Proved effects of low level & silent human flight on observability by A.I. in BMS?

[Scuby]

Hello,

Are there any positive and proven effects of low level and silent (off-sensor) human flights on the observability by (hostile) A.I. in BMS?

Would low level human flight be less observable by (hostile) A.I.? Would a silent flight (FCR-off, ECM-off) additionally contribute to the total reduction of observability?

On what factors would one base the choice for low level/silent flight in favor of high altitude flight?

How would one weigh with greater certainty the disadvantages against the advantages of low level/silent flight in order to better estimate chance on mission success?

Thanks!
Cheers

Scub

[Stubbies2003]

@Scuby:

Hello,

Are there any positive and proven effects of low level and silent (off-sensor) human flights on the observability by (hostile) A.I. in BMS?

Would low level human flight be less observable by (hostile) A.I.? Would a silent flight (FCR-off, ECM-off) additionally contribute to the total reduction of observability?

There should be but I’ve never seen it in BMS. For example I’ve done missions like this on FO Red Flag trying to sneak close to either a SA-10/Patriot so it could be destroyed via Shrike missiles. It is effective at keeping the SAM site from shooting at you but it doesn’t seem to affect the AI ability to know where you are even with FCR in override and no ECM.

Without FCR and ECM the AI should be stuck with seeing you visually, tracking you via their own FCR or getting reports form their own search/SAM radar sites. When I did those missions I would use TFR and go hard ride/VLC to minimize and chance of enemy radars getting returns they could work with. They would also have to be scanning as low as I was and be able to pick me out of the ground clutter. As I stated though it never seemed to be a negative to the AI as they would always start chasing me around.

@Scuby:

On what factors would one base the choice for low level/silent flight in favor of high altitude flight?

The kind of mission I described above is a great example, up against modern SAM systems but limited to Shrikes for ARMs. If you tried a high altitude attack against either a SA-10 or a Patriot with only a Shrike you’ll be shot out of the skies long before you ever got within striking range of a Shrike. Of course you have to limit how long you are NOE as fuel flow is just horrific at buster.

@Scuby:

How would one weigh with greater certainty the disadvantages against the advantages of low level/silent flight in order to better estimate chance on mission success?

Thanks!
Cheers

Scub

The advantage is that IN THEORY you would be incredibly hard to find flying with sensors off. The disadvantage is that you only have the RTWS/HAD to give you an idea of what is around you and as stated before horrific fuel usage. The fuel useage alone limits the usefulness of this strat as well as situations where it would be necessary to try it that way.

[Scrim]

Personally I’ve found that low altitude flying is very sufficient for avoiding detection, even with FCR on. I can’t say I’ve done extensive studies of it with the aim to find out, but I know that I’ve definitely been able to pull off missions without getting bumped by hostile planes that would not be case if I had flown at regular altitudes.

Somewhat OT: I’ve tried using other ARMs than the HARM, but found that at least the Standard and possibly also the Shrike (IIRC) aren’t terribly well modeled. They would always hit, not matter what. I’m not sure if that’s because their hit probabilities haven’t been coded, or if it is because they’d reach ~Mach 6.

[l3crusader]

I dont know about “silent” either, but low level missions are indeed good to avoid detection. In the Panama theater, I flew several time the same mission to destroy an airbase, and I could only succeed with a low level approach. Otherwise, I was always intercepted.

[Hornet]

@Scuby:

Hello,

Would a silent flight (FCR-off, ECM-off) additionally contribute to the total reduction of observability?

Lol, I think that is just blindfolding yourself!

Just because you can’t see what you don’t like, doesn’t mean it’s not there

Greets!

[l3crusader]

@Hornet:

Lol, I think that is just blindfolding yourself!

Just because you can’t see what you don’t like, doesn’t mean it’s not there

Greets!

Ever heard of electronic warfare ?

What makes you think the enemy don’t have RWR ?

[Ahmed]

AI since original F4 has all the sensors you talk about modeled (radar/rwr/visual…). Flying low and quiet will avoid being detected by the first two, but as soon as you are within the visual range of any unit you will get a reaction from the AI.

I have managed to do some low level ingresses in the ITO getting relatively close to enemy fighters and sneaking past them. So, it does work

[cptmtge]

try flying high altitude over 30k with radar off and you will see the difference in being engaged first far less frequently.

[Scuby]

Okay so there is a proven effect on observability by AI.

In a thin SAM environment, during low level/silent human flight, will (hostile) battalions and search radar positively contribute to the detection ability by AI?

Would you say that detection by battalions and search radar of a low level/silent human flight has a short or long effect on “spotted” timespan?

Would a thin SAM coverage dictate high level flight for greater mission success or would low level/silent still have pupose also?

Thanks,
Cheers
Scub

[Blu3wolf]

well, Ive dedicated a lot of time during campaigns to attacking radar sites. Ive always thought the AI seemed less likely to notice us when flying low level in an area without radar coverage… but Ive not done any testing specifically to check that.

[Moxy]

Would low level human flight be less observable by (hostile) A.I.? Would a silent flight (FCR-off, ECM-off) additionally contribute to the total reduction of observability?

Yes, certainly it would, in the context of ‘less number of eyes are looking at you’, so a broad variety of enemy assets is less likely to converge on your location in a timely manner Radars in an integrated air defense network give clear picture for all assets and coordination is relatively easy.

On what factors would one base the choice for low level/silent flight in favor of high altitude flight?

Threats basically. If you have or expect MANPADS or/and SHORADS or/and SA10-type of threats (SA12, SA20, SA21) low level is the only feasible option. The modern battle areas are riddled with MANPADS (relatively cheap and remarkably easy to use) so low level flight is not even on the options list NOE (or at least masking flight) is suitable when attacking or defending a high threat SAM system, the rest of the time med to high alt is the way to go (more options when jumped/launched upon etc.).

How would one weigh with greater certainty the disadvantages against the advantages of low level/silent flight in order to better estimate chance on mission success?

When SEAD-ing SA10s - NOE ingress, pop up, launch, NOE egress. Same for ship strikes on high threat vessels. The disadvantage of this tactic is the vulnerability during the ingress and egress from SHORADS guarding the ‘main’ SAM and during the pop up from both the SHORADS and the ‘main’ SAM.
The other application of low level flight is when doing a pop up attack on a tgt, same deal here with the MANPADS - way too sneaky to intel and pinpoint, big risk with this approach as well.

[Fenrir]

I try to remember a test me and a friend did on this a long time ago. We did it online with one in ui map and the other one flying on enemy side.
Did the low level flight work? Well, iirc not as good so it’s worth doing it.
It seemed like once you were spotted it was almost impossible to disappear again.
But this was 2 years ago.

Cheers

[Blu3wolf]

well, clearly the solution is not being spotted in the first place!

[l3crusader]

@Fenrir:

I try to remember a test me and a friend did on this a long time ago. We did it online with one in ui map and the other one flying on enemy side.
Did the low level flight work? Well, iirc not as good so it’s worth doing it.
It seemed like once you were spotted it was almost impossible to disappear again.
But this was 2 years ago.

Cheers

@Blu3wolf:

well, clearly the solution is not being spotted in the first place!

I kind of agree…

If you are spotted IRL, the enemy knows you are around here and will employ means to track you, corroborate visual reports with intermittent radar spots, look for comms, etc…

[Fenrir]

The question would then be if you are visually spotted in BMS, are your position being updated every second with precision? A visual report would take more than a second to update IRL.

[SnowSky]

One time I flew with my AI leader against 4 Su27.
When I saw it first on the RWR I was going down hit the deck, turned radar off (ecm was already off) and speed up.
Soon, my Leader (I think he was 210’) went defensive. I got the two offensive su, chased the other two for a short time and then we went home.
As I was almost totally under them, almost being able looking up their skirt, I’d say it is possible to be sneaky.

[Hornet]

@l3crusader:

Ever heard of electronic warfare ?

What makes you think the enemy don’t have RWR ?

Unless some developer note proofs the opposite, I don’t believe that AI (especially not ground or sam units and also no GCI) uses RWR to detect you beyond the reaction of AI aircraft when directly being spiked (from being locked on).

Thus I dont think switching the radar off adds any benefit to a low profile. it just degrades own SA while enemy still uses all available sensors to find you.

Greets

[Blu3wolf]

@Hornet:

Unless some developer note proofs the opposite, I don’t believe that AI (especially not ground or sam units and also no GCI) uses RWR to detect you beyond the reaction of AI aircraft when directly being spiked (from being locked on).

Thus I dont think switching the radar off adds any benefit to a low profile. it just degrades own SA while enemy still uses all available sensors to find you.

Greets

Well the RP5 manual suggests that enemy aircraft use their RWR to detect your radar emissions.

[molnibalage]

If reaction time of SAMs were more longer - as in RL - it would be more worth to fly at low.

[Moxy]

If reaction time of SAMs were more longer - as in RL - it would be more worth to fly at low.

In RL 2S6 Tunguska reacts in 8 seconds, SA10 - in 10 sec (firing solution for around 6 targets with two missiles on each :D), SA2 and the like - ~15-20 sec, I’d sya that’s mostly way faster than in BMS
All in all the common SAM formations’ tactic was and probably is for the ‘big boys’ to get you down low with the SHORADS which are a lot more dangerous most of the times.