Tunguskas are shooting down mavericks

[Skoop]

There is some truth to change of tactics with the increased Sam effectiveness, just would have liked to have seen this come with the addition of DCS f-18c, I mean the su-25t is boring to fly with it's FC flight model. Now I'm going to have to spend countless hours in that bird doing sead, and currently I've heard of some bugs where the 25mpu explodes premature. So only the k58 is reliable right now.

 

As for a-10c pilots flying alone, not everyone has time to flying in a squadron and practice real world tactics every time. I see a lot of pilots that log in to a server and coordinate if they can, but really just want put some time in blowing stuff up after work. It seems there are a lot of big missions that support this MP scalability. The more effective tungs and tors are going to need some adjusting by mission designers.

[159th_Viper]

The more effective tungs and tors are going to need some adjusting by mission designers.

 

Why?

 

This question has been asked before so forgive the repetition, but why?

 

Both the Tung and the Tor can be neutralised by a single Maverick. What exactly needs adjusting? Removal of the missiles, leaving just the launch vehicle?

[maturin]

I don't fly the A-10, just the frogfoot. What are the correct tactics for employing PMGs against Tunguskas (or Tor) and scoring a one-round kill?

 

And on that note, has anyone else noticed Kh-25MPU becoming highly inaccurate?

[159th_Viper]

What are the correct tactics for employing PMGs against Tunguskas (or Tor) and scoring a one-round kill?

 

 

There are no correct tactics as you should not be doing so in any event :)

 

That said, if you want to conduct DEAD missions, then just shoot the sucker. For Tungs, see the earlier vid I posted here:

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1751801&postcount=29

 

 

For the Tor, have not shot one in a while. I'll see if i can get something up if you're interested.

[maturin]

So you're saying that the current mission format of clearing SAMs and then mopping up vehicles is unrealistic, and we should just be at the armor's throats?

 

It seems to me like you can't really do SEAD against a Tunguska, because their radar range is so short. You have to be a couple kilometers away to even target them with any ARM, the flight time of which is too short to allow much of a window for coordinated attacks on covered vehicles.

 

Will the AI Tunguska not abandon a lock on your aircraft in order to launch defensive missiles?

 

The Tor seems like a pretty similar platform from our perspective, except that it can reach out beyond the Su-25T's non-ARM weapons, while still having a really short envelop for true SEAD.

[159th_Viper]

So you're saying that the current mission format of clearing SAMs and then mopping up vehicles is unrealistic, and we should just be at the armor's throats?

 

No. There is nothing realsitic/unrealistic as far as I am concerned. It's our SIM to do with as we want.

 

S

It seems to me like you can't really do SEAD against a Tunguska, because their radar range is so short...

 

You are not conducting SEAD operations in any event. You are conducting DEAD operations. Be it Tor or Tunguska - shoot it with a Mav and it's dead. It's that simple.

 

Will the AI Tunguska not abandon a lock on your aircraft in order to launch defensive missiles?

 

No, which is why it's so easy to kill it. Same with the Tor. If anything, that's the Bug and not the vehicle's ability to target incoming missiles.

[Eddie]

So you're saying that the current mission format of clearing SAMs and then mopping up vehicles is unrealistic, and we should just be at the armor's throats?

 

Yes.

 

Of course, if you're from Viper's school of thought and want to play this as a game with no regard to real world TTPs, do what you like.

 

If however you want to simulate air combat, with all its complexity, then leave the AD alone. It is ONLY there to stop you killing the armour/artillery/etc. it is defending. The idea is to get in, kill your target, and get out as quickly as possible. If you can do that in one single pass, all the better.

 

Spending hours loitering over a target at FL200 staring through the TGP is fine in low intensity COIN Ops, but a sure way to find yourself dead in conventional warfare. Be aggressive and kill the target, quickly, and then go home.

[Haukka81]

Yes.

 

Of course, if you're from Viper's school of thought and want to play this as a game with no regard to real world TTPs, do what you like.

 

If however you want to simulate air combat, with all its complexity, then leave the AD alone. It is ONLY there to stop you killing the armour/artillery/etc. it is defending. The idea is to get in, kill your target, and get out as quickly as possible. If you can do that in one single pass, all the better.

 

Spending hours loitering over a target at FL200 staring through the TGP is fine in low intensity COIN Ops, but a sure way to find yourself dead in conventional warfare. Be aggressive and kill the target, quickly, and then go home.

 

And thats why i hope that we get DC campaings in future. 90% of curent user made missions let player circle over target And shoot fish in barel.. No fear that fighters may come etc...

[maturin]

So how does this work in the context of the Su-25T Georgian Oil War campaign?

 

Each mission is filled with enough AAA to murder you up close, mixed in with the armored targets. And it seems like your mixed loadout of Vikhrs and bombs encourages the player to snipe all the Strelas before roaring in to mop up the clear field. Although I guess these are all short range IR threats, not Tunguskas.

[Boberro]

The weapon can be used to actually destroy them as well, of course, but skilled operators will have their ways to make this difficult.)

 

Well, if I were operator of Tunguska and saw incoming HARM I'd rather run away from vehicle asap :P

[159th_Viper]

The idea is to get in, kill your target, and get out as quickly as possible. If you can do that in one single pass, all the better.

 

And the solution?

 

How exactly are you going to kill your target defended by Tors and Tungs if you are going to leave the AD units alone in order to conform with 'realism'?

[NineLine]

And the solution?

 

How exactly are you going to kill your target defended by Tors and Tungs if you are going to leave the AD units alone in order to conform with 'realism'?

 

I've tried ignoring AD, but they just keep throwing things at me. Seems if your target is moving or you dont have exact position, it doesnt seem possible to get in and out quick and ignore AD...

[159th_Viper]

I've tried ignoring AD, but they just keep throwing things at me......

 

Me too, which is why I adopt the apparently 'unrealistic school of thought' and throw things back at them :D

[Eddie]

And the solution?

 

How exactly are you going to kill your target defended by Tors and Tungs if you are going to leave the AD units alone in order to conform with 'realism'?

 

Low, fast (300/300), and Mavericks. Just because you 'can' carry all these other weapons, doesn't mean you have to. Quite regularly I'll fly a mission leading a 2 or 4 ship with only 2 or 4 Mavs under the wings, do one attack run and then head home.

 

And there is always the possibility that you may not be able to take out a given target, no matter how good your planning. In that case, you abort.

 

I'm sure that concept sounds rather odd to you, and many others that have spent their simming lives in the lock-on community, especially those who aren't that bothered about the realism. But for those of us who came from the Falcon world (and the world of high realism VFWs) where losing your jet or your wingman really does matter, it's very normal and adds to the enjoyment.

[Eddie]

Of course, as ever, mission design is important. If the mission is not realistic in terms of the order of battle or deployment then it's obviously rather difficult to fly any other way than "airquake".

 

Sadly this is a problem I see in most publicly available missions. And I think that's down to the lack of real world OOB data and tactics being easily available both with DCS in the manual and provided by the community. A deficiency I will always do my damnedest to remedy as much as possible. DCS and the attendant community does the science of flight, and combat pretty well. It's not so good with the art at the moment.

[159th_Viper]

...I'm sure that concept sounds rather odd to you...

 

No, it does not.

 

Thanx for the explanation, which in this specific instance is not really on point as you will never take out your target due to the fact that the Mavs will always be targeted by the Tungs/Tors and eliminated prior to getting to target.

 

Which brings us back to the original question: How exactly are you going to kill your target defended by Tors and Tungs?

 

In this instance, you're not, yes?

[NineLine]

I think its slightly extreme to equate preforming SEAD/DEAD as an A-10 with airquakers.. sure I am not an expert in military mission design, but I dont think the idea of an A-10 having to go offensive against AD is a situation that couldnt arise...

 

Of course I understand some missions throw A-10s into situations that they wouldnt be thrown into...

 

Of course, as ever, mission design is important. If the mission is not realistic in terms of the order of battle or deployment then it's obviously rather difficult to fly any other way than "airquake".

 

Sadly this is a problem I see in most publicly available missions. And I think that's down to the lack of real world OOB data and tactics being easily available both with DCS in the manual and provided by the community. A deficiency I will always do my damnedest to remedy as much as possible. DCS and the attendant community does the science of flight, and combat pretty well. It's not so good with the art at the moment.

[Eddie]

Air quake = non-realistic flying. At least when I use the term. It's not a derogatory term, just a style of simming some enjoy.

 

Of course, there are times that engaging SHORAD may be genuinely required, but they are and should be the exceptions, not the rule.

 

As I always say, do what you like, I'll just tell you how it's really done/how I'd do it. Use that information as you see fit.

 

And Viper, 1x A-10C vs Russian MBT company, with a single 2S6 battery in support. I'd never attack such a target "for real" with less than a two ship of course, in fact given the option I'd want a 4-ship for such a pre-plan target.

 

First example, SHORAD offset from and behind the armour, as they would be more often than not. Second example, about as close as they ever should be, in fact probably too close as they are exposed to hostile FLOT armour that may be present.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=81243&stc=1&d=1368215453

 

Of course, if you have SHORAD mixed in with your target in close proximity, then indeed it would be very difficult in the Hog. But a 4-ship would still be able to overwhelm the 2S6/SA-15 and get some weapons through. Such a situation tends to fall into the not in keeping with RL OOB/deployment I mentioned above.

 

And of course, there are always those targets that need something faster and more capable than an A-10C to take on. That is why we have Vipers, Hornets, Tornados, Typhoons, etc. etc. Such targets are best kept out of missions altogether until we have such aircraft to employ against them or provide SEAD Escort, in my opinion at least.

ACMI.zip

[Eddie]

but I dont think the idea of an A-10 having to go offensive against AD is a situation that couldnt arise

 

It certainly could arise, in fact it has. DEAD mission we're flown by Hogs in "Desert Storm". But the issue is that people often take that fact to mean it's a mission A-10s are often tasked with and/or that they do it alone, they don't.

 

On every DEAD mission over Kuwait the Hogs flew with F-4G/F-16CJ wild weasels in direct support. The weasels kept the RADARs off, the Hogs killed the hardware.

 

In addition to that, one of the primary tasks of a wingman is to engage any threats to his wingman where practical, in order to kill or suppress the threat. i.e. If your lead in running in on target and it lit up by AAA, you fire on said AAA if you can do so without further endangering yourself or other friendly aircraft. But again, it's far more complex than simply, kill all the AD before you kill what you're really there for.

[NineLine]

On every DEAD mission over Kuwait the Hogs flew with F-4G/F-16CJ wild weasels in direct support. The weasels kept the RADARs off, the Hogs killed the hardware.

 

Too bad that isnt something we can do in DCS World currently is it... force radar off...

[shagrat]

Too bad that isnt something we can do in DCS World currently is it... force radar off...

isn't the Alarmstate deactivating radars? Should be possible to use a constant evaluated trigger to set Alarmstate green and randomly activate/change to red for some 20-30 seconds? hmmm, I'll try that...

[Lucas_From_Hell]

I don't have it myself, but I think in CA that can be done (saw someone mentioning it)?

[Frostie]

Of course, as ever, mission design is important. If the mission is not realistic in terms of the order of battle or deployment then it's obviously rather difficult to fly any other way than "airquake".

 

Sadly this is a problem I see in most publicly available missions. And I think that's down to the lack of real world OOB data and tactics being easily available both with DCS in the manual and provided by the community. A deficiency I will always do my damnedest to remedy as much as possible. DCS and the attendant community does the science of flight, and combat pretty well. It's not so good with the art at the moment.

 

Personally I hate AI, I hate DCS AI, Falcon AI, any AI, they're predictable and they usually suck. In an ideal world all aircraft and ground forces would be controlled by humans.

 

You can't please all of the people all of the time, to accommodate all modules available within the scope of DCS with large numbers of players enjoying each others company and socialising the mission building needs to be extreme, to make a mission extreme would require a hell of a lot of triggers, unit placement etc. etc. not to mention a great deal of planning and co-operation, combine this with said servers requirement to run 24h 7 days a week and you'll find it ain't going to happen, the server will crash after 2 or so hours of heavy traffic because DCS is struggling with handling either moving units/triggers/players or all/something else.

 

In DCS realistic missions need to be one off prearranged events or meetings, this has happened plenty of times in ED's World before DCS was born so i'm sure you will find plenty of so called airquakers enjoying there 2 hours of fun practice on public servers to be more than acquainted with holding onto a single life, organising packages, discussing tactics and planning missions amongst strangers in an organised and realistic event in the ED world. Life didn't start and end with Falcon.

[NineLine]

isn't the Alarmstate deactivating radars? Should be possible to use a constant evaluated trigger to set Alarmstate green and randomly activate/change to red for some 20-30 seconds? hmmm, I'll try that...

 

 

Good point, I guess you could set it up with triggers possibly...

[159th_Viper]

In DCS realistic missions need to be one off prearranged events or meetings, this has happened plenty of times in ED's World before DCS was born....

 

And something that will no doubt be re-implemented sometime soon, netcode allowing. Sooner the better :)