ED Forums

ED Forums (https://forums.eagle.ru/index.php)
-   DCS: A-10C Warthog (https://forums.eagle.ru/forumdisplay.php?f=107)
-   -   Unrealistic Threat Types (https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=199747)

MRaza 01-12-2018 10:47 PM

Unrealistic Threat Types
 
Why do missions have such unrealistic air defenses?

A-10s will never go up against SA-6/11/15s. The plane was designed to perform and thrives in a low-threat environment. The most an A-10 will ever encounter is an SA-9, 13, MANPADs, and AAA. I'd personally like to see more of a push towards a bit more realistic missions, loadouts (no 6 mavericks :D), etc.

Any thoughts?

Lithion 01-12-2018 11:00 PM

A-10s were designed to take punishment because they were designed to be in the thick of it. Big anti-armour loadout against big waves of armoured regiments. Soviets came up with an excellent layered air defense network for protecting their units. This is partly why the a-10 has been designed to absorb punishment.

ANY jet thrives in a low threat environment. Though the A-10 especially so since it's built to be slow and sluggish.

In a realistic all-out war, yes A-10s would be vulnerable with Tors and SPAAGs, but it's what they were designed for in a sense.

MRaza 01-12-2018 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lithion (Post 3353656)
A-10s were designed to take punishment because they were designed to be in the thick of it. Big anti-armour loadout against big waves of armoured regiments. Soviets came up with an excellent layered air defense network for protecting their units. This is partly why the a-10 has been designed to absorb punishment.

ANY jet thrives in a low threat environment. Though the A-10 especially so since it's built to be slow and sluggish.

In a realistic all-out war, yes A-10s would be vulnerable with Tors and SPAAGs, but it's what they were designed for in a sense.

Well it is true that any large, long range high altitude SAMs like SA-6, 10, 11s, etc would be taken care of with SEAD and DEAD before Hogs are allowed to operate correct?

Lithion 01-12-2018 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MRaza (Post 3353659)
Well it is true that any large, long range high altitude SAMs like SA-6, 10, 11s, etc would be taken care of with SEAD and DEAD before Hogs are allowed to operate correct?

Not necessarily, then you're just sent in low i would guess.

5+ tanks for a Warthog is a pretty good deal if you're about to get routed.

I base this on absolutely nothing by the way, it's just my opinion.

Kang 01-12-2018 11:30 PM

I'd guess you have it in your own hands to design the mission you want.
While it's certainly advisable to disable said systems in some way prior to 'sending in the Hog' it is the nature of warfare that the situation is not always as you want it to be.

Fri13 01-13-2018 12:20 AM

Well, little difficult when the Soviets doctrine had a very good layered anti-air, that moved with the MBT companies and protected them from NATO invasion.

In reality a A-10 would very unlikely get a change to get close as it ain't capable to do the deep strike as would be required without serious SEAD missions before that.

And all KUB/BUK etc systems would be there protecting from the rear the all defense forces.

There is a reason why the long loiter time is required as A-10 flights would be required to wait when the NATO ground forces are advancing, strike fighters clearing the SAM threats so the A-10 could come to support ground troops attack.

probad 01-13-2018 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lithion (Post 3353656)
In a realistic all-out war, yes A-10s would be vulnerable with Tors and SPAAGs, but it's what they were designed for in a sense.

hardly, tor was barely a twinkle in the russians eyes when the a-10 rolled out, and even tunguskas hadnt really proliferated. a-10 was designed for the thick of a ww2 battle, not the thick of a modern battlefield.

getting hit is not something to aspire for -- nobody ever "thrives" on getting hit.

Sierra99 01-13-2018 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MRaza (Post 3353643)
Why do missions have such unrealistic air defenses?

A-10s will never go up against SA-6/11/15s. The plane was designed to perform and thrives in a low-threat environment. The most an A-10 will ever encounter is an SA-9, 13, MANPADs, and AAA. I'd personally like to see more of a push towards a bit more realistic missions, loadouts (no 6 mavericks :D), etc.

Any thoughts?

The idea the A-10 was only designed to perform in a low-threat environment is hog wash being peddled by internet “experts”. Remember all of those super duper SAM systems you mentioned have Min altitude far above the altitude a Warthog Pilot is comfortable operating at.

probad 01-13-2018 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fri13 (Post 3353725)
There is a reason why the long loiter time is required as A-10 flights would be required to wait when the NATO ground forces are advancing, strike fighters clearing the SAM threats so the A-10 could come to support ground troops attack.

you're making stuff up again like usual
the modern doctrine of rolling back air defenses wasn't even written until the late 70s and not validated until the israelis tried it in 82

frixon28 01-13-2018 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MRaza (Post 3353643)
Why do missions have such unrealistic air defenses?
The plane was designed to perform and thrives in a low-threat environment.Any thoughts?

Well I guess if you consider 1970s-1980s Cold War Europe "Low Threat" :lol:. No doubt the Hawg thrives in low-mediums threat environments, look in just the last couple years in Operation Inherent Resolve. But it's not a Coin aircraft, its an attack aircraft. Maybe I'm just looking into this too much, but I consider low threat environment aircraft to be such as the ones being tested in the USAF OA-X competition right now, turboprops for COIN.

Though we have to remember that even though this is a flight simulator, it is a game at the same time. If people want to fly their A-10 loaded to the brim with munitions flying at 50 feet to take out SA-6 sites, they will. I've created about 100 realistic missions, with realistic threats in it is much more enjoyable to try and employ the aircraft like it was/is.


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:09 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.