The Su-25 and IR missiles

[Vedexent]

OK - it's been a great 2 months since I first picked up DCS World. It's certainly been a learning experience - and I've learned a lot from some of you really great and helpful pilots out there.

 

Since then I think I have the basics down; basic flight, including how to land with damaged aircraft, basic ground assault techniques with the Su-25, working on my situational awareness, the basics of squad flying with other people, gotten comfortable with all the air-to-ground weapons on the Su-25, and the basics of dealing with radar guided SAMs, even though I'm not that good at it yet.

 

I've even gotten reasonably proficient with dancing with AAA vehicles, so long as I don't do something stupid like buzz a Vulcan at 20m altitude.

 

However, what consistently kicks my ass are vehicle based SAM platforms. Put an Avenger in the field, and I'll be dangling from a parachute within 5 minutes after my first high-angle dive to spray down a target with S-8s

 

So ... any advice? How do you deal with Stingers and their launchers on the Su-25?

 

The advice I know for dealing with a Stinger is "put the heater on your beam, change aspect as fast as you can, pump out flares, and pray".

 

But that's if I see it soon enough to react to it.

 

While I haven't practiced it much, it seems that it would work best to attack in teams: one pilot diving into attack, one in orbit and scanning for heaters, and directing the attacker if there is a nasty pop-up: "break north, hard! flares!"

 

But what does a single plane do?

 

Any advice? How do you deal with IR missiles in the Frogfoot?

 

TIA

[pepin1234]

Here my advice. Laser Missiles with them. ED haven Changed the Su-25A and now you should have a good skill and you should Training.

 

All right,

 

1- first the Su-25A is not specialiced to designate the Targets. They fly the target Zone till the ground troops say position or they find some armors.

2- when you arrive to the target Zone you should take care to not pass across the battle border.

 

Normally you are able to shot the kh--29L around 8 km and you will get better Performance because the Kh-29L is slower than 25ML and this one have much Speed to get into the 5 km laser range capability, in this case you should reduce speed. Then you have the kh-25ML, my advice shot them with 6-7 km range to let time the Missile get the right laser guidance. You have a laser sensor with 5 km range max, so you should do your Job with this in mind and with your Missiles Features in mind, they have different Speed and range. Leave the S-25L for the last choice.

 

Anyway I have to say you can do a low pass and shot your rocket and could be great, but the game have a catastrophic performance and you will get a low FPS when rocket Impact, is a shame...

 

when there are MANPADS in the area, then you should take care and try move your armors (with the CA) to the area you believe they are located. In the real life, the MANPADS be a really hard targets without your friendly troops support.

Edited November 11, 2013 by pepin1234

[GGTharos]

A single plane would return to base. Minimum participation is two aircraft ... it's extremely unlikely you'd see single fighter aircraft tasked with a mission.

 

However, that aside, assume there's a MANPADS and it's launched on you. That's how it's done in the real world, and that's why pre-emptive flares are used as well.

 

But what does a single plane do?

 

Any advice? How do you deal with IR missiles in the Frogfoot?

[Vedexent]

So essentially what I'm hearing is:

 

1. Don't fly alone, fly with a spotter, or...
   
2. Don't go into a region where there might be IR missiles, or...
   
3. Flare like hell running in, assume that you've just been launched at all times, fire as soon as you can, and get the hell out as-soon-as-possible flying as defensively as you can.
   

From what I've seen through experience, and with other people flying on the 314th server is that #3 only works about 50% of the time, if there is actually an IR missile based AAD unit in the area.

 

I guess I can take comfort in that it doesn't sound like I'm actually doing anything wrong, except putting the Su-25 in situations it isn't really designed to operate in.

 

Thanks for the feedback.

[esb77]

Keep in mind that mission design may not be very realistic. Real mission success is more along the lines of, "We damaged a military vehicle and returned to base," than it is, "I single handedly destroyed the enemy armored division."

 

Typically speed, very high altitude, very low altitude, and terrain masking are your friends. So are good recon and detailed mission planning.

 

My understanding is that normal practice for CAS pilots with unguided munitions is to make a single pass that tries to surprise the target and exit their field of fire before they have time to respond.

 

On a related note, my understanding is that the U.S. Army considered that the time a skilled Warsaw pact pilot would give a stinger crew a chance to fire on them to be, "about 3 seconds." Which is not too out of line with the U.S. Air Force apparently flunking out A-10 pilots that can't line up and execute bombing/rocket/guns attacks in 5 seconds or less.

 

Based on my experience in DCS I'd say send 1-4 Su-25s in either low(scraping treetop low) and fast, or high enough to be at the limit of stinger envelope to bait the stinger crews into firing. At the same time have a pair of Su-25Ts, Ka-50s, Su-33s, or similar advanced ground attack platforms orbiting about 12 km back ready to spot and swat the stingers if they are foolish enough to fire on the Su-25s. I'm perfectly o.k. with using 6 aircraft worth of SEAD package to safely take down one air defense unit because unless they get reinforced once the air defenses are down the rest of the ground targets are totally screwed on subsequent sorties.

 

 

In general it's best to assume that there will be MANPADS around and to use flares liberally. Usually unless I know there with be radar guided SAMs I fly with a 100% flares countermeasure payload.

 

I'm also not afraid to hop in the mission editor and redefine mission success if I think that the original mission goals are unreasonable, which they often are.

[GGTharos]

MANPADS pushed attack aircraft into higher altitudes, thus reducing accuracy and effectiveness of their weapons.

 

Want to go lower? You take that 50/50 risk.

 

So essentially what I'm hearing is:

 

1. Don't fly alone, fly with a spotter, or...
   
2. Don't go into a region where there might be IR missiles, or...
   
3. Flare like hell running in, assume that you've just been launched at all times, fire as soon as you can, and get the hell out as-soon-as-possible flying as defensively as you can.
   

From what I've seen through experience, and with other people flying on the 314th server is that #3 only works about 50% of the time, if there is actually an IR missile based AAD unit in the area.

 

I guess I can take comfort in that it doesn't sound like I'm actually doing anything wrong, except putting the Su-25 in situations it isn't really designed to operate in.

 

Thanks for the feedback.

[esb77]

I probably underemphasized mission planning in the previous post.

 

If you don't already know:

 

What's my target

Where is my target

What are the threats near my target

What is my ingress route

What is my egress route

Locations of all the good terrain masking within 20km of my route

 

and possibly a hundred or so other details, you probably shouldn't even be in the cockpit (if we're emulating real pilots).

 

How often can you recite from memory the altitude, speed, heading, and descriptions of local landmarks at your attack run's IP before you start up your engines? Because that's the sort of level of mission planning that helps you avoid getting shot down.

 

Of course, we don't have the aircraft and munitions performance data that you need to do planning at that level (yeah, yeah, I need to get off my ass and start working on my flight test program again).

 

In short the reason we typically get shot down so much is that we're incompetent pilots flying mission profiles designed by ignorant lunatics.

 

Still, it's just a sim, so as long as we're having fun that's o.k.

 

Oh, and one last thing, in a serious major powers war it would be expected that Su-25 and A-10A units would have pretty high attrition rates if flying in an environment with high numbers of air defense units.

[esb77]

Want to go lower? You take that 50/50 risk.

 

Lower really requires good intel on enemy positions if you're doing it the proper (realistic) way, and also hilly terrain, buildings, or trees that have a collision model.

 

However, in DCS the MANPADS have trouble dealing with high closure rates when combined very low altitude. Depending on MANPADS skill level you can directly overfly them without using any countermeasures, or have a 100% evasion rate if you use preemptive flares regardless of A.I. skill level, though I should probably test this again in view of AFMs for missiles (can't remember if they've done the SAMs yet or it's just AA right now).

 

For attacking a defended target it's not really very useful because your chances of getting anything on target without fragging yourself is miniscule. If you want to slip past the MANPADS though, it works like a charm ( at least it has for me at max alt 25m AGL and min IAS 900 km/h).

[GGTharos]

All that tells me is that MANPADS isn't quite properly modeled ... but that is true of many things in simulations :)

[Vedexent]

VapoR and I did some experimental flying on the 314th server tonight, on this front.

 

Doing the pair hunting, with one plane baiting the AAD unit SAMs at the edge of their engagement envelope - and then flying defensively and escaping - and the other plane smacking the AAD unit down with the Kh-25Mls seems to work decently in game (provided the "bait" pilot is experienced enough to have a decent chance of surviving the SAM encounter) - although I don't know if that's terribly realistic. IRL I would think this would work only with inexperienced AAD unit crews; veterans would "sucker you in" closer before clobbering you.

 

Auger: I really like your point about needing to be way more familiar with the target zone and expected enemy forces than the typical "I load up my plane with every munition under the sun and run out to the waypoint to see what's there" kind of MP approach.

 

I'm finding that with the practice range missions we have on the 314th, we've flown some of them enough that we have familiarity with the target zones to that level, and they are actually survivable now, because we have that kind of familiarity.

 

It might be interesting to pick a "green field" target zone - known to the mission designer but not the pilots/ground commander - and use a combination of terrain study, and CA unit recon, to see if we can gain that kind of familiarity before ever putting planes in the sky. Then do a "single pass" attack, called in and guided by the ground commander - JTAC style - and then pulling back again. With decently experienced pilots who have a good change of killing their units on a single pass, I wonder what kind of results we'd see.

Edited November 12, 2013 by Vedexent

[esb77]

All that tells me is that MANPADS isn't quite properly modeled ... but that is true of many things in simulations

 

At one point I had access to a Stinger manual in a public library that was an official government document repository.

 

It is possible that there is some realism in the AI's trouble with high closure rates. U.S.S.R - Afghan war era stingers had this dinky little iron sight for estimating lead angle, and getting lead angle right was mentioned as a problem in the manual. Of course, that should be more of a problem for a crossing target than for a head on approach/receding target.

 

Haven't tested for that in the sim yet though.

 

I sort of suspect that for head on/receding targets it's mostly a matter of the, "when do we launch," algorithm not providing ideal answers in an extreme portion of the envelope.

[Gloom Demon]

Another thing to do in multiplayer is flying over water - a lot of mission scenarios include coastal areas, so a lone Su-25T can attack targets there without getting into trouble. Just don't be greedy - one pass - one shot, and you will return home in one piece :-)

[MBot]

One big problem for all visually operated air defense systems in DCS is their simplified detection model. The AI will imediately acquire any target within a set range, making these system overly effective.

 

I am currently working on a script that tries to address this problem (within the possibilities of scripting). I am writing a small enhanced aircraft detection model which can be applied to ground units and control their ROE. Factors influencing the detection of aircraft I plan to implement include line of sight, distance, altitude, angular velocity, terrain/sky background, relative bearing from observer (front, side, back), time of day and some abstraction of ground clutter masking (since DCS has no true vegetation). This will hopefuly make engagement times for visually operated AD systems a little more realistic and allow to use proper surprise tactics.

 

I hope to finish a first version of the script this week. The coding is fairly easy so far, but I think how the probability of detection will be affected by the various factors will need extensive fine tuning.

[pepin1234]

Attack in pair is really useful. Your wingman should fly close the area while you make your entry and so on.

[Vedexent]

One big problem for all visually operated air defense systems in DCS is their simplified detection model. The AI will imediately acquire any target within a set range, making these system overly effective.

 

The coding project sounds ambitious - and very welcome if it adds realism to the game.

 

But, are you sure the detection model is that simple?

 

Given the exact same map, with Chaparrals and Avengers in the region, the same area seems very much less dangerous to fly in a thunderstorm than it does in a clear summer afternoon; much fewer Stinger launches.

 

Now "seems" isn't data, and I wouldn't bet the mortgage payment on that being the case, but I would have thought the units were having problems visually locating the nearby attacking Su-25s.

 

Edit: That's not to say that your improved detection code isn't needed! I'd love to see it and test it out.

Edited November 12, 2013 by Vedexent

[number3]

One big problem for all visually operated air defense systems in DCS is their simplified detection model. The AI will imediately acquire any target within a set range, making these system overly effective.

 

I am currently working on a script that tries to address this problem (within the possibilities of scripting). I am writing a small enhanced aircraft detection model which can be applied to ground units and control their ROE. Factors influencing the detection of aircraft I plan to implement include line of sight, distance, altitude, angular velocity, terrain/sky background, relative bearing from observer (front, side, back), time of day and some abstraction of ground clutter masking (since DCS has no true vegetation). This will hopefuly make engagement times for visually operated AD systems a little more realistic and allow to use proper surprise tactics.

 

I hope to finish a first version of the script this week. The coding is fairly easy so far, but I think how the probability of detection will be affected by the various factors will need extensive fine tuning.

 

Nice! Please make this code as modular as possible, so that other mission designers can easily incorporate it :beer:

[GGTharos]

That's only if it's untrained people without data feed.

 

One big problem for all visually operated air defense systems in DCS is their simplified detection model. The AI will imediately acquire any target within a set range, making these system overly effective.

[NineLine]

Well real world no one stands in a field with missile on their shoulder without a GOOD reason. Now trained soldiers might be in a decent location sitting next to their weapons, listening to the radio, and watching the skys BUT no one is ready to rock 24/7 AND react in 2 or 3 seconds.

 

You could easily replicate a delay with the Mission Editor.

[MBot]

That's only if it's untrained people without data feed.

 

I partially agree, but please consider that even teams with early warning will not acquire a target instantly. You can give them the sector where to look, but they still have to find it with their own eyes. The sky is big and aircraft are small.

 

But anyway, I think we already established that a significant amount of MANPADS were/are operated without data feed. In the Soviet Army, no MANPADS team had a datalink. I have been reading the US Army Stinger Field Manuals lately and it is interesting to note that while Stinger teams of dedicated air defense units had the TAADS system to receive early warning, MANPADS for self-protection in artillery and HQ units did not have access to EW (and were only a 1-man instead of a 2-man team).

 

And of course pretty much any MANPADS of rebels or insurgents will not have a data feed either.

[GGTharos]

I partially agree, but please consider that even teams with early warning will not acquire a target instantly. You can give them the sector where to look, but they still have to find it with their own eyes. The sky is big and aircraft are small.

 

I was told 9km engagement for stinger (by an AD operator, BTW) ... that's not stinger shooting range, if you catch my drift. They wait for the target to pop up on his bombing run or whatever else to actually launch the missile, but they're ready well before that aircraft is nearby.

 

Mind you, we're talking relatively good weather and battle conditions as well - there's plenty of stuff that can obscure a target or make acquisition difficult during an actual battle, none of which will be modeled in a game I expect.

 

But anyway, I think we already established that a significant amount of MANPADS were/are operated without data feed. In the Soviet Army, no MANPADS team had a datalink.

 

Granted, there are not really 'levels' of simulation here, and we maybe need some extra options like datalink inputs etc ... which are always on the table for being implemented, but when? Anyone's guess.

 

I have been reading the US Army Stinger Field Manuals lately and it is interesting to note that while Stinger teams of dedicated air defense units had the TAADS system to receive early warning, MANPADS for self-protection in artillery and HQ units did not have access to EW (and were only a 1-man instead of a 2-man team).

 

And of course pretty much any MANPADS of rebels or insurgents will not have a data feed either.

 

Radio/telephone works quite well. You only really need a 5 min warning, but again, that said yes, the game is not geared to simulate an un-trained or un-prepared AD person :)

[NineLine]

Radio/telephone works quite well. You only really need a 5 min warning, but again, that said yes, the game is not geared to simulate an un-trained or un-prepared AD person :)

 

*cough*triggers*cough* *cough*delayed start*cough*

[GGTharos]

No delayed starts, those cause the little 'spawn hiccup' until it's fixed. Just have the unit there in 'GREEN' state, and go to 'RED' state as required ... but in essence, yeah, what you said :D

[NineLine]

No delayed starts, those cause the little 'spawn hiccup' until it's fixed. Just have the unit there in 'GREEN' state, and go to 'RED' state as required ... but in essence, yeah, what you said :D

 

 

Of course, there is a number of ways to make your MANPADS slow though, in initial response anyways...

 

EDIT: of course it being hardcoded and tied to skill level would be better :)

Edited November 12, 2013 by NineLine

[GGTharos]

Not just skill level ... look up JF-18's data-linking capability. Eliminates the need to use triggers, and coded right, might be susceptible to ECM.

[NineLine]

Not just skill level ... look up JF-18's data-linking capability. Eliminates the need to use triggers, and coded right, might be susceptible to ECM.

 

Have you messed with MANPADS though, I thought the support unit you can add determined whether it was data-linked or not (or limited its abilities anyways)... I cant remember the name of the unit in ME right now for each side, but maybe you know what I mean...