Proved effects of low level & silent human flight on observability by A.I. in BMS?
-
There goes another Asian Airliner.
-
Guys, how about going back to the original topic, ie :
Is there any clear evidence that suggests search radars or visual detection helps the AI in directing flights to intercept you ?
-
Must be impossible to say, with a crowded air space in on going campaign.
Perhaps if one could do a campaign with a single "scramble only "squadron?
If they are scrambled when you’re inside vis/search, then it would be so.
I know that if you’re inside vis/search you’re visible on ui map, but what the AI do with that, I don’t know.Cheers
-
Guys, how about going back to the original topic, ie :
Is there any clear evidence that suggests search radars or visual detection helps the AI in directing flights to intercept you ?
Thanks L3.
Indeed, i think it is very interesting for everyone to hear your experiences in this thread.
I did two seperate STRONG DPRK campaign missions this way (low level/silent) to OCA Kunsan AB and OCA Osan+Peongteag AB. Both proved really successfull without “expected” resistence, in a hostile dense area. Although successfull, one of my squadron mates challenges the choice for low level in favor of high level. So based on your experiences in past flights are we able to prove positive effects on observability by AI? Based on your experiences, how would you expect high level to play out in this regard?
How much will search radar and visual detection be a factor for observability in your opinion? -
Must be impossible to say, with a crowded air space in on going campaign.
Perhaps if one could do a campaign with a single "scramble only "squadron?
If they are scrambled when you’re inside vis/search, then it would be so.
I know that if you’re inside vis/search you’re visible on ui map, but what the AI do with that, I don’t know.Cheers
if someone set up a campaign that had an Air to Air squadron that only did intercepts, and a bunch of search radars, and thats all, that would certainly help explain whether the effects of low level flight decrease chance of being intercepted.
In my opinion, it seems that the effects of search radar detection are modeled, based on flights I have done in the past. Nothing recorded that could ‘prove’ it though.
I would challenge your squadmate to do a research paper USAFWS style, having him run a campaign flying at high level only compared to another campaign flying at low level only, and have him compare successful sortie rates.
He would have a vested interest in completing the paper so he would be less likely to give up on it halfway through at least.
-
So based on your experiences in past flights are we able to prove positive effects on observability by AI? Based on your experiences, how would you expect high level to play out in this regard?
‘Observability’ is a great feature to have less of but even greater is to have more of the ‘surviveability’ Surviveability decreases by a vast amount when you go down and dirty with the SHORADS, MANPADS and AAA. In a campaign it’s all about threat reaction, if you encounter scramblers and you’re high alt that most of the time is a single threat situation, if you stay below the radar and avoid scramblers, you might get into a SHORADS, MANPADS and AAA which is a multithreat situation, which one do you prefer?
-
I remember a real story where two nations trained against together and one of them decided to fly low level with emcon to avoid detection, but they were always spotted. After several losses, they met up to ask how they were able to find them so easily, and it turned out they flew low level over water and left a wake several miles long. All the other side had to do was look for and follow it to “kill” them.
BMS also has aircraft and environment effects, such as lighting and water spray, but they are removed from the human view pretty fast. Does AI have this same Mk.1 Eyeball limitation, or are they able to see beyond the “fog”?
@mookar:
if you stay below the radar and avoid scramblers, you might get into a SHORADS, MANPADS and AAA which is a multithreat situation, which one do you prefer?
-
Does AI have this same Mk.1 Eyeball limitation, or are they able to see beyond the “fog”?
As I know AI eyball has only range and gimbal limitations - you can check them in DB - but it can see through clouds, fog as well as you padlock and all of your IR sensor.
-
So from radar contact to identify it as hostile and fire, it’s 8 seconds?
Can that really be true?Definitely highly unlikely unless you have no ROE at all.
But having a positive ID and position data from the IADS, missile gyros spun-up and launchers steered accordingly, I can believe the SNR on air time before launch to be that low.
-
Al tend to cheat a bit when it comes to detection IMO.atleast friendlies, quite often ai wingmen would ask for me to ‘let me at em’ to aircraft just taking off. While falcon talks about modelling all these behaviours, it wouldn’t surprise me if there were big limitations and shortcuts taken; it is very old after all and I’m not sure how much this stuff has been worked on over the years.
-
@Akbar:
Definitely highly unlikely unless you have no ROE at all.
But having a positive ID and position data from the IADS, missile gyros spun-up and launchers steered accordingly, I can believe the SNR on air time before launch to be that low.
Well, the quoted scenario does simplify things a bit. As mentioned earlier, there’s a difference between IADS discovering you, and you detecting a SAM launching at you. The time gap in between that can be very long. By the time the FCR is actually switched on, a number of things will already have been established. Your position, identity, speed, direction, whether or not to engage, etc. If done by even an average skilled and capable IADS/SAM battery, turning on the FCR and locking you up will be the second to last step in the process of shooting you down. It may even be the very last step if the decision is made to blind fire the SAM and only provide terminal guidance. Actually turning on the FCR and using it to ID a target is a practice that was discontinued very early, even before the first SA-2s were even sent to combat IIRC.
You could compare it to a grunt sitting in a foxhole. He might be told you’re possibly coming down the trail he’s watching long before he can see you. By the time he can see you and you’re within range, he’s already prepared his Claymore, prepared his MG and aimed it roughly against where he thinks you’ll appear, etc. You’ll only notice him when he starts firing, and he’ll do that very quickly when you’re within range because he took care of all the time consuming preparations in trying to kill you long before you turned up, and made a few small adjustments based on what he saw when you came within sight and then within range.
TL;DR: The time it can take from discovering a plane to engaging it with a SAM can easily be at least up towards 10 minutes (even more, or less depending on circumstances. 10 minutes is just a random number here), whereas the time it takes to finally switch on the SAM FCR to guide a missile against you can be less than even 10 seconds.
-
The time it can take from discovering a plane to engaging it with a SAM can easily be at least up towards 10 minutes
I assume you’re taking into acount the time that it takes for an airplane to fly from the ‘area of responsability of the EW’ to the ‘area of responsability of the actual SAM FCR’, normally there’s a substantial difference in the ranges of those areas in favour of the EW radar. ‘Reaction time’ in the context of this thread is the time from target aquisition to SAM in the air BTW you’re right when saying that SA2s don’t survey the airspace with their FCRs explicitly turned on, even if they do it, they use a special mode of operation (don’t remember the specifics) and alternate the HPRFs to avoid HARMs.
-
Indeed. By that I referred to the earliest point as the aircraft simply being detected and at least somewhat continuously tracked by IADS to the point where a SAM battery gives said plane the bad news.