SA-17 … evading, any tips?
-
Well, obviously never get within threat parameters. :eek: If you spot them, fly around or abandon mission unless you are carrying stand-off weapons as Redshift20 mentioned. About trying to “master” a SA17 ask yourself: Would you do it in RL?
-
@TwanV:
Well, obviously never get within threat parameters. :eek: If you spot them, fly around or abandon mission unless you are carrying stand-off weapons as Redshift20 mentioned. About trying to “master” a SA17 ask yourself: Would you do it in RL?
Approach from different directions with as many HARM platfroms as possible with SOJ support. In BMS4 Buk is far from its RL capability while SEAD is over modeled a bit. In RL Buk is able to shot down ARMs (was designed to kill AGM-84) and in Falcon a single battalion (DB) can launch and guide a single missile against a single target. The RL composition of a Buk brigade is here, it contains 4x batteries:
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/9ev10eefzb499/BMS_database_13-07-2016A single battery in RL have 6 target channels considering even only Buk M1 or M1-2. The latest Buk has even more, a single TELAR now has sim. eng. capability because it has ESA type radar.
-
Thanks Molni!!!
IADS/GCI is my favorite feature in Falcon, no many ‘games’ with it , any ? . Not sure if it is still working (vehicle/unit/battalion/brigade/division?) could use for SA17 , sharing target between TELARS.
Maybe do you know what distance from unit with SOJ support is more effective, 60nm? 100nm?
(I would do it myself to know how to debug radars)btw. Do you still have your reworked (corrected) db, simdata, with eastern block and other units…
Very sorry that you left Taiwan theatre… that was killing ground in FF , most dynamic campaign ever… Wave after wave of reds incoming , Sa-n-6 awaits you soon after takoff, in sea channel that is … I live againCheers, Molni and thanks for stuff!!
-
Thanks Molni!!!
IADS/GCI is my favorite feature in Falcon, no many ‘games’ with it , any ? .
Is no real IADS and GCI in Falcon what you can see is just a good illusion.
Not sure if it is still working (vehicle/unit/battalion/brigade/division?) could use for SA17 , sharing target between TELARS.
SAM eng. with data and code works such way what players should not know, it is a part of the illusion what you experience.
Maybe do you know what distance from unit with SOJ support is more effective, 60nm? 100nm?
(I would do it myself to know how to debug radars)In Realis Patch 5 manual (is a very, very old document for a very, very old F4.0 patch) is an equation how decreases the SOJ the radar detection range. I do not know is valid or not…
During my test with 4.32 a SOJ AC within 40-50 nm of even SA-10 literally blocked all radar SAM launch. SOJ AC currently way OP and red side does not have such AC. I tried to create in my Korea '80s mod a SOJ Su-24 for USSR but I was not successful.
btw. Do you still have your reworked (corrected) db, simdata, with eastern block and other units…
I have but I never will have time to make a new MOD. It is way to time consuming. I do not have time fly with Falcon, since 2009 I have not finished a single campagin, since FF5… I flew only some hours with 4.33 to test TFR and somem other stuff but I literally out of flight sim flying businnes for a way too long time. Maybe one time I will be back but I do not know when this will come.
Hopefully the core DB will be modified sooner or later by the team. I made the linked doc for this purpose. The next major step will be altering a bit flare and chaff chance values for some radars and also beaming and some other modifiers maybe should be changed. Not only because of RL but IMHO also should be kept in mind the fun. IMHO is not fun fly against holy weapons. This is why I also love '80s.
-
Hopefully the core DB will be modified sooner or later by the team. I made the linked doc for this purpose. The next major step will be altering a bit flare and chaff chance values for some radars and also beaming and some other modifiers maybe should be changed. Not only because of RL but IMHO also should be kept in mind the fun. IMHO is not fun fly against holy weapons. This is why I also love '80s.
Well… now when you’ve said it , I’ve checked SA17 , and is NOT FINISHED(*) also , SWD points to sa11 … but there is sa17.dat (and is even worse then sa11 . lol, more G’s) , just not added .veh and swd. But… no biggie, yet.
Really , I curse Falcon engine ancient design that doesn’t allow more radar vehicles to a unit., as IADS or backup… Please , o’hear me mighty devs…
That would be AWESOME… more opposition, more playability. I guess.Sa17 platoon has 3!!! radars.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-9K37-Buk.html
I’m almost bored looking y’tub kiddiez flying 3rd/4th gen fighter against no opposition or pitfull SA2/6… well they can sting too… if you’re not careful… but that’s all old news.
Except dogfight (which is btw, everCOOL) , sam opposition in those vids is equal to nil…
Let’em watch some cool movies, as ‘The flight of intruder’ … who’s ur daddy now !!?But that’s life… G’day mr.Molnibalage!
-
Sa17 platoon has 3!!! radars.
What you see is not Buk M1 or M1-2. I think this is M3 and not a platoon.
The brigade have 4x batteries.
Each batteries have 3x firing units.
Each units - I guess you call this platoon - have 2xTELAR + 1xTEL.The radar on left side is the long range 360 scan EW radar, which is available 1/battery.
What is special the 2nd from rigth a new conception, it seems to me a CW low lever radar similar as was Clam Shell (NVO) for S-300Ps/PT. -
Attacking an SA-17 battalion with a slow moving JSOW LOL
I desperately want the SA-17 to be able to shoot down HARMs and Glide bombs in-game
Probably very difficult to model, but fingers crossed
-
I desperately want the SA-17 to be able to shoot down HARMs and Glide bombs in-game
Probably very difficult to model, but fingers crossed
Not necessailly sooo dificult, but might break quite rapidly the entire campaign equilibrium, same applies Ith cruise missile.
Putting a feet into this will probably have HUGE (unfortunate) consequences downstream. -
i think it is important though Dee-jay, to get the modeling of attacking high-threat systems right.
as it is now, SA-10/11/17 get rolled off the table too quickly because a single HARM fired at them means that they will lose radars- it should in theory require a critical mass of HARM/JSOW/SDB/decoys to exhaust/defeat them.
my one complaint about the game is in general how fast even a very high tech and reinforced red samwall gets rolled off the table. seems like 1x falcon/hornet can reliably kill any SAM in the game from HARM RMAX which AFAIK isn’t realistic due to self-defense abilities.
i think it would be a good feature, and we could get mald/mald-J at that same time, right?
-
it should in theory require a critical mass of HARM/JSOW/SDB/decoys to exhaust/defeat them.
You said it => “in theory”
On the battlefield, this “theory” is very often very different than what is advertised. Intercepting a 1.5m² RCS missile flying at M2+ is not so easy and I can bet that, if the system is in a mode allowing to detect and engage such a small RCS, it will not be optimized to efficiently deal with another type of target.
-
This post is deleted! -
This post is deleted! -
You said it => “in theory”
On the battlefield, this “theory” is very often very different than what is advertised. Intercepting a 1.5m² RCS missile flying at M2+ is not so easy and I can bet that, if the system is in a mode allowing to detect and engage such a small RCS, it will not be optimized to efficiently deal with another type of target.
RCS is not an issue. Even the stone age S-125 Neva, the first variant could track targets down to 0,5 m2 RCS.
-
RCS is not an issue. Even the stone age S-125 Neva, the first variant could track targets down to 0,5 m2 RCS.
I know that 0.5 is not an issue. But a radar won’t work properly in the same mode wether you want to track a 0.5RCS object flying at M2+ and another of a diferent size flying at way lower speed … etc … What I mean here is about distance ambiguities/speed ambiguities/angle/resolution/ …
-
You said it => “in theory”
On the battlefield, this “theory” is very often very different than what is advertised. Intercepting a 1.5m² RCS missile flying at M2+ is not so easy and I can bet that, if the system is in a mode allowing to detect and engage such a small RCS, it will not be optimized to efficiently deal with another type of target.
That is why newer sam’s (since '80’s.) are using 2 or more missile types. For low and fast , high and slow targets for example. See BUK earlier., or SA10 or… what not
-
… I am not talking about missile issues, but about radar and radar mode issues.
-
I know that 0.5 is not an issue. But a radar won’t work properly in the same mode wether you want to track a 0.5RCS object flying at M2+ and another of a diferent size flying at way lower speed … etc … What I mean here is about distance ambiguities/speed ambiguities/angle/resolution/ …
The Buk TELAR is a FCR. Even the stone age Krug was able to target and guide missile to BMs in mid '60s. You can select a good mode for ARM and also for subsonic AC with Buk. Buk originally was designed against small AGM-84 for navy. The hit ratio against small ARM is smaller but you can see how many missiles have Buk.
US had big luck that Buk came end of Cold War and was far from export because it was far beyond any army defense SAMs. Even the Krug from '60s knew thing which scared the US after finally they could examine them closer because Krug also was now exported outside WPACT. Same case the S-300PMU (export variant of PM, without Big Bird –-> each battery had Tin Shield for 360 deg. scan for EW.)
I have to say I cannot wait the moment where advanced SAMs in Falcon can have the capability what they have in RL. Sim. eng. capability, anti ARM or ASM capability, etc.
(Of course in this case with AAMs also should be targetted large ASMs.) -
That is why newer sam’s (since '80’s.) are using 2 or more missile types. For low and fast , high and slow targets for example. See BUK earlier., or SA10 or… what not
This is totally a false statement. Some SAMs have more then one type of missiles, but this is very rare.
Patriot - PAC-3 small missile only for ABM and the large missile, but unless somebody mix. the different (older) version of large missile with newer does not mean for different purpose… As I know USA does not use MIM-104A and similar old missiles. Generally a SAM uses the latest missile model. So in a Patriot FU you can see very likely only one type of large missiles and even it has two different type not for one high and slow and other for slow and fast…
S-75/125/200, etc. They used only one type of missiles exept maybe transition time to new. Buk is same case. Neva was designed against low flying target but also can down AC up to 18 km with the same missile.
S-300V have different missile for ABM and airplanes as the Patriot after PAC-3 config.
S-300P have compatibility with older missiles so in theor S-400 can use 5V55R but it does not have sense, especially how old the 5V55R. Maybe only the 5V55K is the exception because it was pure RCG not SAGG as later missiles.
-
This is totally a false statement. Some SAMs have more then one type of missiles, but this is very rare.
Patriot - PAC-3 small missile only for ABM and the large missile, but unless somebody mix. the different (older) version of large missile with newer does not mean for different purpose… As I know USA does not use MIM-104A and similar old missiles. Generally a SAM uses the latest missile model. So in a Patriot FU you can see very likely only one type of large missiles and even it has two different type not for one high and slow and other for slow and fast…
S-75/125/200, etc. They used only one type of missiles exept maybe transition time to new. Buk is same case. Neva was designed against low flying target but also can down AC up to 18 km with the same missile.
S-300V have different missile for ABM and airplanes as the Patriot after PAC-3 config.
S-300P have compatibility with older missiles so in theor S-400 can use 5V55R but it does not have sense, especially how old the 5V55R. Maybe only the 5V55K is the exception because it was pure RCG not SAGG as later missiles.
It is definitely NOT false statement … lol … You’ve forgot even bloody Sa-8 can use 3 types of missiles, it even has wire guidance in case of SOJ…
… I cant even count how many SAM’s (Soviet/Russian) is using this strategy … S300/400/500 series FOR SURE !!!, it is not just because of compatibility , some are short range, some are medium, some are abm capable
…those who are abm are for sure capable to shot down on single harm …That what your SAM-Simulator says is one thing, ok it’s pretty real. I give’em that,… but , I’m talking about Janes data.
-
It certainly is also about the missiles. When dealing with faster, lower RCS threats (and I am sure that the frontal RCS of the HARM is lower than 1.5 square meters), the missile must have a warhead capable of destroying such a small target effectively, with a fuze capable to explode the warhead fast enough. The seeker must be able to not only lock a small, very fast moving target, but also be accurate enough to hit close enough to destroy it and have a refresh rate fast enough to update the location of the target quickly enough to actually hit it. (relates to accuracy)
The capabilities of any semi active radar homing missile in these regards aren’t the best to say the least.