Proved effects of low level & silent human flight on observability by A.I. in BMS?
-
Only if the crew are paying attention.
-
@mookar:
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.According to data from SAMsim guys these are sci-fi values… For all older classic Cold War SAMs from the first detection to launch 25-30 sec in the min with skilled crew…
-
According to data from SAMsim guys these are sci-fi values… For all older classic Cold War SAMs from the first detection to launch 25-30 sec in the min with skilled crew…
http://www.airbase.ru/hangar/weapons/russia/sa/tunguska/
http://www.airbase.ru/hangar/weapons/russia/sa/tunguska/
^^^Two places it says 6-8 sec for the 2S6 (written in russian)
http://www.military-today.com/artillery/2s6_tunguska.htm
^^^‘Around 10 secs’ source (english).
I don’t know how ‘serious’ these sources are for you, probably not a lot, most of them aren’t, but anyway…
For the SA2 it’s around 30 sec - I correct myself
The fastest SHORADS are in the neighborhood of 5 sec (Thor SAM) from radar contact to shot! -
So from radar contact to identify it as hostile and fire, it’s 8 seconds?
Can that really be true? -
So from radar contact to identify it as hostile and fire, it’s 8 seconds?
Can that really be true?With a SHORAD, you can VID easily
-
A ac going 480kts at tree top, you’ll have to be at a really good spot to pull that one off IMO. Every second the ac is 250m elsewhere. It’s like, hello…goodbye…, unless you are in a desert perhaps.
-
definitely; lock them up and they react
@Blu3wolf:Well the RP5 manual suggests that enemy aircraft use their RWR to detect your radar emissions.
-
According to data from SAMsim guys these are sci-fi values… For all older classic Cold War SAMs from the first detection to launch 25-30 sec in the min with skilled crew…
That sounds about right, but what you have to consider is that the point at which they detect you is not necessarily the the same as the point at which you discover that they’ve detected you. Smaller things like SA-8s would need some time due to their limited radars, but say an SA-2 could track you according to information relayed from search radars with its Fan Song turned off. The time between turning it back on when you’re within the launch envelope and firing could definitely be less than 10 seconds.
The SA-3 that shot down the F-117 would only turn on its radar set very briefly, for less than 20 seconds. Whilst that SAM crew was arguably the best in the world at the time, you also have to weigh that against shooting down an almost invisible F-117, so expecting a well trained SAM battery to have a missile inbound in 10 seconds or less if they chose to launch prior to turning on their FCR isn’t unreasonable.
-
@mookar:
http://www.airbase.ru/hangar/weapons/russia/sa/tunguska/
http://www.airbase.ru/hangar/weapons/russia/sa/tunguska/
^^^Two places it says 6-8 sec for the 2S6 (written in russian)
http://www.military-today.com/artillery/2s6_tunguska.htm
^^^‘Around 10 secs’ source (english).
I don’t know how ‘serious’ these sources are for you, probably not a lot, most of them aren’t, but anyway…
For the SA2 it’s around 30 sec - I correct myself
The fastest SHORADS are in the neighborhood of 5 sec (Thor SAM) from radar contact to shot!There are totally theoretial values not measured in RL and crowded airspace and dynamic environment. These are literally values in test range. They are meaningless.
-
There are totally theoretial values not measured in RL and crowded airspace and dynamic environment. These are literally values in test range. They are meaningless.
Wow, if you call soviet/Russian SAMs ‘not measured in RL’ I don’t know what is Those kinds of SAMs, and probably the American Patriots, are the most ‘experienced’ and proven in the world. SA2s were formidable threat in the 60s, 70s, heck even today they are nasty when operated by well trained crews. I wouldn’t jump to conclusions like that
SA-2 could track you according to information relayed from search radars with its Fan Song turned off
I’m not an expert but those who are say that the SA2 shoots a missile in the general location of a target and turns the radar on for 5-10 sec to guide, now that’s a SAMbush
-
Wow, if you call soviet/Russian SAMs ‘not measured in RL’ I don’t know what is Those kinds of SAMs, and probably the American Patriots, are the most ‘experienced’ and proven in the world. SA2s were formidable threat in the 60s, 70s, heck even today they are nasty when operated by well trained crews. I wouldn’t jump to conclusions like that
The SA-2 data comes from RL the 6-8 sec reaction is the sci-fi if we are not speaking about isolated environment…
-
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.