Jump to content

[Suggestion] Move LS-6 to Bombs section, not missiles


zippoa

Recommended Posts

DCS needs to figure this out on a basic engine level. I have 0 doubt SAM radars can "see" a jdam. Can they engage it in time? Would the missile do enough damage to a cast iron bomb casing?

 

The thing with glide bombs is that that they have a relatively long flight time. Which is part of the reason the JSOW is "stealthy".

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

stand-off munitions can and are engaged by surface to air weapons, typically though you wouldn't use a patriot for a bomb, rather you'd shoot down the airplane long before it gets within the 8-mile range required to lob a gen1 paveway for example

 

 

if somehow you end up with an airplane right on top of you dumping bombs or an incoming artillery round etc, the munition would then typically be engaged by a point defence system, e.g. a centurion or a mantis or pantsir etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct. The main issue is TOF of the weapon vs the reaction time of the defense system. In the case of glide weapons their TOF is basically forever compared to missiles/bombs. The JSOW program understood this, and tried to make the munition "stealthy" to make it harder to engage by those systems since by having a reduced RCS the detection range would be shorter (how this is actually modeled in DCS IDK). The GB-6 is "stealthish" like the JSOW, however the LS-6 is more or less a bomb with wings, and should have a much larger RCS, so if any munition is engage it should be the LS-6.


Edited by Harlikwin

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and some footage from training / real world interceptions etc if you're interested to see how these systems work @Glacier

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@Harlikwin - yep - I was just trying to answer Glacier's question, not objecting to your point - you're right the DCS team have to think this through a bit more at some point - I did ask the DEKA team for a point defence system to be included in the CAP (https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=259887), i would guess if anyone is going to do it it's them :)

 

 

I don't think the DCS team has any plans to review A/A at the moment - i guess they have higher priority items in their backlog, which is unfortunate as it would bump the challenge level in the game massively - oh well :)


Edited by witness_me
Link to comment
Share on other sites

and some footage from training / real world interceptions etc if you're interested to see how these systems work @Glacier

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@Harlikwin - yep - I was just trying to answer Glacier's question, not objecting to your point - you're right the DCS team have to think this through a bit more at some point - I did ask the DEKA team for a point defence system to be included in the CAP (https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=259887), i would guess if anyone is going to do it it's them :)

 

 

I don't think the DCS team has any plans to review A/A at the moment - i guess they have higher priority items in their backlog, which is unfortunate as it would bump the challenge level in the game massively - oh well :)

 

NP. Nice vids. Though I do like the ability to trash sam installations. I'm gonna guess ED will do something about that with the IADS improvement thats coming at some point. Then I'll either have to be a whiner or learn to be a better VR pilot again :). They already said they will "review" the LD-10 as well as the SD-10.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct. The main issue is TOF of the weapon vs the reaction time of the defense system. In the case of glide weapons their TOF is basically forever compared to missiles/bombs. The JSOW program understood this, and tried to make the munition "stealthy" to make it harder to engage by those systems since by having a reduced RCS the detection range would be shorter (how this is actually modeled in DCS IDK). The GB-6 is "stealthish" like the JSOW, however the LS-6 is more or less a bomb with wings, and should have a much larger RCS, so if any munition is engage it should be the LS-6.

 

 

 

 

I don't understand what the argument truly is in this thread...BUT, I do bring forth that I have witnessed Roland sites and hawk sites taking out both my JSOW and LS-6. So the sams are capable of defending themselves from these weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand what the argument truly is in this thread...BUT, I do bring forth that I have witnessed Roland sites and hawk sites taking out both my JSOW and LS-6. So the sams are capable of defending themselves from these weapons.

 

I've seen literally every shorad sam in the area enagage the LS-6/GB-6 when fired now but never a hawk site (could be that I tend to shoot LD-10s first though). I just wasn't looking for it earlier. And on the other side of it JSOW's are engaged by SA-11's sometimes (I think it depends on how many missiles the site has in the air already shooting at me) and really engaged by SA15's.

 

OP wanted the LS-6 moved to a "bomb" since JDAM's aren't engaged like JSOW's, which is somewhat unrealistic.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

will do (together with GB6)

 

JDAMs may not be engaged by SAMS (when they could/should be), but the JSOW is enagaged by SAMs and the GB6 is basically a JSOW, and the the LS-6 is a more radar visible glide bomb so it should probably be left alone.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glacier;4172642']Can SAMs engage the LS-6 in real life?

 

One would assume so as the LS-6 in appearance is no different than JSOWs or etc (other than a probably larger RCS). AFAIK there is no RCS reduction attempted on the LS-6. SAMs operate under the same principle. If it has an RCS it will see it eventually, whether it gets filtered out or not is up to the SAM system and it's supposed (in DCS) capabilities.

 

I think its more an issue of JDAMs not being intercepted in DCS when they should than the other way around. But if people have hard information to the contrary that SAMs shouldn't engage JDAMs I'd be more than interested to see.

 

Because otherwise, JDAMs shouldn't be any different to a SAM site than most missiles provided the radar can detect a somewhat slower object (IE not getting filtered out).


Edited by ShadowFrost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One would assume so as the LS-6 in appearance is no different than JSOWs or etc (other than a probably larger RCS). AFAIK there is no RCS reduction attempted on the LS-6. SAMs operate under the same principle. If it has an RCS it will see it eventually, whether it gets filtered out or not is up to the SAM system and it's supposed (in DCS) capabilities.

 

I think its more an issue of JDAMs not being intercepted in DCS when they should than the other way around. But if people have hard information to the contrary that SAMs shouldn't engage JDAMs I'd be more than interested to see.

 

Because otherwise, JDAMs shouldn't be any different to a SAM site than most missiles provided the radar can detect a somewhat slower object (IE not getting filtered out).

 

The issue is that DCS isn't this sophisticated.

 

As I understand it:

DCS has weapon types and sam behavior based on that.

 

1. If the weapon tag has "bomb" on it, then SAMS/AAA don't ever shoot at it. I got VERY good at abusing that particular mechanic to lob JDAM's at SAM site radars.

 

2. If the weapon has the "missile" tag, then SAMs/AAA react to it and shoot at it. JSOW are classifed as "missile". Currently GB6/LS6 are as well (I think this is correct BTW)

 

IRL, the SAM site/AAA can see bombs/missiles/whatever based on their RCS and engage them if there is time. The main reason JSOW is "stealthy" and has low RCS is because its slow, and if it weren't it would very easy to shoot down (ala LS6).

 

The main Issue I currently see is that GB6/LS6 are engaged by IR manpads, which strikes me as wrong. Only radar guided weps should really see them with enough reaction time to shoot. Pvt snuffy with his stinger or Igla won't see anything coming.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is that DCS isn't this sophisticated.

 

As I understand it:

DCS has weapon types and sam behavior based on that.

 

1. If the weapon tag has "bomb" on it, then SAMS/AAA don't ever shoot at it. I got VERY good at abusing that particular mechanic to lob JDAM's at SAM site radars.

 

2. If the weapon has the "missile" tag, then SAMs/AAA react to it and shoot at it. JSOW are classifed as "missile". Currently GB6/LS6 are as well (I think this is correct BTW)

 

IRL, the SAM site/AAA can see bombs/missiles/whatever based on their RCS and engage them if there is time. The main reason JSOW is "stealthy" and has low RCS is because its slow, and if it weren't it would very easy to shoot down (ala LS6).

 

The main Issue I currently see is that GB6/LS6 are engaged by IR manpads, which strikes me as wrong. Only radar guided weps should really see them with enough reaction time to shoot. Pvt snuffy with his stinger or Igla won't see anything coming.

 

Yeah I agree, that's why I am against them being classified as "bomb". (Though JDAMs are a bomb, they should be moved to "missile" until ED changes something so that they can be engaged) I think the LS-6/GB-6 are closer to where they should be than ED's GBU 32/38s in terms of SAM interception. I believe the 32/38s should be adjusted not the LS6/GB6.

 

I'm not sure what options Deka has in terms of setting interception values against sam sites though. But I would live with that versus the alternative with the hopes that it can be tuned so only modern systems can engage such weapons. As it doesn't appear the IR sams have a very good success rate, they are not too much of a factor other than they shouldn't be firing to begin with.

 

Edit- As a side note, I understand the SAM system is basic in DCS. When I was saying "its supposed capabilities", I say that as in what ED believes the SAM systems to be capable of doing in terms of reaction time, filtering, and RCS detection size at range. If they think a TOR (SA-15) can engage a certain RCS at a certain distance than that should be applied as a judgement to what SAMs engage what. So if ED believes SA-15, SA-10, Patriot and etc. are capable of shooting down missiles, then bombs should be intercepted likewise as they operate under the same principles for interception.

Especially when SAMs aren't modeled in some extremes and there is a good bit of simplification to the system as it is currently (and likewise for the foreseeable future).


Edited by ShadowFrost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i thought missiles were self-propelled?

 

Most definitions yes, but it's a classification issue in DCS.

If you classify as "bomb" no SAM site will intercept AFAIK. So, certain bombs (with wings or else) need to be classified as "missiles" so they can be intercepted by SAMs as they can have quite long ranges.

 

 

Edit- Until the SAM system is modified to enable certain bombs to be intercepted.


Edited by ShadowFrost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most definitions yes, but it's a classification issue in DCS.

If you classify as "bomb" no SAM site will intercept AFAIK. So, certain bombs (with wings or else) need to be classified as "missiles" so they can be intercepted by SAMs as they can have quite long ranges.

 

ah, interesting. but confusing

Acer Predator Triton 700 || i7-7700HQ || 512GB SSD || 32GB RAM || GTX1080 Max-Q || FFB II and Thrustmaster TWCS Throttle || All DCS Modules

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uboats, I do not agree with Zippoa's suggestion that LS6s should be moved from 'Missiles' to 'Bombs'.

 

The arbitrary distinction made by DCS between 'Bombs' and 'Missiles' with regard to what SAMs do and don't attempt to intercept is incorrect and moving weapons into the 'bomb' category only exacerbates this problem. In the current situation all bombs (on all aircraft) should be moved into the 'missiles' category rather than the other way around.

 

Noting this is an ED issue to rectify, technically, ALL munitions (Bomb/Missile/Rocket) should be engage-able by SAMs that have anti-munition capability (within DCS, this is limited to some radar cued and/or guided systems). The actual ability to engage is determined by the munition's RCS, the SAM system's radar detection capability and reaction time (I assume these are numbers modelled in DCS). Whether or not the SAM chooses to engage should be a function of the likelihood of successful interception and the priority of other targets. In practice, it would be rare that SAMs would engage non-lofted dumb munitions as the aircraft would usually be in range of a SAM system before release.

 

The mission editor currently has the option to toggle a SAM system's ability to engage munitions (set to off by default if IIRC) and this should be the primary method of determining munition intercept behavior, not shifting weapon categories around.

 

Making GB6's 'equal' to JDAMs in the way proposed by Zippoa is not the correct way forward and speaks more to concepts of balancing gameplay than attempting to achieve realism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i thought missiles were self-propelled?

 

IRL yes. But DCS has 2 categories not 3. Its either bomb (like a mk82) or a Missile (AGM-65). The Glide bombs are in between, but really I'd say they are more missile like in terms of how they get engaged be air defenses. They are just "sucky" missiles.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uboats, I do not agree with Zippoa's suggestion that LS6s should be moved from 'Missiles' to 'Bombs'.

 

The arbitrary distinction made by DCS between 'Bombs' and 'Missiles' with regard to what SAMs do and don't attempt to intercept is incorrect and moving weapons into the 'bomb' category only exacerbates this problem. In the current situation all bombs (on all aircraft) should be moved into the 'missiles' category rather than the other way around.

 

Noting this is an ED issue to rectify, technically, ALL munitions (Bomb/Missile/Rocket) should be engage-able by SAMs that have anti-munition capability (within DCS, this is limited to some radar cued and/or guided systems). The actual ability to engage is determined by the munition's RCS, the SAM system's radar detection capability and reaction time (I assume these are numbers modelled in DCS). Whether or not the SAM chooses to engage should be a function of the likelihood of successful interception and the priority of other targets. In practice, it would be rare that SAMs would engage non-lofted dumb munitions as the aircraft would usually be in range of a SAM system before release.

 

The mission editor currently has the option to toggle a SAM system's ability to engage munitions (set to off by default if IIRC) and this should be the primary method of determining munition intercept behavior, not shifting weapon categories around.

 

Making GB6's 'equal' to JDAMs in the way proposed by Zippoa is not the correct way forward and speaks more to concepts of balancing gameplay than attempting to achieve realism.

 

Well stated! :thumbup:

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. If these bombs are able to be intercepted by ground defences in real life then we should leave it like that and not make it equal to the poor implementation of their NATO weapon counterpart.

 

This is something ED should look into doing for their modules. I admire Dekas attempts for realism and they should stick with making the weapons most realistic as possible. I am always against the idea of balancing for the sake of gameplay or how the other devs have modeled or implemented their features.

Current Hangar : A-10C II ¦ AJS-37 ¦ A/V-8B ¦ F-14A/B ¦ F/A-18C ¦ FC3 ¦ JF-17 ¦ Ka-50 ¦ Mi-8 ¦ M2000-C ¦ SA342 ¦ UH-1H

 

Other Modules : Combined Arms ¦ Persian Gulf

 

TRAINED - LEARNING - UNTOUCHED - ABANDONED

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uboats, I do not agree with Zippoa's suggestion that LS6s should be moved from 'Missiles' to 'Bombs'.

 

The arbitrary distinction made by DCS between 'Bombs' and 'Missiles' with regard to what SAMs do and don't attempt to intercept is incorrect and moving weapons into the 'bomb' category only exacerbates this problem. In the current situation all bombs (on all aircraft) should be moved into the 'missiles' category rather than the other way around.

 

Noting this is an ED issue to rectify, technically, ALL munitions (Bomb/Missile/Rocket) should be engage-able by SAMs that have anti-munition capability (within DCS, this is limited to some radar cued and/or guided systems). The actual ability to engage is determined by the munition's RCS, the SAM system's radar detection capability and reaction time (I assume these are numbers modelled in DCS). Whether or not the SAM chooses to engage should be a function of the likelihood of successful interception and the priority of other targets. In practice, it would be rare that SAMs would engage non-lofted dumb munitions as the aircraft would usually be in range of a SAM system before release.

 

The mission editor currently has the option to toggle a SAM system's ability to engage munitions (set to off by default if IIRC) and this should be the primary method of determining munition intercept behavior, not shifting weapon categories around.

 

Making GB6's 'equal' to JDAMs in the way proposed by Zippoa is not the correct way forward and speaks more to concepts of balancing gameplay than attempting to achieve realism.

 

Can agree well said, much better written than anything I had. :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got it

 

:thumbup:

 

This is shaping up to one of the best modules in DCS guys, great job!

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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