Jump to content

SEAD missiles .


eric963

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 191
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In a mission we are building both sides can "enable/disable" their SAMs (AI ON/OFF trigger).

 

So far it works. If I trigger HAWK-AI -> OFF no one on the server gets an Hawk nail or spike.

 

Unfortunetley there is one issue:

When a Su-25T launches an ARM on a hawk site and after the launch the hawk sam gets the AI->OFF trigger the missile of the Su-25T still hits the hawk radar.

 

Is this a known issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If OSA or TOR tracking someone else, dont launch on them.

I'm killing these and all other radar SAMs left and right in MP.

Dont expect to hit BUK SR from far. And it's pointless.

Wait for it to activate its TR/LN units and launch on those.

SR is useless without TR.

Same with HAWK.

 

The point is, all SAMs are destroyable with ARMs in multiplayer.

Just gotta learn the ranges at which to engage or wait for solid tone to be sure and use filter as stated before..

 

We've had a lot of guys complaining about this recently but the above explanation might make sense in the case of the SA8s. I think they're locked onto someone else- or tracking someone else when the ARMs get fired. At least it's worth a look-

 

Thanks for the post- I've passed this on.


Edited by ENO

"ENO"

Type in anger and you will make the greatest post you will ever regret.

 

"Sweetest's" Military Aviation Art

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going by HARM modes of operation, because it is a reasonably well known missile with reasonably well known method of operation:

 

1. Pre-briefed: You know where the target radar is, so you get as high and fast and launch that missile from as far as possible. This usually involved a well-timed 'rain of AMRAAMs'. The radars can stay quiet or get guided on. This is why there is the 'S' in SEAD.

2. Target of opportunity: You see a bunch of emitters, you pick one and you shoot it.

3. Self Protection: The moment you're mud-spiked, the system overrides whatever you're doing and presents you with a HARM locked onto the offender. All you have to do is launch the missile.

 

There are also missiles with loitering capability etc.

 

In DCS, #2 is the only possible method of application for now.

 

Another important thing is that #1 and #2 may require baiting the target to turn on its radar and spike someone.

 

Technically speaking, the missile should be able to home in on the sidelobes, IIRC, so the SAM shouldn't necessarily have to spike you, but that would give the missile the best signal.

 

Without going into wishes for a hi-fi SEAD environment, or to deep into how radars differ from each other and why, and what this means for their defense (do you have to shut down? Maybe not), the ARM modeling in DCS is relatively simple, and if it is inconsistent between MP and SP, that is a bug.

 

A weapon control system should also not give you launch authorization if it knows the missile will fail (inadequate signal etc).

 

As well, most of these missiles should probably not explode, but attempt an inertial attack on the target radar if that radar goes silent. Depending on when the radar goes silent, this might not be enough to save it (eg. miss distance of real AGM-88 rapidly collapses if the radar is turned off while the missile is at 7nm or closer).

 

So basically, if you see the game doing very confusing or inconsistent things, please report it, it's probably a bug.

 

Is the whole process of firing only on SAMS that lock onto you realistic?

Also as I understand it the missiles explode intentionally because of the lack of coding to simply make them fly dead, correct or no?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You (yet again) tripled the number of SAMs on BLUE side on <51st>.

And (yet again) I'm able to take them out.

 

RED airfields only have 3 BUK LNs and BLUE have 6 BUKs, TOR to intercept ARMs, OSA and Strelas.

Why TORs? BLUE has Rolands that intercept ARMs.

Pushing the F-15C and A-10A/C only for BLUE side, in of theory of realism, while having a lot more Russian SAMs on BLUE is hypocritical at the least.

 

It is obvious that you're further testing my SEAD skills, or attempting to prevent it from happening by adding an unfair amount of SAMs to the mission.

And now that they respawn, it would be fair to equate them on both teams.

You are the "god" of your server, but that does not make you right, just like Hitler and Stalin were wrong.

 

Why do you always do this, you make yourself look a complete tool.

It is a simple process of swapping the mission between two members and making small adjustments to improve the mission. Bundy who built the mission did so with many things missing such as airbase Shorad, aircraft numbers etc. but also we wanted to change the Hawks to Buks because of the irritating long range constant spike from NATO SAMs and also either remove EWR or increase their range so as there is not complete coverage for both sides which is not how we want to fly and fight.

 

So I changed the Hawk SR and TR to two Buk SR's, I also added a Strela and Tor to each airbase. Now I did this on the most stable mission on the server in a rush because we wanted to fly Red and have no EWR nor NATO SAMs. I may have missed adding the extra Shorad to red bases but rest assured it is on the final version on my pc which will get uploaded to the server.

 

All this while Bundy works on his much more in depth version with a strong EWR presence etc. that gets run from time to time with Shorad added to all bases not just Buks.

 

There is no conspiracy to make Blue better than Red all because of you, it is changes made for our own benefit and because we have such little time to discuss with Bundy (one of our newer members) what is expected in 51st missions, the swapping around and tens upon tens of different versions can cause confusion and any updates might be late to get hosted or with different admins the wrong version may get loaded. Its not you its us, we don't like EWR on our side and NATO SAMs against us, there is no other reason for the change. We understand a lot of people enjoy EWR or AWACS so that is why one version is with a strong EWR.

 

Pro tip for Experts, if you have an issue with the mission contact us on www.51st.org/forum (it's in the mission briefing) and tell us if you feel something is wrong rather than foolishly self-proclaiming yourself such greatness that has forced us to make the mission harder just because of you, it's not even funny anymore.

Anyway thanks for letting us know there is a problem with some versions of our mission even though the way you go about it is quite bizarre.

"[51☭] FROSTIE" #55

51st PVO "BISONS"

Fastest MiG pilot in the world - TCR'10

https://100kiap.org

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't have any right to say this:

 

And notice how I completely ignored your insults, as sometimes it is necessary in order to bring a point across.

 

After you said this:

 

You are the "god" of your server, but that does not make you right, just like Hitler and Stalin were wrong.

 

Sorry.

Black Shark, Harrier, and Hornet pilot

Many Words - Serial Fiction | Ka-50 Employment Guide | Ka-50 Avionics Cheat Sheet | Multiplayer Shooting Range Mission

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info.

AGM-88 HARM, however, has to be a more technologically advanced missile than Kh-25MPU and Kh-58U are.

 

The Shrike was even older than those, and it had inertial capability.

 

Just like Aim-120 is more advanced than R-27ER and R-77.

 

So what, we'll make R-27's and R-77's fly pure pursuit and self-destruct if someone turns ECM on? :)

 

While 88 can possibly loiter looking for targets, the older soviet ones are most certainly not able to do so.

 

Nope, it can't. It can wait for a target, but this is done in a very orchestrated manner that does not resemble loitering, like, say, ALARM, or Tacit Rainbow.

 

My point is that these SEAD "issues" are consistent and can be dealt with with 100% probability of ARMs not exploding on launch.

 

Great, but it's also beside the point when it comes to game bugs. A bug is a bug, regardless of work-arounds, even if they appear to somehow add more realism.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A creative insult or more like a piece or two of sarcasm is necessary at times to make the point, and not the fact that I ignored his direct ones towards me, that I chose to do.

 

And I do, as everyone else, have the right to voice my honest opinion and object to others.

The problem is you choose to object before anyone makes an opinion.

 

It is obvious that you're further testing my SEAD skills, or attempting to prevent it from happening by adding an unfair amount of SAMs to the mission.

 

Changes made to 'The Return to Inguri' mission had nothing to do with you spending morning to night 24/7 on our server killing SAMs etc against the Blue side. The changes, as stated, were for our own internally discussed preference. And rest assured your MO in the server has no interest in our discussions.

 

There is not an unfair amount of SAMs in the mission, you simply failed in your assumptions. Red and Blue have an equal amount of SAMs while Red actually have more EWR units and get more use out those units. It could even be argued that Blue should at least have an AWACS operating.

 

You (yet again) tripled the number of SAMs on BLUE side on <51st>.

And (yet again) I'm able to take them out.

 

RED airfields only have 3 BUK LNs and BLUE have 6 BUKs, TOR to intercept ARMs, OSA and Strelas.

Why TORs? BLUE has Rolands that intercept ARMs.

Pushing the F-15C and A-10A/C only for BLUE side, in of theory of realism, while having a lot more Russian SAMs on BLUE is hypocritical at the least.

 

 

You say Why Tors? Why not use Rolands?

Well why not? are you just creating objection for objections sake?

I've told you several times why we use Russian SAMs why do I have to go over it. How you feel about it is irrelevant.

It is you oversight that missed the fact there are Tors at Red airbases too.

 

Blue isn't just A-10 and F-15 there are Georgian Frogfoots, it is Georgian airspace, it also house Flankers for our personal touch because we only fly Russian a/c as a team so when team balance is needed we apply it ourselves.

 

And now that they respawn, it would be fair to equate them on both teams.

You are the "god" of your server, but that does not make you right, just like Hitler and Stalin were wrong.

 

You slap a CCCP logo on but are definitely more of a one-sided BLUE when it comes to DCS map adjustments.

 

You call this a creative insult, I just call it blind nonsense. For what it's worth you'd do better to take note of your youtube clip and apply it to yourself.

 

The SAMs are equal, we are not God's of our server, merely administrators who like creative and friendly input from those that enjoy our server. We don't like being mocked for creating this service and find it laughable you claim we are pro blue. The thought that everything is changed because of you is all of your own device, it's time you stopped being so self obsessed, I really don't know why you behave that way but seriously you ain't all that, you remind me of that other guy in FC2 that had all day to play by himself in his F-15, anyone with time on their hands can look good in a public server.

The server owner is Russian, the head of the table is Russian if they felt missions were being tailored to make Blue better than Red then they'd let me know.

"[51☭] FROSTIE" #55

51st PVO "BISONS"

Fastest MiG pilot in the world - TCR'10

https://100kiap.org

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I surely have them saved and could post screenshots, but here's the count:

 

BLUE:

S-125/SA-2 (RED never had one, this one covered the BUKs at Kutaisi)

Kutaisi (7 SAMs): 4x BUKs + OSA + TOR + Strela

Kobuleti (7 SAMs): 4x BUKs + OSA + TOR + Strela

Batumi (7 SAMs): 4x BUKs + OSA + TOR + Strela

Tbilisi (12 SAMs): 8x BUKs + OSA + TOR + 2 Strelas

 

TOTAL: 34 SAMs.

 

RED:

Sochi Gudauta and Sukhumi (4 SAMs each) 3x BUKs + TOR.

TOTAL: 12 SAMs.

 

This was the STD version that ran for days.

Until finally Tbilisi area was removed, but still 34-12=22 SAMs remained, which was still double of RED SAMs.

 

I swear, you need to get your facts straight instead of focusing on the way I'm presenting mine..

You just need to get on with trying to have fun and stop creating imaginary conspiracies against yourself.

 

There are two versions one with Tbilisi/Nalchik included (v1) this is the std version and there is a more complex version (v2) with Tbilisi/Nalchik removed which is still very much WIP.

 

The first std version that got changed from Hawks to Buks was last saved 12/11/13. This changed Hawk SR and TR to Buk SR and SR.

 

The bases as of 12/11/13 looked like this:

 

Also take into account the main Blue front is twice as wide as the Red main front.

 

BLUE:

 

East of Kutaisi: S-125/SA-2

Kutaisi: 2x BUK SR + OSA + TOR + Strela

Kutaisi to Kobuleti: TOR

Kobuleti: 2x BUK SR + OSA + TOR + Strela

Batumi: 2x BUK SR + OSA + TOR + Strela

Tbilisi: 4x BUK SR + OSA + TOR + 2 Strelas

+1 EWR

 

RED:

 

Sukhumi: 2 Buk SR + TOR + (2 Tunguska + 2 Strela + 2 Shilka (10km NW))

Gudauta: 2 Buk SR + TOR

Kuznetsov off the Coast of Sochi/Gudauta: 2 TOR + 3 OSA

Sochi: 4 Buk SR + TOR

Nalchik: 2 Buk SR + TOR

+ 3 EWR

 

Airbase cover

RED

10 Buks, 6 TOR, 3 OSA, 2 Tunguska, 2 Strela, 3 EWR

 

Blue

10 Buks, 1 S-125, 5 TOR, 4 OSA, 4 Strela, 1 EWR

 

You mention screenshots, how about me giving you the mission dated 12/11/13, see attachments. :music_whistling:

 

Since then the mission has been updated and the previous Red Buks have been given an extra launcher because the original designer only gave 3 for some reason. But I didn't hear you complain in the original Hawk version where there were 2 Buks at every Red airbase for every single Hawk at Blue air bases.

 

Now version 2 may have some scripting issues which I am yet to discuss with the designer, its not my fault or a purpose driven anti-red plan if admins call that mission up for testing purposes.

 

Like I've told you plenty of times if you have an issue with the mission bring it to our forums instead of creating your hullabaloo here as well as creating hysteria on the server chat. It's worrying to see someone so paranoid would you like me to set up an open day for ExPeRT where we could create a mission tailored just especially for you, we could even call it 'ExPeRT's Vengeance', nah I kid just stfu and play, 30+ players, targets galore, several hours sometimes more, please just stop with the petty minded nonsense it's boring now.

Return to the Inguri 1.4 std.rar

"[51☭] FROSTIE" #55

51st PVO "BISONS"

Fastest MiG pilot in the world - TCR'10

https://100kiap.org

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I do, as everyone else, have the right to voice my honest opinion and object to others.

 

You do within the boundaries of the forum rules. I suggest you both read them and tone it down.

Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two.

Come let's eat grandpa!

Use punctuation, save lives!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But they have to do with the destruction of SAMs being done, thus with whoever is doing it.. logic here?

 

Just like you've done with the Black Sea mission.

However, unlike that one, in the Inguri it specifically states to go find the EWR and the SAMs, so that is the objective.

And your logic from earlier, conveniently presented below, does not apply.

 

The Black Sea Redemption mission was different, I was protecting an A-10C only airbase. There were no fighters taking of from this airbase. It's bad enough listening to the complaints of 'it's not fair it takes me half a day to spool up and I get shot down by a 1 minute start up FC3 arcade fighter jock' to then take it to the next step of them getting killed on take off or the taxi way, that in my opinion is requiring of a bit of support. So I applied the change for that reason and then branched out into a repair mission for Huey's on Blue and Mi-8's on Red.

 

What made your complaints even more irritating was that I had already been accosted a week earlier for adding more Red SAMs to try and stem the Blue overload on Red Maykop.

"[51☭] FROSTIE" #55

51st PVO "BISONS"

Fastest MiG pilot in the world - TCR'10

https://100kiap.org

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the nonsense and personal biggatory aside. How is that not clear?

Yes, if you'd just brought it to our forum instead of all the nonsense on server chat and here then you would have learnt that between versions does happen not everybody has all day everyday to Bacon-DCS-bed, being one of the minority of do DCS-all-day you're bound to come across a discrepancy between versions.

"[51☭] FROSTIE" #55

51st PVO "BISONS"

Fastest MiG pilot in the world - TCR'10

https://100kiap.org

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Ignore

Ignore

Ignore

 

I see expert hasnt reinvented the wheel..... still.....

If you could be so profissent in geting the ME worked up as you can dish all advice out we would have an EXELENT mission.

 

 

On the thread. I had a solid lock on me by an SA19 and a Sa11. Both in range. Arms fired all exploded.

Can it be that the code gets messed with if the client has packet loss? Im experiencing some packet loss and this could be on factor.

Oh track is in the beta descussion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I see expert hasn't reinvented the wheel..... still.....

If you could be so proficient in getting the ME worked up as you can dish all advice out, we would have an EXCELENT mission.

 

If you must rip on someone who is not only trying to offer instructional advice, but is actually better than you at what he is offering advice on, the least you could do is to employ some basic spelling and punctuation skills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SEAD Missles

 

So I was taught that against Hawk Missile Systems you have to be locked on by the SAM in order to get a good launch. Previously I would simply launch and the missile would explode in front of my aircraft. Now that I know to wait I get good launch / kill per flight. However, I flew against Warsaw Pact stuff (i.e. SA-11) etc. recently as well and did not need that prerequisite to get a good launch.

 

Anyone know what the difference is (NATO vs. Warsaw Pact)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...