4 tungs on the move firing and working together like is saw in rampant bear the other nite, it's hell.

 

It's not impossible, but it requires more teamwork.

Tacview-20130510-090448.txt.rar

Tunguska test.trk

[Dudikoff]

My point exactly, so how can tungs and tors be 100% accurate and shoot down 2 or 3 Mavs all inbound at once like I've witnessed in this sim after the update ?

 

It reminds me of the situation where tanks would fire guided ATGMs at moving helicopters and airplanes even. I.e. while such a missile could be used against hovering and maybe laterally slow moving helicopters, the crudeness of the sim probably doesn't allow such fine constraints, so you end up with it being fired much too often and worse off, hitting airplanes probably much more often than it should (like pretty much never?) which seemed obviously wrong.

 

So, just because there is such a possibility, if it cannot be reasonably represented (as there is not much data to go on), maybe it would be better if such a feature is not supported rather than it being much over-modeled.

 

Case in point with the Tunguskas and Tors.. The later variants obviously have a certain capability in that regard, but how reliable and reproducible that is is in question and as there are so many factors involved (ranging from the context, the incoming direction and angle, the type of incoming missile, its speed, the state of readiness of the crew on watch, etc.), it's pretty hard to make a convincing representation (which should most probably not be even remotely close to 100% accuracy, especially with only one missile launched per target).

 

Maybe such capabilities could be controlled by some flags so that the mission creator could switch them on or off? And perhaps for Tunguska and Tors, the older models (assumingly lacking such capabilities) could have separate DB entries (with the same 3D models used) so they could be used if needed to represent a different time-frame?

[howie87]

Seriously... Is this not just a bug? Seems a bit ridiculous to me.

[Eddie]

I think maybe a middle ground to reach for this debate might be to decrease the accuracy, I mean they are almost 100% accurate and put up a surprising rate of fire with those missiles. Or even slow down the rate of fire.

 

You can't reduce the rate of fire anymore, as it is the SA-19 can only support one missile at a time. And the "accuracy" of the SA-19 is already quite poor, as the LOS rate increases the Pk drops rapidly. But as I said before, a missile/aircraft heading directly towards the launcher is the easiest target the system could hope for. Remember a Maverick/HARM/etc. fired at an SA-19 (or any other SAM) is a non-manouvring target, with an LOS rate of zero (heading right at the launcher, obviously).

 

Wait until you see 4 tungs on the move firing and working together like is saw in rampant bear the other nite, it's hell.

 

As it should be. 4 2S6s operating as a cohesive battery, on the move, should not be an easy target. But then, your job isn't (shouldn't be) to kill them. Your job is to kill the armour/artillery/support that the 2S6 battery is defending, which given the 2S6's limitations vs. fixed wing aircraft is pretty easy. Providing you use the appropriate weapons & tactics. With a range of <5 NM, and an inability to engage high LOS rate targets, the SA-19 is a low level threat when treated with the deserved respect in the A-10C, and for "fast" jets, it's barely even a factor.

 

I see threat system batteries like that all the time, that is exactly how I build SHORAD batteries in my missions. As per the RW Russian OOB (or as close as we can get with the units currently in DCS).

[Eddie]

Seriously... Is this not just a bug? Seems a bit ridiculous to me.

 

I look forward to seeing how rediculous things seem when we get functioning IADS, backup optical command guidance on many of the RADAR command & SARH SAM systems, the ability to locate TELs several miles away from search and tracking RADARs, and realistic AI SAM operators who fire missiles on ballistic intercept paths without guidance an only switch on their RADARs a few seconds before "impact".

 

:D

 

Trust me, if you guys think it's too difficult now with a minor change to the 2S6, you're in for a BIG shock.

[Buzpilot]

I look forward to seeing how rediculous things seem when we get functioning IADS, backup optical command guidance on many of the RADAR command & SARH SAM systems, the ability to locate TELs several miles away from search and tracking RADARs, and realistic AI SAM operators who fire missiles on ballistic intercept paths without guidance an only switch on their RADARs a few seconds before "impact".

 

:D

 

Trust me, if you guys think it's too difficult now with a minor change to the 2S6, you're in for a BIG shock.

 

 

Just hope this is for both sides, not just the S-300 systems, the Patriot radar is a joke atm.

[Eddie]

Improvements to GBAD on all sides will happen, nothing will be ignored in the long term. But given GBAD is far more important to the Russians, and countries using Russian equipment and doctorine, than NATO countries it makes sense for much of the effort to go into improving Russian systems.

 

I biggest limitation at the moment is what DCS can do as far as missile/RADAR/AI.

 

I fully expect that we'll have periods where a paticular air defence system is upgraded, but we don't have the counterpart improvements to expendable countermeasures or ECM for a while. It's just something we'll all have to deal with for a while.

 

But the fact remains what pilots have been, and will continue to be having, an easy time against GBAD systems than they should.

 

When the various GBAD systems are improved to match their real capabilites, which I'm sure will happen eventually, people will find it near impossible to fly the way they do now. And poper understanding, and use, of ECM etc. will become as important as knowing how to launch a maverick or drop a bomb. Perhaps even more so.