Unrealistic Enemy SAM?

[nickexists]

I saw in a you tube video showing and a-10 doing a pop up attack on a sa6 that in the comments there were a few people saying that DCS is very unrealistic when it comes to "enemy behavior and capabilities". They referenced the fact that it's even possible for an a-10 to take out an sa10 or mig29. Everything I know about aviation and combat I've learned from dcs, so I was just wondering what other better informed people might think?

[NoJoe]

Well I dunno, it'd be pretty easy to take out a MiG-29 if it were to fly straight and level right in front of the A-10... Same with the SA-10 if it was busy engaging something else or wasn't shooting back.

 

I'd guess it all depends on the situation and how the platforms are employed. I suppose the AI in DCS isn't always the brightest, but some of that can be overcome by using triggers in missions (for example: to simulate a SAM turning on its radar only when the aircraft is within range, instead of just having the radar on all the time as it is by default).

 

--NoJoe

[winz]

Yes, DCS is pretty unrealistic when it comes to IADS, because their modeling is very simple. The individual systems have only very basic AI routine (radar on all the time, engage anything in range, missile flying pure pursuit) and operate as individual units, not as an integrated system.

 

I'm sure improving the I aspect of IADS is on the to-do list :) But improving IADS opens another can of worms - ECM.

[TurboHog]

(radar on all the time, engage anything in range, missile flying pure pursuit)

 

This caught my eye. Air to air and surface to air missiles in DCS fly lead pursuit... That is, they try to intercept the target rather than point directly at it and chase it.

 

About SAM in DCS. On an individual level I think it lacks some simulated human factors. A single MANPAD fires 3 missiles within a minute (!) and like all other units, will spot you when you are masked by trees. On the other hand radar SAM seems to make your life easy. Radar SAM will engage at maximum range when you fly towards them. Only thing you have to do is turn 180 degrees and you'll be fine.

[Rhinox]

...like all other units, will spot you when you are masked by trees...

Trees are pretty much non-existent in DCS. Choppers/jets can fly through them, and AI sees through them. They represent some problem only for human players (spotting units), but even that can be partially eliminated by gfx-settings...

 

I remember "Gunship 2000" heli-sim with thousands of trees, where collision-model (albeit very simplified) has been included, as well as masking effect. And that was ~20 years ago! I wonder what EDGE is going to be like, but honestly, heli-sim without proper tree-modelling is not a sim...

[Grimes]

It's possible to do a lot of things in this game given the right circumstances. The thing to remember though is people often brag about what they've done without giving context to the situation. In FC2 I got myself shot down in a Mig-29 by an A-10A pilot because I basically made every possible mistake while trying to use my guns on him and I paid the price. Aside from pilot mistakes or maybe AI, a Mig-29 should be able to shoot down an A-10 pretty reliably.

 

As stated by others in this thread, SAMs have a rather simple implementation and can be exploited. They don't "talk" to one another and they will engage the moment the conditions are right. About the only built in intelligent behavior they exhibit is automatically shutting down when they are out of missiles and are unable to engage anyways. Sam placement is another issue and its entirely dependent on the scenario in question.

[howie87]

As far as the Mig 29 vs A-10, the Mig would probably either hit the A-10 BVR or if it was Remington, vector its wingman/second element onto the threat. AI isn't particularly intelligent in DCS but if you were flying against a couple of good A-A pilots online that know how to work together and employ effectice tactics, you'd be toast in the Hog.

 

Fighters never fly alone in the real world, so chances are if you spot one there's another not too far away and he's going to be trying his best to make your life as difficult as possible.

 

Then again, you'd probably never see A-10's alone in an area in which air superiority hadn't been already established in the real world. Not to mention the fact that the F-16 CJ/DJ's would have already been in to thin out the air defences.

[Rhinox]

...a Mig-29 should be able to shoot down an A-10 pretty reliably...

I'm not so sure. We tested this many times and A-10A was always at advantage. And we used Su-27 (better turn-ratio than MiG-29). Of course 27/29 could simply run away, but once it decided to accept gunzo-challenge, it had big problems. Immense firepower and large ammo-mag coupled with small turning-radius (while able to sustain heavy damage) of A-10A proved to be quite dificult task for Su-27...

[Grimes]

I suppose I failed to illustrate the fact that not all engagements start as a WVR affair or that guns are the only weapon allowed... But yes there are circumstances in which an A-10 can shoot down anything else, the problem is those circumstances are far outweighed by all of the other variables a fighter brings to the table. Given the fact that a Mig-29 should have the jump on an A-10 or wants to use R-77s, then yeah the Mig-29 oughta win most engagements with an A-10 before it even becomes a fair fight.

[howie87]

A clean A-10 is pretty handy in a knife fight. I've got my nose into a few Su25's after they overshot on a high speed gun runs. Depends on the pilot though.

 

A better pilot would probably break in the opposite direction if overshooting instead of continuing into the turn and giving you a shot on their six. Failing that they'd go high and come back down for another boom and zoom run.

 

A terrible pilot would lose a knife fight in an F-22 against a skilled one in an A-10.

 

Teamwork is another factor. Watch this for an example.

 

[xxJohnxx]

I would also recommend to have a look at this simulator. It is a free simulator which shows what the early Russian SAMs are capable of and what they can still achive in modern war scenarios today, and what they can't do.

You will quickly note that the DCS SAMs are underpowered in many regards. One of the biggest examples is the missile guidance system. While even early systems (for example SA-2) have several methods to prevent missiles beeing dived into the ground (half-lead elevated by constant and threepoint-guidance method) you can still defeat most DCS missiles by doing a steady dive towards the ground.

 

But I hope with the release of DCS SEAD-Aircraft we will get some more intelligent SAM systems.

[howie87]

One thing I find particularly frustrating about missiles in DCS is how hard it is to actually see the smoke plume though.

 

Those things come out of nowhere!

[Rhinox]

One thing I find particularly frustrating about missiles in DCS is how hard it is to actually see the smoke plume though.

 

Those things come out of nowhere!

Remember, some missiles have smokeless (or near-smokeless) engines, so you can not see plumes of smoke. This holds true for some A2A as well as G2A missiles...

[NineLine]

Part of the issues when it comes to DCS is there are a lot of unrealistic scenarios out there as well, how many missions have real world SAM coverage... so there is that.

 

As far as MANPADs, does someone have any real world data on their actual fire rate? I would imagine the fire rate is pretty quick, as long as they are well supplied.

 

Edit: Everything I can find seems to point to a MANPAD being ready to fire in about 1 min. I would assume thats not just for the first shot, but any number of shots...

[kontiuka]

Part of the issues when it comes to DCS is there are a lot of unrealistic scenarios out there as well, how many missions have real world SAM coverage... so there is that.

 

As far as MANPADs, does someone have any real world data on their actual fire rate? I would imagine the fire rate is pretty quick, as long as they are well supplied.

 

Edit: Everything I can find seems to point to a MANPAD being ready to fire in about 1 min. I would assume thats not just for the first shot, but any number of shots...

Speaking of MANPADS, it doesn't look like they are mobile in DCS. I tried assigning waypoints to them, but they didn't move.

[GGTharos]

The real deal is that you're not going to have just one MANPAD launching at you. With an IADS, there will be an AD group and they will volley missiles at targets to increase Pk.

 

They will also be stationed on likely approaches to targets, they will be ed information from surveillance radars and look-outs ... count on them being ready for you.

 

As far as MANPADs, does someone have any real world data on their actual fire rate? I would imagine the fire rate is pretty quick, as long as they are well supplied.

[NineLine]

The real deal is that you're not going to have just one MANPAD launching at you. With an IADS, there will be an AD group and they will volley missiles at targets to increase Pk.

 

They will also be stationed on likely approaches to targets, they will be ed information from surveillance radars and look-outs ... count on them being ready for you.

 

Well that goes back to my statement that alot of missions probably arent set up to mimic real world scenarios either... but it is scenario based too, there could be a situation where you only have one firing on you... if you are talking a less organized force... in that situation... you have one launcher, a box of missiles, how fast can that guy get multiple missiles up?

[GGTharos]

In that scenario, we're talking 1 shot and run back into the forest/building/crowd, and you cannot simulate this in DCS.

 

In DCS, the one guy is more like 3 guys with a crate of missiles and launcher batteries.

[NineLine]

In that scenario, we're talking 1 shot and run back into the forest/building/crowd, and you cannot simulate this in DCS.

 

In DCS, the one guy is more like 3 guys with a crate of missiles and launcher batteries.

 

 

Sure you can, you could simulate this probably with standard triggers in the ME, or more so, with MIST... I was only questioning that if there firing rate isnt realistic, does someone have a more realistic rate? To be honest I would be more concerned about supply rate than firing rate... I think firing rate is pretty ok.

 

Anyways the MANPAD stuff is probably off topic anyways... my only other point to the OP is that there are a lot of missions out there set up to allow you to do unrealistic things... so its not so much that DCS is unrealistic (which some people that know more than me say there are a number of things that are) but its also about DCS's ME allowing you to make unrealistic missions...

[kontiuka]

but its also about DCS's ME allowing you to make unrealistic missions...

And that isn't such a bad thing.

[NineLine]

And that isn't such a bad thing.

 

Nope not at all, except when people judge DCS on its realism based on missions not created with realism in mind :)

[Lusik]

Most of DCS missions do not include full packages. Particularly multiplayer missions tend to use flyable aircraft whereas in real life A-10 would be unlikely to operate on their own in SAM-saturated environment. All strike packages should include SEAD aircraft to begin with. Even for fairly low intensity conflicts and not open scale WW3. On the other hand we have several missions that simulate anti-insurgent operations so such cover is not necessary. MANPADs and SAM behaviour in general need improvement but as it was said before - triggers my do the job to some extent.

 

Hopefully DCS will improve just like Rise of Flight does. When I compare initial release to what it can easily be said that these are two different games connected by the game engine and historical setting.

[nickexists]

With all the detail that's gone into flight models and avionics it'd be a shame if they didn't make enemies that at least encourage players to use the aircraft realistically.

[blahdy]

I think the first and the simplest thing we need is IADS data-link between SAM fire units. That would at least provide more cohesion and improve firepower between multiple SAM sites.

 

Right now, if you put down 6 SA-10 or Patriot fire units spread out 10-20km across the theater, all of them will engage the same target.

[MBot]

Most of DCS missions do not include full packages. Particularly multiplayer missions tend to use flyable aircraft whereas in real life A-10 would be unlikely to operate on their own in SAM-saturated environment. All strike packages should include SEAD aircraft to begin with. Even for fairly low intensity conflicts and not open scale WW3. On the other hand we have several missions that simulate anti-insurgent operations so such cover is not necessary. MANPADs and SAM behaviour in general need improvement but as it was said before - triggers my do the job to some extent.

 

Even in WW3 I highly doubt that A-10's would have had dedicated support by SEAD aircraft. Wild Weasels were a scarce asset in the 80s with only a single SEAD air wing being initially deployed at the NATO central front (without counting REFORGER units coming over from the USA). I assume those F-4G would have been completely occupied with supporting F-111 and other strike assets trying to penetrate the air defense system of Eastern Germany and Poland. I simply don't see these valuable assets being used to support A-10 against battlefield SAMs. As far as I know, A-10s could count only on artillery SEAD support and terrain masking to operate within coverage of radar guided SA-4, SA-6, SA-8 and SA-11. Fortunately for them, the terrain even of the north german plain has more micro detail and therfore cover than DCS :)

 

 

 

 

Regarding the MANPADS, I do think their capabilities in DCS are overestimated, especially their all knowing situation awareness and fast reaction time. It has been mentioned that MANPPADS are integrated into a IADS. While possible today, I think that was only marginally true during the time of the confrontation with the Soviet Union. I don't have any first hand knowledge but here is what I learned from studying various field manuals:

 

On the battalion level, SA-7/14/16 were organized into SAM platoons of 3 ordinary vehicles (APC or IFV) carrying 3 launchers each (with 5 missiles per vehicle, 2 missiles could be carried at a time by a fire team). It is very interesting to note that the SAM platoon was subordinated to a maneuver battalion and had no air defense command vehicle. Therfore it almost certainly had no access to an early warning datalink and most likely no radio communication with early warning units. I assume they had just the same gerenral air raid level warnings as the rest of the troops. Also intersting is that there is only a fixed radio per vehicle and one portable radio per 3 SAM teams, so should they disperse, there would be a total lack of radio communication for 2 of 3 teams. Of course it is also worth to notice that MANPADS would have spend much time in their vehicles moving with the troops and first had to stop (after a direct air threat to their supported troops had been identified) to deploy and set up to fire.

 

The situation is also the same for the MANPADS that were assigned to artillery and command in large numbers for self protection. They did not have command elements that gave them access to the EWR network. SAM platoons attached to air defense battalions had access to a command vehicle at battalion level (which did have datalink to EWR) but this information would have to be relayed by voice down to the to the one radio per 3 SAM teams.

 

As we can see, the integration of MANPADS into the WP integrated air defense network was marginal. I conclude that early warning, acquisition of targets and reaction time against low and fast aircraft was still a major challenge and that they would have been most useful for self protection (for example against re-attacking aircraft or slow movers like the A-10 overflying their positions). Would aicraft losses, especially from the A-10, have been high? Sure, I assume they would have been very high. But a real world density of MANPADS with DCS capabilities would have been impossible to survive by anyone.

Edited November 6, 2013 by MBot