373 vFS Operation Phoenix Flag
-
The problem is that in BMS a HARM can be fired at 70-80 nm from the SA10 at A40 and hit it with 100% Pk…reports from Gulf War are far away from that Pk…
-
The problem is that in BMS a HARM can be fired at 70-80 nm from the SA10 at A40 and hit it with 100% Pk…reports from Gulf War are far away from that Pk…
First : a lot of shots done “in preventive”.
Second : IMHO, I’m pretty sure the missile can go that far IRL.
Third : EMCON tactics, first version of HARM without INS, means that if you shut down your radar, missile cannot hit you… I am pretty sure Iraqi operators quickly learned to do that.
In F4, the HARM INS was assumed perfect (and still is), that is the biggest unrealistic thing. Otherwise, I think its pretty decent.
If you think it’s unbalanced maybe the BMS Devs can take that as an to do thing for the next update.
First : unbalanced does not matter, unrealistic does.
Second : wait 3-4 weeks ( ) and see
Anyway this discussion has already been beaten to death and this thread is not specifically about this
-
Cruz said all.
The problem is that in BMS a HARM can be fired at 70-80 nm from the SA10 at A40 and hit it with 100% Pk…reports from Gulf War are far away from that Pk…
It is not a question of PK. It is about how HARM are used IRL (refert to Cruz’s post) and radar operators are working (not implemented in BMS).
But we can agree on the fact that in BMS, HARM successfulness are higher than what we have seen IRL until now. But not only related to the missile itself.
-
The problem is that in BMS a HARM can be fired at 70-80 nm from the SA10 at A40 and hit it with 100% Pk…reports from Gulf War are far away from that Pk…
Dont worry Daisan, this is just an exercise to make some friends and enjoy flying together. Lets give our best to put blue forces in a difficult situation. No problem if they have Harms or Jsow, lets kick some blue asses and take some beers after if we can
-
if there is sortage on the RED side, 320th can fill it
-
Sorry to spoil the thread, but could not resist on the HARM issue. This is a previous post of mine on the same issue, years ago.
Few things about SEAD / DEAD in real life and in BMS
-
The HTS is a US luxury pod. Outside the US, the Pentagon offers an export downgraded version HTS(E), which as the name implies is something less capable. AFAIK, only a handful of air forces have the HTS(E) pod, but again even this pod is not a truly HTS one.
-
The HTS pod is a reactive one. That means the GBAD or an EW radar has to emmit in order to be detected by the pod.
For the above two reasons, POS modes are handy and the only SEAD choice for the majority of western air forces outside the US.
As for the philosophy that lies behind POS mode employment and HTS pod, we can take two RL extreme case scenarios:
a) The amateurish Arabic SAM tactics as were observed during Operation Desert Storm (Iraq), Operation El Dorado Canyon (Libya 1986) and Operation Mole Cricket 19 (Lebanon 1982).
b) The superb Serb SAM tactics as were observed during Operation Allied Force.
In the first three cases, the US and Israeli forces first jammed or destroyed the EW radars of the enemy. This in turn forced the Iraqis, the Libyans and the Syrians to operate the radars of their SAMs to search for western a/c. A devastating tactic because they operated them for long time. As a result, Wild Weasel a/c had no difficulty to pinpoint and destroy them with anti radiation missiles. In addition, during the Bekaa Valley turkey shoot, the Syrians operated the mobile SA-6 as if they were static.
This is what happens -to some extend- in BMS as well. Falcon BMS does not simulate an IADS or at least a linked GBADs system. Every SAM in Falcon is an autonomous unit that does not EMCON (EMission CONtrol). In fact, SEAD missions are quite easy regardless of the lethality of the SAM system. Just load an HTS pod and chances are that you gonna hit a SAM most of the time.
Quite the contrary happened during the Operation Allied Force. The Serbs employed shoot and hide tactics to a great extend and they took advantage of their mobile SAMs. In fact out of the 25 SA-6 they had, only 3 SA-6 were destroyed during the 75 days campaign. Because of the forrest terrain, JSTARS could not easily find ground moving targets, therefore ELINT was poor since day 1. Furthermore, the Serbs operated their SAM radars for about 20 secs maximum. Enough time to take a picture and short time for every reaction SEAD move. In addition, they operated land based communication links. An EW radar that was not jammed by Prowlers, could get an aerial picture and fed it to widespead GBADs. When the Allied a/c were within the SAMs envelope, then and only then the Serb operators would switch on their SAM radar, track (not search), fire immediately and few secs then they switched them off again and they relocated.
With the aforementioned SAM tactic, an HTS pod cannot offer much. To counter for this uncertainty, the SEAD F-16CJ fired pre-emptive HARMs (PET Shots) in POS modes. Whenever a Strike package was about to reach an area where SA-6 were thought to be present, the SEAD flight fired a salvo of HARMs in predetermined time intervals. The logic behind this was that should the SA-6 switched on their radar then a HARM could catch it. If the Serbs wouldnt operate the SAM radars then the strike package would continue unopposed.
Most of the time the Serbs didnt switched on their SAM radars (EMCON procedures) but they fired salvos of missiles ballistically. Although unguided, this tactic forced many Allied a/c to jettison their stores, abandon their missions and start defensive maneuvers for psychological reasons. In fact, 65% of the 700+ HARM shots during the Allied Force operation were PET shots in POS modes.
Anyway, I am sure Cipher will make a great mission with or without HARMs
-
-
Anyway, I am sure Cipher will make a great mission with or without HARMs
+100
This is the reason E69 will be there!!
-
Nice Post Mystic.
Let´s compare this nice lecture with BMS. If it comes to BMS, the following is the current situation:
-
HARMs operate as true passive emmission-seeking missiles, if used in HAS/POS, BUT operate as millimetric GPS precise missiles (“from the rails”), if used with HAD, even able to hit radars without any emissions !!?? Problem is, in order to remove the HTS pod (hence the HAD page), one has to modify the sim .dat files, which leads to conflicts as we don´t have dedicated sim folders under Add-on xxxx theater folders yet. This might change, who knows.
-
Original Falcon introduced simplified, but yet VERY effective SAM behaviours. The so called “buddy launch”, “ambush launch” and “blinking” (like EMCON) tactics in order to simulate human-like and defensive behaviours versus HARMs and airborne threats like planes. What those tactics did in detail, can be read in the original “Falcon 4.0 Original Manual.pdf” manual, chapter 26 (I recommend every DEV to read that part), because it reflects the content of your story above. Those features unfortunatly do not work in BMS. I hope one day they will again.
-
Furthermore, the ability of SAMs to communitcate with eachother and other RADARs (IADS connectivity; early warning, runway-radars, tripleAAA radars etc. i.e.) or the so called C3-network (communication, command and control network) of Falcon4 (to many known simply as CGI) was the basis of those tactics, but is also not operational in BMS.
The original authors of Falcon understood the IADS/SEAD problematic and thus introduced the C3 network in combination with the “SAM - Tactics”. This presented itself as a simple, but yet smart compromised solution, simulating much more exciting and realistic combat-expiriences. Although it was not perfectly implemented, the purpose of it was clear. Bringing back those features are my personal nr#1 wishes for future versions of BMS tbh. before anything else - and as far as i know, Biker is looking into it. I wish him the very best to succeed.
Happy new Year
PS: Also see the difference of “Aimed Fire” and “Barrage Fire” of AAAs in that chapter.
-
-
Sorry to spoil the thread, but could not resist on the HARM issue. This is a previous post of mine on the same issue, years ago.
Few things about SEAD / DEAD in real life and in BMS
-
The HTS is a US luxury pod. Outside the US, the Pentagon offers an export downgraded version HTS(E), which as the name implies is something less capable. AFAIK, only a handful of air forces have the HTS(E) pod, but again even this pod is not a truly HTS one.
-
The HTS pod is a reactive one. That means the GBAD or an EW radar has to emmit in order to be detected by the pod.
For the above two reasons, POS modes are handy and the only SEAD choice for the majority of western air forces outside the US.
As for the philosophy that lies behind POS mode employment and HTS pod, we can take two RL extreme case scenarios:
a) The amateurish Arabic SAM tactics as were observed during Operation Desert Storm (Iraq), Operation El Dorado Canyon (Libya 1986) and Operation Mole Cricket 19 (Lebanon 1982).
b) The superb Serb SAM tactics as were observed during Operation Allied Force.
In the first three cases, the US and Israeli forces first jammed or destroyed the EW radars of the enemy. This in turn forced the Iraqis, the Libyans and the Syrians to operate the radars of their SAMs to search for western a/c. A devastating tactic because they operated them for long time. As a result, Wild Weasel a/c had no difficulty to pinpoint and destroy them with anti radiation missiles. In addition, during the Bekaa Valley turkey shoot, the Syrians operated the mobile SA-6 as if they were static.
This is what happens -to some extend- in BMS as well. Falcon BMS does not simulate an IADS or at least a linked GBADs system. Every SAM in Falcon is an autonomous unit that does not EMCON (EMission CONtrol). In fact, SEAD missions are quite easy regardless of the lethality of the SAM system. Just load an HTS pod and chances are that you gonna hit a SAM most of the time.
Quite the contrary happened during the Operation Allied Force. The Serbs employed shoot and hide tactics to a great extend and they took advantage of their mobile SAMs. In fact out of the 25 SA-6 they had, only 3 SA-6 were destroyed during the 75 days campaign. Because of the forrest terrain, JSTARS could not easily find ground moving targets, therefore ELINT was poor since day 1. Furthermore, the Serbs operated their SAM radars for about 20 secs maximum. Enough time to take a picture and short time for every reaction SEAD move. In addition, they operated land based communication links. An EW radar that was not jammed by Prowlers, could get an aerial picture and fed it to widespead GBADs. When the Allied a/c were within the SAMs envelope, then and only then the Serb operators would switch on their SAM radar, track (not search), fire immediately and few secs then they switched them off again and they relocated.
With the aforementioned SAM tactic, an HTS pod cannot offer much. To counter for this uncertainty, the SEAD F-16CJ fired pre-emptive HARMs (PET Shots) in POS modes. Whenever a Strike package was about to reach an area where SA-6 were thought to be present, the SEAD flight fired a salvo of HARMs in predetermined time intervals. The logic behind this was that should the SA-6 switched on their radar then a HARM could catch it. If the Serbs wouldnt operate the SAM radars then the strike package would continue unopposed.
Most of the time the Serbs didnt switched on their SAM radars (EMCON procedures) but they fired salvos of missiles ballistically. Although unguided, this tactic forced many Allied a/c to jettison their stores, abandon their missions and start defensive maneuvers for psychological reasons. In fact, 65% of the 700+ HARM shots during the Allied Force operation were PET shots in POS modes.
Anyway, I am sure Cipher will make a great mission with or without HARMs
Really good post, in BMS there are a lot of weak points for air defence systems and anti radiation weapons:
- The HARM missiles and all anti-radiation missiles they seem to be GPS guided.
- The air defence systems aren’t cooperatives like in Falcon AF and they don’t use a low EMCOM startegy.
- Some SAM missile, like SA10, use a good flight model but some improvement is needed in the range of engagement.
A solution to make the game more exciting it can be to use the AGM 45, but these weapons have only a shorter range but the same not realistic precision.
We hope it’ll be better in 4.33
D.
-
-
Very informative post and most enjoyable to read. Now the only thing needed is for this information to be turned into usable code and implemented in BMS. As AS stated without the change to relevant files then this cant be implemented in theatres other than Korea. See what 4.33 brings, its a new year coming and maybe new changes.
-
-
@A.S:
- HARMs operate as true passive emmission-seeking missiles, if used in HAS/POS, BUT operate as millimetric GPS precise missiles (“from the rails”), if used with HAD, even able to hit radars without any emissions !!?? Problem is, in order to remove the HTS pod (hence the HAD page), one has to modify the sim .dat files, which leads to conflicts as we don´t have dedicated sim folders under Add-on xxxx theater folders yet. This might change, who knows.
See my post above. IRL, AGM-88 has an INS module (otherwise, it couldnt do POS shots ). Its precision is too high in BMS. But : recent HARMs (AGM-88D) do have a GPS module with 10m precision….
@A.S:
-
Original Falcon introduced simplified, but yet VERY effective SAM behaviours. The so called “buddy launch”, “ambush launch” and “blinking” (like EMCON) tactics in order to simulate human-like and defensive behaviours versus HARMs and airborne threats like planes. What those tactics did in detail, can be read in the original “Falcon 4.0 Original Manual.pdf” manual, chapter 26 (I recommend every DEV to read that part), because it reflects the content of your story above. Those features unfortunatly do not work in BMS. I hope one day they will again.
-
Furthermore, the ability of SAMs to communitcate with eachother and other RADARs (IADS connectivity; early warning, runway-radars, tripleAAA radars etc. i.e.) or the so called C3-network (communication, command and control network) of Falcon4 (to many known simply as CGI) was the basis of those tactics, but is also not operational in BMS.
The original authors of Falcon understood the IADS/SEAD problematic and thus introduced the C3 network in combination with the “SAM - Tactics”. This presented itself as a simple, but yet smart compromised solution, simulating much more exciting and realistic combat-expiriences. Although it was not perfectly implemented, the purpose of it was clear. Bringing back those features are my personal nr#1 wishes for future versions of BMS tbh. before anything else - and as far as i know, Biker is looking into it. I wish him the very best to succeed.
Dont worry, the BMS team understand this needs too. But :
- I honestly think what is present in the original manual was never in F4 regarding IADS.
- IF it was and has been removed, it is for valid reasons (very probably stability issues).
-
If the mods can split please the arguments about HARM and it’s implementation on BMS from the rest of the operation discussion? We have always used HARM is it is in BMS and there is no further discussion about it in this Operation for now. There are a lot of things that we could fit in to this argument like other weapons or the Mirage implementation etc. they are out of the scope of this thread.
Once again we in 373rd have decided to create a comao mission to fly with the community. Instead of flying against AI and limit the max pilots we’ve decided to open these spots to other pilots and in all fairness there is no issue of balance or unbalance or realistic or unrealistic. Everything is setup as it was in my head as I designed this mission and with that thought in mind, each and every human packet will have something to do and be busy and hopefully have fun. We have already made changed to implement different aircraft types according to other squadrons wishes as it doesn’t unbalance the main attack scheme. If things turn out to be as they should then things are going to be very difficult and time pressing for both sides. Once again I say to both EdAv and E69 that 373rd is happy to fly the Red role and get you guys in the Comao, just drop me a pm.
So let’s fly this and I will accept at the end every negative and positive critic as it’s my will to make it a regular operation. That is the point of debrief and lessons learned after all.
After the holidays I will contact all of the above representatives of all participant flight squadrons and distribute Briefings, datacards, .ini files and everything I think you need to prepare and fly this. After the mission I can post all the files in this post if someone from the community is interested in having a look. In the conception of this operation we wanted to use Monster’s Online Squadron Collection to have Human ATC and AWACS for both sides but we haven’t had the time to prepare for this. Hopefully in one of the next missions we will.
Many thanks for all and happy holidays for you and your families
-
See my post above. IRL, AGM-88 has an INS module (otherwise, it couldnt do POS shots ). Its precision is too high in BMS. But : recent HARMs (AGM-88D) do have a GPS module with 10m precision….
You guys have just to decide if HARMs operate in BMS as “passive missiles” or as “rocket propelled gps bombs”. Or different versions, but the timeframe of Falcon4 and newers HARMs don´t really match.
Dont worry, the BMS team understand this needs too. But :
Glad “someone” understands.
- I honestly think what is present in the original manual was never in F4 regarding IADS.
Try out installing old versions and look for inherited artifacts in the code.
- IF it was and has been removed, it is for valid reasons (very probably stability issues).
meh…
PS: In order not to derail this thread further, i extracted that specific IADS part to our forums: http://falcon-online.org/forum/index.php?topic=1589.0
-
Agreed with Cipher, this thread has been derailed enough as it is. Please split into a separate discussion, this is getting increasingly hard to follow.
-
I would like to inform you that this event will take place a week later than mentioned. on Saturday 17th of January same time as before. Sorry for this!
-
Er… thus - by definition - “unrealistic”.
… The two responses seem diametrically opposed.One is about the AGM-88(x) missile guidance performance and range, the other is about AI SAM/RADAR behavior and targeting.
- I honestly think what is present in the original manual was never in F4 regarding IADS.
This is hat I’ve heard also from some of our coders. But waiting for a possible confirmation.
@A.S:
You guys have just to decide if HARMs operate in BMS as “passive missiles” or as “rocket propelled gps bombs”. Or different versions…
Not so easy, because is must be a combination of both switching from one to another, and depends also on mode and targeting (HAS vs HAD).
More has to be made (some has been already).We hope it’ll be better in 4.33
Out of scope of the 4.33
Maybe 4.34 … (?)
**EDIT:
If the mods can split please the arguments about HARM and it’s implementation on BMS from the rest of the operation discussion?
Sorry for OT. I am no more able to Split posts … but one can open a new thread, or find another discussion and copy all the related parts by using the quote feature.**
-
I would like to inform you that this event will take place a week later than mentioned. on Saturday 17th of January same time as before. Sorry for this!
mmm… it could change everything for me. My wife work in this date and I need to stay with my little two demons. I will try to talk with my guys to know if the new date change something for them too.
-
No problem so far with new day for us.
-
About HARMS. Nice to read all this info about the weapon and its pod. Very educational.
But who didn’t use the HARM missile and HTS like it is in BMS? What I’m trying to say is that this we have this we use, no metter how close or not in RL is. Comport with that we have at present up we get something better in the future.
Now, the main goals that we, in 373rd, hope to achieved is to have fun with people around the world trough something we all like (FalconBMS) and if we learn something from that will be a plus. For me is more fun to shot down Drakko than an AI and I think for Drakko same. Even if I shot down Cipher as a BoB shot (this is more possible than the Drakko shot down) will be much more fun and a reason to make a new patch and some jokes for the next months.
Guys don’t miss the main word. F U N ! ! !
@Drakko:Dont worry Daisan, this is just an exercise to make some friends and enjoy flying together. Lets give our best to put blue forces in a difficult situation. No problem if they have Harms or Jsow, lets kick some blue asses and take some beers after if we can
This is the right direction and spirit! Thumbs up Drakko, hope you will make it with new date mate.
So after ciphers latest post allow me to reprint and present to you all the exercises poster…