Am I performing SEAD's incorrectly? Almost always fail them.
-
SEAD is suppression. If the strike or package is not getting pelted by SAMs… mission accomplished!! Learn to not get hung up with believing what the debrief is telling you about mission success. Main goals… did you accomplish YOUR mission? Did you bring your airframe home… a check by these will prove most important in campaign dominance.
-
don’t worry, sometime even is better to abort the whole mission to avoid aircraft losses
-
I take up a few SEAD missions in my Korea campaign every once in a while, and almost every time I get a partial failure due to “0 Losses to enemy AD”. I follow the steerpoints, arrive at the correct push points and target TOT’s, and keep my eye on the HTS/HAD and fire at AAA and SAM’s around the target area. This last mission I did had a SA-15 installation about 2NM NW of the Strike steerpoint for my friendly Tornados, so I flew in the direction and waited for them to spike me, and successfully fired and destroyed the radar.
A little confused if I am doing something wrong, or if this is just a known issue with this mission type in 4.34
Any help is appreciated!
Debriefing and success/failure don’t work correctly.
Sa-15 are TELAR. There isn’t one guiding radar. Each vehicle has its own.
-
Sa-15 are TELAR. There isn’t one guiding radar. Each vehicle has its own.
Use that valuable info when planning the flight. While AGM88’s are good at what they do (surpression and singular radar destruction) if I am are going up against SA11, 15’s, or any TELAR radar I fall back on using AGM-154A JSOWs from high alt/max stand-off to take out as many launchers as possible.
If you take a look here it also shows the difference in range for a (SA-11 in this case) with and without a separate radar controller. Recon, see what the threat is, plan the mission accordingly… maybe AGM88s for your wingman (bring HTS to designate if AI if possible), finish the sites off with 154s.
-
I also like to use SDBs for SEAD/DEAD against those systems. Since the Viper can carry a lot of them, you can usually wipe out the site, TELARs or not. Launched from 30kft, they’ve got enough range to launch from outside the target’s WEZ.
-
In your example, was your flight fragged as part of the Tornados’ package with their callsign named as your objective? The manual states success criteria for SEAD is to ensure the strike package takes no losses.
-
In your example, was your flight fragged as part of the Tornados’ package with their callsign named as your objective? The manual states success criteria for SEAD is to ensure the strike package takes no losses.
Package Elements: x = Primary Flight Callsign: Flt #: Role: Aircraft: Task: Rafale5 2232 ( x ) OCA STRIKE 4 Tornado IDS G Destroy RKSS Runway Section or other facilities at target site T/O: 20:07:00 Push: 20:24:27 Tgt: 20:36:01 IFF: M124/4/120/27004-7/36130-3 Plasma2 2235 SEAD 2 F-16CM-50 Protect package from enemy air defenses T/O: 20:02:00 Push: 20:20:27 Tgt: 20:32:01 IFF: M124/4/120/27010-1/36134-5 Hornet4 2237 ESCORT 2 CF-188 Protect package elements from enemy aircraft T/O: 20:06:00 Push: 20:22:27 Tgt: 20:34:01 IFF: M124/4/120/27014-5/36140-1
I was flight lead of Plasma2, and all 8 aircraft successfully finished their missions.
-
I take up a few SEAD missions in my Korea campaign every once in a while, and almost every time I get a partial failure due to “0 Losses to enemy AD”. I follow the steerpoints, arrive at the correct push points and target TOT’s, and keep my eye on the HTS/HAD and fire at AAA and SAM’s around the target area. This last mission I did had a SA-15 installation about 2NM NW of the Strike steerpoint for my friendly Tornados, so I flew in the direction and waited for them to spike me, and successfully fired and destroyed the radar.
A little confused if I am doing something wrong, or if this is just a known issue with this mission type in 4.34
Any help is appreciated!
I was having the same problems too until I figured out how to get a mission success. All you have to do to get one is protect the flight by killing the radar in the battalion AND DESTROY AT LEAST ONE LAUNCHER/AAA PIECE.
That’s it. I promise that’s all you have to do. The debriefing was telling me why it wouldn’t work and it was because I wasn’t killing parts/all of the battalion. So in effect SEAD is DEAD in BMS to a certain point, if only there was a way to get the sim to register suppression or just radar destruction within a unit.
Mission Failed: 0 Loss to enemy AD. Just kill something else besides the radar and you’ll get a success rating.
-
Debriefing and success/failure don’t work correctly.
Sa-15 are TELAR. There isn’t one guiding radar. Each vehicle has its own.
Yes it does.
-
SEAD is suppression. If the strike or package is not getting pelted by SAMs… mission accomplished!! Learn to not get hung up with believing what the debrief is telling you about mission success. Main goals… did you accomplish YOUR mission? Did you bring your airframe home… a check by these will prove most important in campaign dominance.
I’m sorry I disagree because a mission failure is accumulated, even though you may bring the airframes home still works against you as far as the campaign engine goes. Successfully competing missions drives the war in the players favor especially if he/she continues to successfully do their missions properly.
-
Right. If you intend to fly it, make your flight an AI. Though, I’m not sure your wingman will shoot his AGM-88.
-
Right. If you intend to fly it, make your flight an AI. Though, I’m not sure your wingman will shoot his AGM-88.
“Sometimes” they do shoot one off (never yet have seen Wing fire both on their own) with a “Weapons Free” but I take an HTS pod with me even if my own ship is not carrying AGM88s on a SEAD/DEAD mission. That way I can select targets FOR him and he will shoot when ordered “Attack my target”… same goes for Element in a 4 ship.
-
I’m sorry I disagree because a mission failure is accumulated, even though you may bring the airframes home still works against you as far as the campaign engine goes. Successfully competing missions drives the war in the players favor especially if he/she continues to successfully do their missions properly.
Dully noted. BUT, as one that has flown just about every flavor of this sim, I have never had a campaign go awry due to my occasional mission failures. Especially in the areas of CAPS and SEAD. The cumulative effect of those on the campaign, again in my experience, has been negligible. Hence my comment to the OP to not get hung up in the minutiae.
-
Thanks for all the replies everyone. Sounds like it is a limitation of the campaign engine, which is fine. My only remaining uncertainty is what Jkot254 mentioned:
…failure is accumulated, even though you may bring the airframes home still works against you as far as the campaign engine goes.
I guess IF this is true, I should probably not run auto generated SEAD missions and frag them as DEAD?
-
Thanks for all the replies everyone. Sounds like it is a limitation of the campaign engine, which is fine. My only remaining uncertainty is what Jkot254 mentioned:
I guess IF this is true, I should probably not run auto generated SEAD missions and frag them as DEAD?
Replied above.
-
Thanks for all the replies everyone. Sounds like it is a limitation of the campaign engine, which is fine. My only remaining uncertainty is what Jkot254 mentioned:
I guess IF this is true, I should probably not run auto generated SEAD missions and frag them as DEAD?
That is one way of doing it. Remove all air defense first so you no need to worry about it later.
-
That is one way of doing it. Remove all air defense first so you no need to worry about it later.
To me an interesting part of the BMS campaign dynamic involves whether or not to go all-out on DEAD as the campaign progresses. It seems like around Day 2-3 of a campaign you still get point and pop-up threats , but generally Sam’s stop shooting . I’ve always assumed they run out of missiles, and I’m unsure of the BMS modeling of resupplying them. However that works, it does raise a question. Should you then be expending your efforts on targets that at least seem mission-killed , at least within the timeframe of the campaign? Or, should you go after tank columns, do CAS,etc.?
Personally, I stay on DEAD as, well, “Iron Hand’s my Thing”, and it seems truer to real life. I view my squadron as a dedicated SEAD/DEAD unit . Like IRL, it does other missions, but DEAD is it’s core mission. BUT, I’m also not too concerned about mission failures , “scoring”, and such. Perhaps I look at it too much through that filter. So, perhaps that philosophy isn’t right for someone who is interested in “The Score”.
I’ve read what Quasi, Jkot, and Lorik have written above and it makes me realize there may be more then more way to skin a cat. Like Quasi , we can be thinking about protecting packages and bringing airframes home, accomplishing the mission. I’m somewhat in that camp, but I try to compromise. I protect the packages, AND blow enough Bad Guys up to get mission scores. That, BTW, is another reason I like DEAD over SEAD.
On the other hand, we can “work within the System” as Lorik is suggesting with his AI comment.
Both seem to work, and what is best is “above my pay grade”.
Another topic above is regards the use of AI wingmen. I’m with Icer on the “bring HTS and use ‘attack my target’ approach”, though I do load the wingie with hard kill ordinance. But, that too is a personal “filter”. I’m not a big fan of HARM, at least beyond the very early stage of the campaign -
To me an interesting part of the BMS campaign dynamic involves whether or not to go all-out on DEAD as the campaign progresses. It seems like around Day 2-3 of a campaign you still get point and pop-up threats , but generally Sam’s stop shooting . I’ve always assumed they run out of missiles, and I’m unsure of the BMS modeling of resupplying them. However that works, it does raise a question. Should you then be expending your efforts on targets that at least seem mission-killed , at least within the timeframe of the campaign? Or, should you go after tank columns, do CAS,etc.?
Personally, I stay on DEAD as, well, “Iron Hand’s my Thing”, and it seems truer to real life. I view my squadron as a dedicated SEAD/DEAD unit . Like IRL, it does other missions, but DEAD is it’s core mission. BUT, I’m also not too concerned about mission failures , “scoring”, and such. Perhaps I look at it too much through that filter. So, perhaps that philosophy isn’t right for someone who is interested in “The Score”.
I’ve read what Quasi, Jkot, and Lorik have written above and it makes me realize there may be more then more way to skin a cat. Like Quasi , we can be thinking about protecting packages and bringing airframes home, accomplishing the mission. I’m somewhat in that camp, but I try to compromise. I protect the packages, AND blow enough Bad Guys up to get mission scores. That, BTW, is another reason I like DEAD over SEAD.
On the other hand, we can “work within the System” as Lorik is suggesting with his AI comment.
Both seem to work, and what is best is “above my pay grade”.
Another topic above is regards the use of AI wingmen. I’m with Icer on the “bring HTS and use ‘attack my target’ approach”, though I do load the wingie with hard kill ordinance. But, that too is a personal “filter”. I’m not a big fan of HARM, at least beyond the very early stage of the campaignJSOWS or Clusters for DEAD?? Just asking on what your go to weapon type is.
-
JSOWS or Clusters for DEAD?? Just asking on what your go to weapon type is.
Me, I have an ongoing love affair with the AGM-154A JSOW w/145 BLU97s… In Pre for known/fixed sites and VIS for hunting. Devastating weapon, if you “lead” a moving tank column correctly you can do some serious damage…
-
JSOWS or Clusters for DEAD?? Just asking on what your go to weapon type is.
Hi, Jkot.Like Icer, I do like the “shotgun effect” of JSOW. CBU’s may be more “sporty”, but I like some standoff capability. I also view JSOW implementation a little like Force Correlate on the Mav-G , attacking “an area” and not being reliant on having to get a point track on a pop-up threat. Also, like Icer wrote, you can even get movers. Yesterday, in fact, my AI wingie and I made a mess of a moving Mech column for our 8 JSOW
My Go-To loadout for “Killbox DEAD” is JSOW as primary, and Mav-G or GBU-54’s for point targets and movers. SDB can also be useful, as the Sam batteries don’t move while shooting , or so it seems.I also like SLAM for “Grumble Hunting”.
But, that’s just me working with my strengths and weaknesses. If I were as good with Mav’s as a certain MP friend (you know who you are ) I’d use more Mav’s