SA-17 … evading, any tips?
-
… 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. -
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.
I know also. But I am still not talking about multi mode. I am talking about inherent limitation of a radar beam : https://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12609372/index.pdf
Not saying that a Buk can’t handle this properly … but the problem it about “not making a PERFECT radar system” in BMS which doesn’t exists IRL. And consequences downstream has also to be anticipated (depletion of HARM stock) abilities to rearm for the SAM systems, time to rearm, AI’s abilities to engage and react in a smart way … etc … Just modeling the “anti-missile” feature is by far not enough for a proper implementation.
-
I believe the rearm delay exists in anti-aircraft missile systems.
Στάλθηκε από το MI 5 μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk
-
Also DeeJay going that deep on Every aspect of war and falcon it will be a pita.
I believe the code should have some random results feed by those results from the algorithm document u linked. Not run the algorithms.
Cause human factor and practices bypass algorithms and many times have better results.
This randomness will spice things up and exclude the players “hacking” the system by running it just by the numbers… The surprise element which now is not there, well it got better with 4.33 sure, but still u can hack the SA-xx by the numbers if u know them.Στάλθηκε από το MI 5 μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk
-
Why to heck would you want to do that (Hack SA-xx) ?, I’ve opened this thread because I was PLAYING with the SA17 , not because I was hacking it … Campaign is already ‘easy’ even on ace/veteran with all this (like Molni said) ‘holy’ weapons … precision/gps munitions.
I am for a year now maintaining custom .cam and .db/simdata for my own single offline… , ships, tougher sam’s … ground units. (yeah db is a bi*** to update after, byte by byte, but after so many changes I really don’t want to update to ‘unrepaired’ state )
In the end there are 2 switches in bmscfg that require same database in MP as on server if you want to be nit-picky …
Repairing/reworking the database and/or db structure is gonna be PITA., but it will have to be done one day, one way or the other , heck, rome wasn’t burned in one day
P.s. SSD are gonna be edited heavily … like too many smart weapons, … dudes after depletion of smart’s … there is nothing left to burn
-
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.
???
Wire guidance as TOW…? For Osa? Where came this misonformation…?
All Osa missiles used the same RCG method which came from Krug. (SA-N-3 used the same method.)
Then came the order from top leadership this method have to be discarded so many antennas for a single target channel…
…then came PESA radar for S-300 which made possible the sim. eng. even with a single FCR. (Flap Lid, S-300PS, PT)S-300P cariants can use all older type missiles but all serve the same role, just latest missile are more advanced and they can be used at max. range with latest radars. The kinematic range is almost the same even the old 5V55R or K just the radars and guidance limited the range. Patriot as well as all S-300 are BMs with mid and terminal guidance. This is because S-300PMU2 has different eq. than S-300PS or PT.s no wire guided Russian SAM. In reality and S-300PMU2/PM2 uses only 48N6E2/48N6D and do not use 5V55R.
If you know so less and have so misinformnation if I were you would rather just listen…
I’m writing about very long stuff about mil. aviation and SAM which contanis seciton and “short” descriptions about exact SAM systems. Sadly (for you) is in HUN, one day mabe I will translate to ENG. (The whole book will be ~600 pages long.)
Here is just a preview to feel what I’m talking about…(WIP)
http://www.mediafire.com/file/dzqggjolh1t8m8a/SAMs.pdf
In the rest of the book are explained army defense and of corse basics of guidance types, path of missiles, etc. These are only the homeland SAMs systems and only USSR and USA, for ex. the UK Bloodhound is missing.I can show the whole WIP to illustrte how deep the stuff even it is HUN.
-
Naaah … don’t sweat it Molni , it’s ok , just amusing you. I was same surprised when I’ve heard on other forum about ‘tow’ OSA…
Although , I’ve did search because it was ‘too good’ to be true … and f*** me , internet is full of that… 9M33M3(-1)/9M33BM3 …is marked on some as wire guided. (but, well… wiki too, eh…)
But… I’m not sure also. Let’s stick to the radar/optical version at best. To these sites , I believe… and there’s no mention of wire except in connecting CC vehicle, if radio is not ‘safe’.
http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3755797/all/9K33M2_OSA_AK_SA_8B_Gecko
http://www.tetraedr.com/mupload/iblock/588/58800b30e603bcc2b990aa5091daa7a5.pdf
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-9K33-Osa.htmlWell, nice paper you have there… don’t show it to me or I’ll publish under my own name… even it is in HUN.
Why you didn’t write in english if you already meant to publish sometime, it is not that most of the info isn’t public already, for those who is interested, heh ?Cheers, Molni :drink:
oh.p.s. sadly for you he was HUN too https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josip_Jela%C4%8Di%C4%87
-
I also think that while capable of tracking small RCS, it has to have a low pk as in as many hits as misses and most certainly can’t do both a/c and a small target at the same time. For sure one or the other.
Also remember capabilities are always over emphasized for marketing purposes, so even if your JSOW, HARM, or SBD gets targeted they’re not going to get them all and the enemy will always have to make compromises to target one or the other. You can’t be in two places at one time
-
Why you didn’t write in english if you already meant to publish sometime, it is not that most of the info isn’t public already, for those who is interested, heh ?
Because it is very hard to write in short even in Hungarian and keeping high the level of the book. Even I translate a part of it it would never reach the language and technical terms the level as in HUN.
As a test after the completion of “full” HUN - I just have to stop at point the writing - some part part will be translated.
-
I also think that while capable of tracking small RCS, it has to have a low pk as in as many hits as misses and most certainly can’t do both a/c and a small target at the same time. For sure one or the other.
Also remember capabilities are always over emphasized for marketing purposes, so even if your JSOW, HARM, or SBD gets targeted they’re not going to get them all and the enemy will always have to make compromises to target one or the other. You can’t be in two places at one time
Damn true. It is my favorite tactic employing harpoon , set 1st to skim profile , 2nd to pop-up , … so point defense has something to think about …
Now can do with Falcon (to some extent) , eg, set azimuth on one jsow from left side , second on right side. (but can’t ripple them both in same time with this tactic… nitpickery )
-
I also think that while capable of tracking small RCS, it has to have a low pk as in as many hits as misses and most certainly can’t do both a/c and a small target at the same time. For sure one or the other.
Also remember capabilities are always over emphasized for marketing purposes, so even if your JSOW, HARM, or SBD gets targeted they’re not going to get them all and the enemy will always have to make compromises to target one or the other. You can’t be in two places at one time
This is not true.
The first and oldest Buk had conventional mech. scanned radars. –-> Single target channel.
The latest Buk has ESA type radar which mean it can track many target simultaneously and has even ARH missiles which means target channel in terminal phase = qty. of missiles. The qty. of missiles increased from 4 to 6 per TELAR. Can you guess why? Because of the increased qty. of targets. A typical SEAD target could carry max. 2xHARM in '80s but now with other type of sensor and location methods even SDBs can be used. A single F-16 can carry 2x4 SDBs…The problem is rather economical than technical. A single SDB is much cheaper than a single Buk missile…
I the posted marking data you can see first Buk was able to target ARMs.Even the 40 year old first S-300PT and PS could target in the same time AC and ARMs, it is not some kind of magical capability. This is why was abandoned the mechanically scanned radar for FCR. This is why got S-300P series 360 mecha scan of azimuth and ESA scanned long rage search radar (Big Bird). Only the regiment or bridage command battery had one which gave targets for missile batterie wich had only low level 360 deg search radar against low flying targets (Clam Shell). This is why S-300P series are different from Patriots. Patriot FUs sheare the picture (digitalized target data) and in the ECS of an FU can see every targets even behind their own RS. S-300P missile batteries got only target data (max. 6) from the command battery and only the Clam Shell provided own source for more data. Not the whole picture were shared with missile batteries.
First exported S-300PMU was different because USSR sold them without the command battery and each S-300PMU battery had ST-68U 360 deg. EW radar.
This is why I wish to translate the stuff because most peope do not understand and know what was the evoltion of SAMs and why happeded as happened. (As usual the problem is my free time)
Another main factor is the “parameter” (is a diestance) which means the offset distance between the fligth path of the target and SAM battery because - especially against BMs and fast targets) it had big impact on eng. zone.
On left side target speed in 420-640 m/s on rigth side 640-1000 m/s, for ex. AGM-28 Hound Dog az 17 km with M2.0-M2.1
(S-300V is a very different species, I do not talk about it here and now. )
-
I definitely agree newer systems especially with electronically scanned radar systems, that tracking multiple targets is certainly a capability. I also believe some weapons would be intercepted and destroyed in flight, but certainly not all. The thing about intercepting small targets, especially ones that are moving quickly is it takes a lot of lead time, you have to be prepared and know where to look for the threat. For example the US Aegis destroyers (we have 33 of them) are a platform designed to intercept and destroy high flying fast missiles. While the Aegis has proven the ability the detect, intercept, and destroy targets such as missiles and the like, it has a far from 100% success rate. It also has an AESA radar system and in fact we’ve failed as early as this year at intercepting a ICBM during a test. As you mentioned in your post, speed/distance, and other parameters affect the engagement zone, so the SAMs would have the highest pK against a launch as the target gets closer to the ground, but if tracking a large missile that is a couple times bigger than a telephone poll with Aegis ship based system results in misses (29 killed out 37 tests total about 78% which matches with your BUK-M2), then the little SAM operators on the ground are definitely going to miss some SDB/HARM as well. It is reality vs theory on paper.
I think someone brought up in this thread earlier that there is a perception that the SAM operator is the hunter and the fighter jet is the prey, but I do agree with him it is the other way around. I’d hate to be a SAM operator with a qualified SEAD/DEAD trained flight lead and wingman coming to hunt me down, no matter what system I have at my disposal. Now one thing I do see going forward is the capability to engage small RCS targets increasing, hell they’ll probably have to make stealth versions of the HARM/SDB in order to reduce its RCS even further if it becomes an issue. Low vis coatings, change the shape of the weapon a little and bam its smaller than a mosquito and bites like one too (given that we can make an F-22 appear to be the size of a bird :p).
-
Nice posts regarding SAMs, missile intercepts etc.
1. Avoid SA-17 at all costs. If you simulate your life along with flying the F-16 then avoiding it, is your best option.
2. BMS did a great job to simulate newest weapon systems, especially stand-off ones. However, we need to have the capability to shoot down those missiles as well, for the sake of realism and challenge. CIWS, SAMs have some capability to shoot down missiles.For example, even an old RIM-7 NSSM can intercept an ASM (see video below from a Hellenic Navy exercise against an Exocet).
I can imagine that simulating jamming, IADS and SAM behavior is a difficult job, but emphasis should be put there to enhance realism. IMHO, SEAD missions in BMS are way to easy and piece of cake. That’s not the case IRL.
-
I think someone brought up in this thread earlier that there is a perception that the SAM operator is the hunter and the fighter jet is the prey, but I do agree with him it is the other way around.
This is totally false, until latest years after arrival of almost all aspect HARM SAM systems mosly fougth is disadvantage especially until multiple target channel was not available but even that a single SAM “battery” can easily in big troble becase in a certain time a classic batter do not have 360 deg coverage…
You need at least 3x Buk TELARs to have 360 deg coverage but even with early '90s Buk M1-2 this means a a full battery witth 6x TELARs had only two target channels per 1/3rd of 360 deg and are small gaps between eng. zones… 2x4 F-16C with coordinated attack wit 8x HARMs is still a real threat even this unit. They can try launch HARMs but it costs lots of missiles because of low Pk.
Where s turned the situation? IMHO with NASAMS.
- You have as many target channels as many missiles you have.
- It does not have classical TELAR/FCR even with optical tracking or just target data by data link from anybody can provide data for launch.
- Search radar of the system and launchers are not in the same spot. So even if you somehow loacte the LPI Sentinel radars you have no ida about eng. zones of a NASAMS battery because you have no clue where the launchers are.
This is the new concept which will be widespread sooner of later as long as you do not wish ABM capability. NASAMS with AMRAAM has a bit small eng. zone but with ESSM…
Against these systems even the F-35 is very, very fragile. It can detect mosly after the first launch the launcher and can hope mostly in towed decoys. But when ARH AAMs will have PESA or AESA radar towed decoys also can become unusable or can have only very questionable effect.
S-350 Vitaz sooner or later will step on this path and the offered Stunner SAM for Poland is so far could be one of the ultimate system on this road.
-
Not to mention , that ‘spear tip’ sam’s 300pmu/v/400 , and newer (will) all have anti-HARM decoy/chaff? launchers with special radar … have to see which radar/unit is that , you have it on ytube , from MAX expo.
So, it wouldn’t come to that if it were that AARGM/HARM/Alarm is ‘harmless’ for the SAM’s itself…
If you can detect it with radar, … what is it you can do?!!, you MUST disable/destroy/decoy it… or face the consequences.
SAM/anti-SAM tech is evolving pretty quickly, then, TIALD’s , (RF)ITALD’s , decoys, jammers. you name it. You just don’t have enough (sam) missiles for eg. one full load when C-5/B1B deploys hundreds of those crap.
One ITALD rf-jammer/decoy has x times larger RCS then F22 or F35’s … or even F16.Then comes … just cleaning, part.