Saturating S300 with JSOW

I'm not sure how the sam logic works, or the ME for the most part. But could you have it pop off more than a single missile at a time against a target? I.e. engage 2 targets with 4 missiles each. And displace after that. Or Engage targets, after they are dead, displace to a pre-planned secondary location a few miles away.

I don't think you can specify the amount of missiles to be used.

There are, however, several triggers that can be of use to determine whether a Unit is dead (UNIT DEAD, use for all units of a Group to verify that a Group is dead) or whether a SAM's area of responsibility is clear of enemy aircraft and it can safely pack up and move (ALL OF COALITION OUT OF ZONE, GROUP OUTSIDE ZONE).

You can use these as triggers and then use AI TASK PUSH or activate flags and then use FLAG IS TRUE or another FLAG trigger. It really depends how you want to go about it and you can usually achieve what you want with more than one ways, assuming what you want can be done by the AI, reliably.

I don't think you can specify the amount of missiles to be used.

 

There are, however, several triggers that can be of use to determine whether a Unit is dead (UNIT DEAD, use for all units of a Group to verify that a Group is dead) or whether a SAM's area of responsibility is clear of enemy aircraft and it can safely pack up and move (ALL OF COALITION OUT OF ZONE, GROUP OUTSIDE ZONE).

 

You can use these as triggers and then use AI TASK PUSH or activate flags and then use FLAG IS TRUE or another FLAG trigger. It really depends how you want to go about it and you can usually achieve what you want with more than one ways, assuming what you want can be done by the AI, reliably.

The best you can do without going into heavy scripting is to simply count the number of the SAM unit's own missiles have gone through a zone — once enough have been fired, it fires off a task push that suppresses further firing and tells the unit to move to a different spot. It's a bit kludge:y and cumbersome to set up, but should work.

The best you can do without going into heavy scripting is to simply count the number of the SAM unit's own missiles have gone through a zone — once enough have been fired, it fires off a task push that suppresses further firing and tells the unit to move to a different spot. It's a bit kludge:y and cumbersome to set up, but should work.

Yeah, that's one way to see it. I saw it as specifically telling the SAM to launch 4 missiles at each target.

If, for example, you have 2 targets, set the trigger for 8 SAM missiles and the SAM launches 3 missiles per target and succeeds in killing them, it won't launch more missiles and the trigger won't activate.

Although you can bypass it with an OR. MISSILE IN ZONE(TYPE,8) OR COALITION OUT OF ZONE/UNIT DEAD. One of the two conditions will trigger.

The ME sounds very simple to use and very user friendly ;) (I've used it to set up only the most basic missions)

Good to know that it can be done though.

It would be even better if it could be abstracted so that you have your sam site, and a few other defined alternate sites and it would automagically displace to those after an engagement.

Me and my buddy did this today, each carrying 4 JSOW with bomblets. All I can say is, God looked down at that site, and said FU to that spot in general by the time the last explosion ended.

One thing to consider is that the spacing is no necessarily an "all or nothing" choice. Just because you might in RL spread them 40-80km away, doesn't mean you need or even WANT to spread them out that much, as several have pointed out. BUT... that also doesn't mean it really makes sense to always pack them close together like on a single soccer field, easily taken out by a single AG weapon.

Maybe spreading the parts out by say 1 KM for a small concentrated site, to maybe spread over say 5 km for a more survivable configuration, might be more desirable. Still close enough that they could install hardwire comms if needed, launch bearing might be more accurate than if the radar is 40km from the missile launching... but also require the strike package to do more recon, have more intel, and put in a lot more effort to down that SA-10 than if they are all packed nice and close.

There is difference in a dedicated SAM site in a peace time, than a SAM site in a war time.

You don't make a SAM site that construction takes week(s) and then believe that enemy in the war time doesn't know it or have not studied it and prepared to destroy it with a single tactical bomb.

What one can see in the satellite images are just "warehouse" of the SAM site. Once the tensions raises and possibility to war increases, all troops are mobilized, and one of the first ones that is mobilized is the SAM sites. They are moved, scattered and organized how they keep moving and relocating continually. Meaning that commander for SAM site A needs to know that He needs to be capable to defend given area and direction from clock X to Y, and meanwhile the other sites can be relocating to take their time later.

What the DCS has as SAM, is far from realistic.

We do not even have a realistic individual ground unit like BMP-2 or LAV-25 that all has a all seeing perfect visibility from inside the vehicle, with perfect aiming without any tracking systems and even stabilization systems to hit a fast mover.

We have magical ground units that stops firing immediately when target is "low in health", but before that they are ready to put out everything they have to reach that level. Meaning that a simple local defence SAM system like Strela-10 is firing all its missiles on the burning and falling aircraft as long its pilot is alive and kicking, wasting all the missiles because it needs to "get it", and no matter that you launch 4 missiles in couple seconds periods, because why not to empty your loadout to first seen target?

This all should be actually controlled by unique AI that is dedicated for each such groups, and let the different AI's to communicate among each others with realistic delays for command, information sharing and timings etc.

That is likely coming in the RTS elements that ED is developing, as we are getting those SAM NEZ traps etc.

But someone thinking at all that S-300 site infrastructure would be located in a football size field so a couple dumb bombs could be just tossed there blindly from 20-30km distance, nevertheless a TV guided bomb.... That is just foolish.

Even a normal Grotale or BUK SAM sites has kilometers spread between launchers and radars and command posts. You are not going to bomb anything else than a single launcher or single radar (that has backup radars once detected SEAD against the active one).

And before you get even close to those, you have lots of other AA to get past.

And if someone wants to know how funny it is to be pulling a cables through the forest whole night worth of kilometers to get communication networks done....

 

And if someone wants to know how funny it is to be pulling a cables through the forest whole night worth of kilometers to get communication networks done....

Thats why there's LPI/LPD datalinks :lol: (yeah yeah I know...)

time = distance / velocity (assuming no acceleration)

figure out the average flight speed of your JSOW and the distance you want to release them, then you can figure out when you should fire the HARMs.

What the DCS has as SAM, is far from realistic.

We do not even have a realistic individual ground unit like BMP-2 or LAV-25 that all has a all seeing perfect visibility from inside the vehicle, with perfect aiming without any tracking systems and even stabilization systems to hit a fast mover.

This...I actually feared BMP-2s and BMP-3s more than Shilkas in the A-10. I could sneak up on a Shilka and dodge its fire more easily than a BMP-2. And when I did get hit, I took way less damage. The BMP-2s however, never missed when they opened fire, and I usually took way more damage.

This...I actually feared BMP-2s and BMP-3s more than Shilkas in the A-10. I could sneak up on a Shilka and dodge its fire more easily than a BMP-2. And when I did get hit, I took way less damage. The BMP-2s however, never missed when they opened fire, and I usually took way more damage.

Funnily enough, the opposite is almost true on the ground. ATGMs aside, if you ever happen to stumble into gun range of any vehicle in Combined Arms, you almost prefer a Shilka over a BMP since they rip almost anything up immediately with those four high-RoF cannons. :thumbup:

This...I actually feared BMP-2s and BMP-3s more than Shilkas in the A-10. I could sneak up on a Shilka and dodge its fire more easily than a BMP-2. And when I did get hit, I took way less damage. The BMP-2s however, never missed when they opened fire, and I usually took way more damage.

This is doubly true for choppers. The only thing I even really worry about ADA wise in the KA50 is the tungaska, I can fly under anything else radar guided, and can usually spot shilkas before I'm in range. BMP's and Tanks though... Waaay too accurate.