Ff you could have one thing in the next update it would be…
-
Sorry if it has already been brought up. I wasn’t goingto read all 185 pages. I’d like more realistic behaving SAM sites. It’s rediculously easy even for a novice like me just to take out every SAM site on the map with HARMs. They just leave their radars on all the time without ever trying to set a trap for enemy aircraft. Having them even turn on their radars randomly would almost be better than what we have. Maybe this is just my experience IDK.
Improving the ground AI is definitely a must in my opinion too. However, coding it properly (and with properly I mean battalions using seach/acq radars for search states and FCR for engagement only, SA-17 batteries firing at multiple targets, or maybe even ABM engagements) requires major changes in the legacy code that was never written with many of the now requested features in mind, so I can understand why the devs have been pushing this for later versions (is it actually on the roadmap?).
But I still hope that one day we can enjoy a dangerous and challenging gndai.
-
+1. The defensive AI in FAF is much better, more RW…would like to at least see that ported into BMS.
In AF i had Galebs pursuiting me for many miles just to fire guns at me The best defense is offense.
In 4.32 i got bomber who got on my tail and fired front guns at me: -
+1. The defensive AI in FAF is much better, more RW…would like to at least see that ported into BMS.
What is giving this illusion was a bug (present in any older version) between agged and deagged units and consequences was that you thought that radar wasn’t emiting (blinking tactics) but actally was and continued to track you while no more indication on RWR. So to say … SAMs were cheating illegally.
Prove me wrong: in AF, inside the deagg distance (unit visible in 3D wolrd), show me a radar that is “blinking” ON/OFF or switching its radar off while inside HARM range. -
What is giving this illusion was a bug (present in any older version) between agged and deagged units and consequences was that you thought that radar wasn’t emiting (blinking tactics) but actally was and continued to track you while no more indication on RWR. So to say … SAMs were cheating illegally.
Prove me wrong: in AF, inside the deagg distance (unit visible in 3D wolrd), show me a radar that is “blinking” ON/OFF or switching its radar off while inside HARM range.Go into FAF and attack a SAM site with your radar off - then turn it on. They appear to blink. However, if you attack with your radar off and an ALQ on they will track the jammer…and shoot at you, and generally miss. But as they are shooting at you and missing that will give you something to shoot a HARM at.
Bug or not, the behavior is more realistic and something I’d certainly like/prefer to see in BMS. That shouldn’t be that difficult to implement.
-
If I can fine few minutes I will try. Remind me if I forgot.
Bug or not, the behavior is more realistic and something I’d certainly like/prefer to see in BMS. That shouldn’t be that difficult to implement
And what happen if you keep your radar sinlent, does the sam radar remains off until you are in GBU12 range? What are the conditions for the EWR (and/or FCR) to goes On? (Forget about unit’s EWR … They do not exist in F4AF it is the same vehicle doing everything from an early warning state to aquisition to tracking … ;)) So let say, just sam’s multifunction radar.
-
If I can fine few minutes I will try. Remind me if I forgot.
And what happen if you keep your radar sinlent, does the sam radar remains off until you are in GBU12 range? What are the conditions for the EWR (and/or FCR) to goes On? (Forget about unit’s EWR … They do not exist in F4AF it is the same vehicle doing everything from an early warning state to aquisition to tracking … ;)) So let say, just sam’s multifunction radar.
Dunno…I’m not silly enough to try and attack an active SAM site with a GBU-12!
I leave my FCR off/jammer on until I’m outbound and clear of threat rings - I want them to track me, and the jammer lets them do that, but at least it’s a theoretically degraded “track” and not a pinpoint lock on my FCR. But giving them a look at my jammer means the site never goes down - it will go down if I point my FCR at it and try to lock it…which I assume BMS does too?
-
There is just so much wrong with that idea.
-
Dunno…I’m not silly enough to try and attack an active SAM site with a GBU-12!
That is precisely the point. IIUC what you say, attacking SAM site with MK-82/rocket/cannon inside the lethal range will be possible without any problem as long as we keep our radar off. … see what I mean?
No this is not good. Remember that SAM AI remains robots. We won’t tell him : if A/C radar OFF => Switch SAM radar ON ; else ; ACTITE SAM radar.
We can’t use such a logic … and what happens for a/c without radar (A-4) … they will remain undetected forever? …And before considering SAM AI tactics, we have to build the IADS network and create the connectivity with ground and airborne EWR station. We also have to make the SAM less predicable in their engagement envelope (not firing always at the same distance/time) depending on skill, moral, target attitude … etc … Those are IMO a higher priority before trying to implement any “smart” tactics. And once we will start to think about “radar blink tactics”, we will have to fine a way to not make AI SAM unable to guide any more missile until their end.
-
radar snooze shouldn’t really matter anyway. nothing in the SA-2 battalion has an RWR so it won’t be able to counterdetect you using one anyway, nor should it know you are radar snooze.
it just needs to be able to intelligently snap on and attack using a combination of EWR/search radars imo, and then choose it’s range to attack intelligently based on what it thinks you are (high performance jet/bomber/transport etc)
DJs right, though i should add that i think the 2d performance of SAMs is the real achilles heel. hornet 2-1 wipes out several SA-10s with what seems like zero effort every time he gets close. in sim they are at least a little more threatening than that.
-
@Cik:
radar snooze shouldn’t really matter anyway. nothing in the SA-2 battalion has an RWR so it won’t be able to counterdetect you using one anyway, nor should it know you are radar snooze.
it just needs to be able to intelligently snap on and attack using a combination of EWR/search radars imo, and then choose it’s range to attack intelligently based on what it thinks you are (high performance jet/bomber/transport etc)
DJs right, though i should add that i think the 2d performance of SAMs is the real achilles heel. hornet 2-1 wipes out several SA-10s with what seems like zero effort every time he gets close. in sim they are at least a little more threatening than that.
I think what we all are talking about is BMS being able to utilize GCI (ground controlled intercept) capabilities. That would depend on the systems involved to link and provide information to all of the SAM units in the area. If jammers are on station, SAM intercepts would be held in check. At least to a degree. BMS would have to be able to share data from a main ST radar with other units. But the specific SAM radar would have to lock on before the launch. Also, there is a limitation to time on track for any SAM radar. TOT’s for SAM’s in classified but again approximation could be employed. I have seen in BMS where a SA-2 lights up and launched in a few seconds. That is not realistic IMO. But if it received rad range from another radar (GCI) system, then it could launch quickly enough (say 10 to 20 seconds) after lighting up the target with it’s own guidance radar system.
-
That is precisely the point. IIUC what you say, attacking SAM site with MK-82/rocket/cannon inside the lethal range will be possible without any problem as long as we keep our radar off. … see what I mean?
No this is not good. Remember that SAM AI remains robots. We won’t tell him : if A/C radar OFF => Switch SAM radar ON ; else ; ACTITE SAM radar.
We can’t use such a logic … and what happens for a/c without radar (A-4) … they will remain undetected forever? …And before considering SAM AI tactics, we have to build the IADS network and create the connectivity with ground and airborne EWR station. We also have to make the SAM less predicable in their engagement envelope (not firing always at the same distance/time) depending on skill, moral, target attitude … etc … Those are IMO a higher priority before trying to implement any “smart” tactics. And once we will start to think about “radar blink tactics”, we will have to fine a way to not make AI SAM unable to guide any more missile until their end.
The point of snoozing is to make it harder for him to find you - yes, it should have an effect (if you rage in with your radar on you should have a higher probability of getting hit), it seems to be that way in FAF and it should be similar in BMS.
Building IADS into the sim is another effort entirely - for now, I’d just settle for better RW-like behavior from individual sites (like “hide” vs “blink”, maybe)…and as you pointed out - better modelling of the individual site radars. I should think that a great deal of air bogey AI could be adapted to surface threats as far as my thinking goes…that would at least be a step forward.
-
I think what we all are talking about is BMS being able to utilize GCI (ground controlled intercept) capabilities. That would depend on the systems involved to link and provide information to all of the SAM units in the area. If jammers are on station, SAM intercepts would be held in check. At least to a degree. BMS would have to be able to share data from a main ST radar with other units. But the specific SAM radar would have to lock on before the launch. Also, there is a limitation to time on track for any SAM radar. TOT’s for SAM’s in classified but again approximation could be employed. I have seen in BMS where a SA-2 lights up and launched in a few seconds. That is not realistic IMO. But if it received rad range from another radar (GCI) system, then it could launch quickly enough (say 10 to 20 seconds) after lighting up the target with it’s own guidance radar system.
That would be the ultimate goal, but for now I’d settle for individual SAM sites just acting in better defense of themselves - like becoming un-targetable if they “feel threatened”.
-
I think what we all are talking about is BMS being able to utilize GCI (ground controlled intercept) capabilities. That would depend on the systems involved to link and provide information to all of the SAM units in the area. If jammers are on station, SAM intercepts would be held in check. At least to a degree. BMS would have to be able to share data from a main ST radar with other units. But the specific SAM radar would have to lock on before the launch. Also, there is a limitation to time on track for any SAM radar. TOT’s for SAM’s in classified but again approximation could be employed. I have seen in BMS where a SA-2 lights up and launched in a few seconds. That is not realistic IMO. But if it received rad range from another radar (GCI) system, then it could launch quickly enough (say 10 to 20 seconds) after lighting up the target with it’s own guidance radar system.
SAM sites do not need GCI radars. They usually has their own EW radars for target acquisition they use all the time as they are metric wavelength so they are not HARM targetable.
They can prepare everything and then when they are ready they just locks you on and fire in less than 10s.
In SAM SIM (it simulates SA-2 with great realism) i am able to lock on target and then fire in less than 10s. OFC i have to prepare missiles (spin up gyros) and aim launchers at the target, but i don’t need FCR to be tracking target when i am doing it. It is possible to do with FCR not transmitting.EW radars have ranges higher than 150 clicks against typical fighter RCS target. Some may have well over 300 clicks like the one for SA-5. The way to defeat them is to use offensive jammers which denies ranging (defensive ones can’t usually jam this wavelength) or to use terrain masking (you are risking being nailed by AAA and SHORAD and you may need external fuel tanks).
Real SAMs generally have no RWR, at least “classic” soviet ones. So if SA-2 is able to detect your radar in BMS thats a bug.
-
mp fixeddddddddddddddddddddddd lol thats all we askkkkk its alll that really matters atleast 20 vs 20 no problemosss atleast
-
SAM sites do not need GCI radars. They usually has their own EW radars for target acquisition they use all the time as they are metric wavelength so they are not HARM targetable.
They can prepare everything and then when they are ready they just locks you on and fire in less than 10s.
In SAM SIM (it simulates SA-2 with great realism) i am able to lock on target and then fire in less than 10s. OFC i have to prepare missiles (spin up gyros) and aim launchers at the target, but i don’t need FCR to be tracking target when i am doing it. It is possible to do with FCR not transmitting.Real SAMs generally have no RWR, at least “classic” soviet ones. So if SA-2 is able to detect your radar in BMS thats a bug.
All true - but most radars can track the energy from another radar if it shines in their direction (generally to get angles only), similar to tracking a jam strobe…but if they do get a whiff of your own ship radar they can own you…that decreases if you use a jammer and keep your nose off them. So I don’t consider tracking the aircraft FCR to be a “bug”.
-
From what i recall SAM FCRs usually have different frequencies than APG68.
Frequencies of SAM radars varies a lot depending on SAM type.This is why it is possible to classify them using RWR. If they had same frequencies and emmision type RWR would not be able to tell if its SA-2 or F-16.
RWR is optimized for wide frequency range, SAM radars are not.
-
That’s not even close to what I’m getting at - you don’t need to classify the radar to track it…just see the energy. Which doesn’t even have to be on your radiating freq…but you do have to sniff, and AFAIK a lot of (if not most) systems do that.
-
This post is deleted! -
That’s not even close to what I’m getting at - you don’t need to classify the radar to track it…just see the energy. Which doesn’t even have to be on your radiating freq…but you do have to sniff, and AFAIK a lot of (if not most) systems do that.
From what i recall SA-2 is able to “sniff”. It is a passive mode with FCR transmitter not radiating but receiver actually picking up signal. It gonna pick up jammers this way, but only if they are constantely on. From what i recall it won’t pick up signals from outside of the frequency range. Radars (i mean non F.A.R. ones) works in narrow spectrum. AFAIK there is signal processing that filters out all other frequencies to don’t have unnecessery clutter and to make them harder to jam. Also antennas are designed for specific wavelength, not like RWR which is optimized to have wideband receiver.
So you rather don’t gonna see everything that is radiating on radar screen. Radars are not RWRs. They aren’t able to sniff on wideband so they should not be able to detect your APG-68.
just see the energy
How? When antennas are optimized for specific frequency and same with signal processing. Radars are not showing all the RF energy that is in air, otherwise you would get mobile phones, satellite downlinks and other junk populating your radar screen
Another example: Do you see infrared with your eyes? No. This is because eyes are not able to receive this wavelenth so you have no chances to see anything that is outside of visible light frequency range
-
You’re still not getting the point. All you need is a freq analyzer and some knowledge of what you are looking for/at - that unit is going to see radar energy any time another operating radar is pointed at it, or in it’s general direction. It’s just a passive radio direction finder…but that’s enough. A radar (any radar) is like a flashlight in a dark room - you can see what the beam is shining on, but what it’s shining on can also see the beam and where it’s coming from. Simple physics - your radar is an airborne beacon.
An “RWR” on the ground has nothing to do with this discussion…and the fact that an airborne radar operates in a “narrow band” only makes it that much more visible to a freq-an. That information alone is enough to get angles on the target.