Tactics for dealing with a SAM nest
-
Hey… for sure you are right. BMS is pretty much as close to the reality as it gets. I just noticed the differences in Air to air and air to ground being rather small but vast in terms of Electronic Warfare. Everything I wrote are considerations for Real Life. And this is only the tip of the iceberg. It takes literally years and very many hours of reading through principles of electronic warfare, tactics guides and intelligence reports, not to say lots and lots of try and error. What works one day is not necessarily working the next day even if everything is set up identically.
It was just some food for thought to recognize that SEAD/DEAD is in reality a high and complex composite operation involving many many assets, missiles and bombs, men and even more planning hours before execution. Simply launching a HARM on a cooperative emitting Single System is not gonna cut it.
Not to say you wouldn’t ever fly into a IADS without jamming support.It wasn’t supposed to be negative criticism. I just really spent a large part of my adult life digging into this stuff down to the very specific individual details.
-
What a funboy comment, just keep repeating the groupie comments , & like every thing else is so realistic here.
And at 20 times the cost of a CBU-87 don’t you think it might be an effective weapon.
Please think for your selves & even do some research ……,
Let’s back up the truck a second. The AGM-154 JSOW is available in 3 flavors (ignoring A1 and C1), 2 of which are available in BMS. These are the “A” which contain 145 CEBs compared to the 202 CEBs carried in the CBU-87. That’s 72%. One would expect that it should be about 72% as powerful as a CBU-87 with no chance of being more than 100% as powerful.
The “B” variant contains 6 BLU-108s compared to the 8 in the CBU-97 for exactly a 75% load. Again it should be less and certainly not more powerful than the more of the exact same payload in another weapon.
And lastly the “C” variant which is a unitary BROACH warhead which is actually very conservatively modeled in BMS for terminal effect (comparable to GBU-31v3), but unfortunately isn’t in any default campaigns in any quantity.
What Shadow posted is as needlessly insulting to haukka81 as it is nonsense.
-
For a person from a country which supposedly speaks English, I cannot abide this nonsense…
Nice one Fred, “supposedly speaks English”,Yes more nonsense. Your making it personal & racial now.
I can get just as effective use out of a CBU-87 as a single 154a, its the delivery method here that makes a difference.
This is a game, and continued degrading reference to anyone using JSOWs as being arcade is laughable elitist bullshit.
-
Keep editing Fred, and you say I’m being insulting. What a joke.
-
Yes BMS is game but thats not the point, curent jsow is way overpower weapon because its curent modeling and its not only weapon that is uber for now.
Harm is 100% perfect weapon too.
IMHO jsow is arcade for now , think and play what you want, i don’t care.
-
What a funboy comment, just keep repeating the groupie comments , & like every thing else is so realistic here.
And at 20 times the cost of a CBU-87 don’t you think it might be an effective weapon.
Please think for your selves & even do some research ……,
YouTube proofs nothing, no weapon is perfect
-
My take on it - JSOW is a rated loadout (even the 4 on BRU-57s) and the A was in service in the 90s (not exactly new)
Strong Korea is hardly realistic - but its an environment you should be using Standoff weapons in.
Real SAMs are layered and should have SHORAD etc - standoff weapons were developed for todays air defences so you should be using them - not trying to fly over an SA-10 with a Nam era MK-82.
The fact they blow up the entire site - cant say I’m crying - I just ignore it
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/agm-154-joint-standoff-weapon-jsow/
Over 400 JSOWs have been used in combat operations, of which more than 300 missiles were launched during Operation Iraqi Freedom. The AGM-154 was also deployed in Operation Desert Fox, Operation Southern Watch, NATO’s Operation Allied Force, and Operation Enduring Freedom.
-
If your dealing with SA2 only, they are pretty easy to defeat as long as you have a bit of distance between ur ac and the sam site. For example, if you get SA2 warning on your rwr at 22,000ft, put it at your 10 or 2 o’clock, proceed until you are fired upon, and then turn the jammer on and then break right or left to put the missile at your 6 o’clock. You don’t even have to go full burner, military power is enough, as long as you are gaining speed (drop altitude to about 15,000). Then the missile loses you, and then you repeat the same steps multiple times. Eventually they will run out of missiles (usually you have to defeat 8~10 missiles), and then you can just gun the radar down. It’s boring and annoying but it is safe way to get rid of one or two sa2 sites.
-
I can get just as effective use out of a CBU-87 as a single 154a, its the delivery method here that makes a difference.
You can? That’s interesting. Can you share what delivery parameters produce similar results to the JSOW A model? I haven’t had nearly the results with a CBU-87 as I’ve had with an AGM-145A.
Anyway, if that’s true then that just suggests all the CEB-equipped weapons are bonkers in BMS. There’s a reason they are released in multiple pairs as a rule. The shaped charge needs to directly hit armor to have a severe effect. They are basically air-dropped bazooka rounds (with frag secondary). Arithmetically 202 bomblets spread over 80,000 m^2 hitting any reasonable number of 25m^2 T-72s looks problematic even with center-weighted distributions and 2-6 weapons with overlap. Of course walking or driving a thin truck in the footprint is bad news as the fragmentation is near complete. When employed in the dedicated anti-armor role the HOF is turned down to produce acceptable bomblet density but the footprint shrinks too to be more of a 1:1 weapon-target ratio unless they’re parked like in a dealership. It can plaster a small area or it can tickle a large area but it can’t do both.
So unless the AGM-145A is delivering its 145 BLU-97s (72% of the 202 in a CBU) with some special method to ensure a 30% hit rate, I can’t see the in-game effect being plausible. The JSOW is a very impressive weapon with regards to avionics but its payload is identical units to (and less of them than) the CBU-87. The burden is on you to back up your conclusions with supporting facts. A hand-waving “oh it’s a sophisticated weapon” is not sufficient. The widely held view is that the AGM-145A in BMS is over modeled in terminal effect. Facts and explanation are required to counter that established view.
The JSOW-A is over modeled. That isn’t to say it shouldn’t be used but its flaws must be acknowledged. Sometimes it’s the right weapon based on standoff and target value needs and the extra damage is accepted as a necessary evil. To pretend that its a battalion-eraser in reality is either misinformed or deluded. There are many aspects of BMS that require restraint and moderation on the part of the user to pursue maximum realism. “What the software lets you get away with” is fine if playing the software is the goal but I won’t accept that blanket pejorative of “elitist” to regulating software behavior with further understanding. Elitism is setting up a distinction between groups not based on facts and actively discourages changing group identity. That’s not what’s happening here. By the same argument players that do the full PRI/SEC engine checks on the ramp are idiots because it never fails in the software.
Respect cannot be demanded. If over reliance on the JSOW doesn’t garner respect then that’s that. Either act in a way that makes other choose to give respect or live without it. I don’t think poorly of using a JSOW against an SA-10 site in a high value package tasking. I get judgmental when it is commonly used in non-threatening environments against low value targets. It is anyone’s prerogative to make such judgements. If a different opinion is desired either change behavior, sway my thinking, or “too bad.” “This is a game” suggests that the user doing whatever the software allows must be viewed as equal to the user that applies extra levels beyond the software’s constraint. I disagree. I think more highly of the user that recognizes and works beyond software limitations with a mind for the bigger picture.
-
Iono Frederf, while I agree that JSOW in BMS is over-modeled, I don’t think it is outrageously over-modeled. I have used JSOWs in the past but I have never seen it get rid of half a battalion, much less a whole one. Perhaps when the enemy vehicles are really close together, I would see smokes from 5~8 vehicles that were hit by the JSOW.
I also think that the method of delivery of two weapons can yield different results, in some cases. For example, you think think of a scenario where a group of vehicles are parked in one line, as they are often in BMS, and if a JSOW flies over along the line of the vehicles spreading all its BLU’s, then the BLU’s will have more chance of hitting the vehicles.
With that said, it would be nice if someone who has seen the ‘power’ of JSOW come out and say whether it is over-modeled or not. I would love to know.
Lastly, I don’t think using JSOW has anything to do with gaining respect, partially because the JSOW isn’t the only thing that is mis-modeled in BMS. We all know that a lot of things in BMS including the AMRAAM, sidewinders, flares, chaffs, radars, etc etc are far from being modeled perfectly, and understandably so (lack of info/classified specs etc). Don’t get me wrong, I have a huge respect for the devs and everyone who puts the game together, but if you get all worked up about one weapon that is not modeled, honestly I don’t know how you play any game/sim, much less enjoying any syfy movies.
-
Please stop making it personal.
Debate whether a weapon is modeled right = ok.
Making negative statements about the user commenting on the weapon = not ok.I personally don’t use JSOWs because it takes all the fun out of it… sitting 20 miles away and destroying half the enemy column with a single weapon. But the JSOW, just like the actual nuke, is still in the sim and there for those to use it that want to use it. Select it in the loadout or not. Everybody wins.
-
I have heard and seen almost everything when it comes to SEAD/DEAD
Usually SEAD and especially DEAD doesn’t only come in 1 Two-Ship of F-16’s and is succesful after one run.
Usually it goes like this.
1.: Detect, ID, Track
Stationary Systems like SA-2,3,5 are easy to detect. You can even locate them on satellite pictures and measure exact coordinates of the radar, launchers, C2 facilities.
Mobile Systems like SA-6,8,9,11,13,17,19,22 (limited SA-10/20/21) are much harder to detect. Especially if they use tactics like EMCON (emission control), established an IADS (integrated Air defense system = connected systems that provide each other with redundant information. Like a Link 16 network.) JEZ (Joint engagement Zone) capability or - especially in the new systems - usw LPI (low probability of intercept) or ECCM (Electronic Counter Counter Measure) Techniques.
You can only find what you see.
And you need to know what you detect. In an IADS you will unless an engagement takes place, never see a indepentent search signal of a single SAM system. You have to crack it up by killing the EW (Early Warning Radars) first to force them to operate their Target Acquisition radards (TA).
A Target Tracking / Missile Guidance (MG) or Target Illuminator (TI) signal might not be long enough on, to locate the respective system and fight it.
So you might need to trigger a system controlled in order have it give up its position. Some systems use dislocated launchers (NASAMS) which you wont see on your RWR or HTS. Nasty stuff… but thats a different story.By finding the system alone it ts not done yet. You also need a precise as much location. The HTS - unrealistically replicated in BMS - is not able to create pin point coordinates. It’s just not possilble by the way it works! Trust me. Especially not Head / Tail On. There are aircraft in the worlds that specialize in detecting SAMS and providing these coordinates (RC-135, E-8, E-3A) and they will not provide you with coordinates that are precise enough to throw a JDAM or fire a cruise missile on it. A HARM its close enough since it has a Search Footprint on the ground and uses active emission of the target to home inboung the radar site.
2. Engage
Needs to be as quick and coordinated as possible. Especially mobile systems move fast. If they shut down move 1000 meters and start radiating from there, they will watch nice fireworks, when your bombs hit the old location and shoot you down anyways.
They almost never come alone! They are always in batteries. Maybe with data link. So a system outside its max missile range can illuminate you for a misslie shot by another system right underneath you which you didn’t notice.
Your prios with SAMS should be.
1. Avoid (re-route, fly underneath the radar horizon or use terrainmasking)
2. Defeat (use the reaction time, fly beam attacks on protected targets, never fly head on! fly out maneuvers when you are engaged, usw decoys chaff and ECM! Never ever enter the Lethal Range (RMAX2 (never escape range))
3. Engage (Stand-off and -in Jammers, HARMS, Bombs, Cruise Missiles (you will need a lot…)If you cannot do 1. or 2.:
You can fight it by Suppression (SEAD) or kill it permanently with DEAD.
SEAD can be achieved by using Jammers, AGM-88, maybe cyber attacks or sometimes by pure presence. You always should consider the HARM not being a duel weapon. If you fire it after you being engaged, the engagement will be complete prior to your missile even being close to the target. Because the Radar emission you fired it on (and thus its target) will be gone by the time it gets there - whereas you will be shot down hanging on your chute already.
AGM-88s should - if possible - be employed pre-emptive. This means you have an established contract when someone enters a known threat. When this happens the HARMS need to be on their way already. Accordingly spaced based on impact timing and also sorted by factor targets. One HARM will not be enough. It doesn’t provide 100% Probablility ok kill (PK). So you wanna double target / multiple target a system if your loadout allows. You have to know the time, the bombers need protection. When start when stop. Can they manuever differently? Use stand-off? Terrain masking? Altitude/Speed to minimize exposure and the vulnerability window. The HARMS will now impact in a string. Either they switch off their radar, HARMS will miss but they can’t engage or they engage and get hit by the missiles. Either way we achieved SUPPRESIONQuick Example:
Single SA-6 (Range is 15NM/RMAX2 10NM, Altitude 60000’, Reactoin time 20 seconds from Acquisition to Missile launch)
Bomber Target 9 NM from the SAM. Attack Track head-on towards the SAM. Speed .8 Mach. Egress 180° out.
TOT at 12:00:00zProtection required:
From entry of RMAX1 until Exit of RMAX2.
That means the bomber will fly 45 seconds towards the sam (15NM - 9NM = 6NM @.8M = 45s)
turn around 180° is roughly 15s
egress 9NM (TGT) until 10NM (RMAX2) is 7.5s.
Total Exposure to SAM= 1’08’’ / 20seconds (reaction time) = 5 HARMS1. Bomber at RMAX1
2. +20’’
3. +40’’ …Let’s say they don’t fly in there as a Single but in a 4-Ship (2 by 2) with 1 min spacign to cater for Bomb TOF, Frag down time, Smoke clearence…)
Protection required is now 2:10 minutes. Equivalent to 8 HARMS.
Lets say we now have two targets covered by two 4 ships.
Lets say we have another SA-8, SA-17 in there (require higher frequency HARM salvos sice they have lower reaction time).It adds up to a number of HARMS, which you simply don’t have! A 4-ship of F-16 carries 8 … you do the math.
See why avoiding isn’t too bad?
DEAD is even more complex.
Besides Finding and locating the target you now need SEAD support for the DEAD Bombers. All well coordinated of course so nobody gets engaged. They probably have to work their Targeting Pods for 5-10 minutes to find a camouflaged SA-6 near a forest to get exact coordinates for their bombs because all you got so far is a rough estimate.So all in a nutshell… SEAD/DEAD is an ART! And it’s even more complex then what BMS demonstrates us. Because otherwise we all would lose interest in flying these kind of missions since it’s very very hard to simulate correctly. And let me tell you: even if you do it as perfectly as you can including, Electronic Support forces, Jammers, HARMS, Bombs, Pre-emptive HARM Shot plans and so on. It’s still prone to fail since it is very dynamic an as much as a single SA-6 moved by 1NM in the last 2 hours from the last INTEL update can decide between success and fail of an entire operation resulting in many losses of aircraft and lifes.
If you have questions let me now
EDIT: Oh…and I didn’t mention the advanced Systems Anti-ARM and -PGM capabilities They will make your life even harder…
We have a VERY good post here! (sounds professional for sure. ;))
Thank you Matt.
-
Unfortunately … there is no such SAM tactics in Falcon4 at this point and radar/SAMs/EW are so basic (even if one of the most advanced I’ve even seen in a public simulation) that it is not possible to enjoy the full spectrum of SEAD/DEAD tasks. All what we can do is “playing the game” by respecting “virtually” some RL limitations not implemented yet.
But for ppl who just want to “win the game”, yes, it is easy with current SAM implementation and behavior.
One more time … we are facing the usual : 80% o the realism of the sim is coming from the user himself. The simulator is just the tool.
IMHO jsow is arcade for now ,
This is rather true in 4.32 … but not more than RWR or fuel gauge.
Baby step after baby step … hopefully, it will become better and better … maybe 4.34 … (?)
In any cases, we will alway have to face some limitations (DEV resources, computer power, AI implementation, classified informations, …)
-
Well, the devs need to code a brain to the bomblets in the cluster munitions
-
I did some tests by myself some time ago since you do not have AGM-88 in the 70’s or 80’s style theaters like BfS on Falcon online and you don’t have them in any FO theater.
I even tried to leave the HTS away and only use the TGP. The older SAM’s can be done with CBU’s, but it’s tricky and dangerous because of the ZSU-23-4, Tunguska, MANPADS and other bad guys.
Usually, I use CBU-87 CEM, CBU-97 SFW or MK-20 with a BA between 1000 to 2000ft, lofting them with a release angle of 20° which gives a short popup. With 20° release angle, you usually get a fast and shallow loft, allowing to bomb even ground units with SA-13’s inside. Pop with Mach 0.9, loft, overbank, chaff/ flare, and get to the deck again.See the result here:
Mav’s work too, they are not too bad either. Knock out the radar, and then beat them up with CBU’s or GBU’s above the reach of MANPADS.
The key to success is to minimize exposure time by hiding behind even the smallest hills, going to the deck or even lofting over a hilltop (you can actually loft without line of sight by setting markpoints).
For threats like the SA-13, SA-8 and SA-9, I use GBU-12’s a lot. Just use the TGP to find those and drop a GBU right there.When trees in BMS 4.33 will come, I will have to add about 10 ft to my egress altitude
Side Note: This video was created before I even knew how to zoom in with MAN RNG on the TGP :uham:
-
It should be noted that I don’t use a 20° loft angle on the radar though- this will place you in the envelope. I did a few mistakes in the video (see description), but it was just a test I recorded.
Fascinating thing is: I have done it with a pair of MK-82 AIR (snakeeyes) too. Negative thing is that you have to actually overfly the target, making you vulvnerable to AAA (hello Shilka, I’m talking of you).
Snakeeyes rock :bowd: -
Great Vid Tobias…. learnt a lot from it and ways for me to make a cleaner run. I had all the right ideas just not the clean implementation so thanks for your vid. Great job!
-
You can do a POP Up attack too. I’ve been carrying a HARM to lock the target, mark as steerpoint, then deposit some Mk-20 on the local. Good