Advanced Air Defence Systems

Hi everyone,

I want to preface this post by saying that I realise there are probably a lot of more important projects in DCS at the moment, but while so many of us are stuck in various states of lockdown I thought the following would be a bit of fun regardless.

That is to say that the sim now depicts aircraft in a state representative of the ~2008-2009 timeframe (Hog, Hornet, possibly Typhoon) and I would love to (one day) see them matched up against air defence systems that represent the state of the art in that same period. I can think of a few that would make things that much more interesting for both east and west:

- Buk M1-2/M2 (SA17)

- S300 PM/PMU-2 (SA20B)

- NASAMS

- PAC 3 for Patriot batteries

- ESSM (RIM162)

- Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM aka RIM116)

Assuming that information on these systems is not prohibitively scarce, I think they could really shake things up from a SEAD/DEAD perspective. For example, the SA20B can fire the 9M96 missile as an anti-PGM/ARM/BM weapon, while the PAC3 and ESSM can be used by NATO for much the same purpose (on land and at sea respectively). ESSM and RIM116 ought to enhance the inner layer of NATO naval air defences dramatically, making it more difficult to pull off the kind of low level kamikaze runs I have seen a lot of players use against Tico et al. NASAMS would also provide NATO forces with a useful GBAD layer between Patriot and MANPAD teams, providing a new challenge for Ka50 and Su25 pilots.

Thoughts?

Given that DCS currently does a poor job of modeling the existing SAMS and especially IADS and real AD tactics. I think fixing the existing systems and improving the lethality of existing IADS should be the priority. As well as improving the current SEAD weps, CBUs eh

..

I agree. IADS behaviour akin to this would be great:

A man can dream though can't he? :smilewink:

IADS is being worked on:

We are also designing support for Integrated Air Defense System (IADS) networks and more advanced air defence AI to include shared-time searches, counter-SEAD/DEAD tactics, and SAM traps. Together, DCS will provide the most realistic and challenging air defence simulation to operate in.

It's actually one of my most anticipated features for DCS, as it will totally change SEAD and A-G warfare in general, as most gamey tactics used in DCS to deal with SAMs won't work anymore.

IADS is being worked on:

 

It's actually one of my most anticipated features for DCS, as it will totally change SEAD and A-G warfare in general, as most gamey tactics used in DCS to deal with SAMs won't work that well anymore.

That really is excellent news. The existing system results in GBAD assets wasting scores of munitions on low pK missile shots and needlessly firing multiple missiles at the same target. The video I posted earlier shows what a difference integration can make. Solving the riddle of a true IADS would open up a plethora of gameplay possibilities.

That is to say that the sim now depicts aircraft in a state representative of the ~2008-2009 timeframe (Hog, Hornet, possibly Typhoon) and I would love to (one day) see them matched up against air defence systems that represent the state of the art in that same period. I can think of a few that would make things that much more interesting for both east and west:

 

- Buk M1-2/M2 (SA17)

- S300 PM/PMU-2 (SA20B)

- NASAMS

- PAC 3 for Patriot batteries

- ESSM (RIM174)

- Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM aka RIM116)

 

As a former Air Defender, I can say that at least 7 years ago when I left the army, the Pac-2 series of Patriot missiles were still alive& kicking. Lacking an appropriate target for the Pac-3 (TBMs) , the Pac-2 arguably is a more appropriate missile to have in play - in fact, it was designed from the get-go to be a counter-ABT (air breathing threat) missile. The Pac-3 is certainly capable against ABTs, but that wasn't the impetus behind the design.

That really is excellent news. The existing system results in GBAD assets wasting scores of munitions on low pK missile shots and needlessly firing multiple missiles at the same target.

That's not entirely unrealistic, for some systems or during certain timeframes.

Implementing IADS correctly can be tricky, because it depends on a multitude of factors, rather than waving some magic code and saying "you all work in conjunction with each other now" (please don't read any snark in that, none's intended). Integration means different things to different systems. Does that mean shared air picture? Perhaps for upper tier or himad...not so much for shorad . Even if there is a shared air picture, how much data is passed and who can see what? Depends on the system. Ed would have to model communication networks to model how data is passed and how it may be disrupted. There has to be a determination of which systems may be integrated together. Knowing how those networks operate puts more burden on those making missions to know how to set them up. No commo or data= no integration. Finally, the client states that operate some of these air defense systems may not operate using the same tactics or techniques as the countries that sold the system (that's not unique to air defense, I don't have the link, but Google " the myth of Soviet arms and tactics in the middle east)

Integration of air defenses (correctly) is a huge undertaking and requires a large base of knowledge which ED may not have access to or be at liberty to utilize. I would love to see it done, but not holding my breath

That's not entirely unrealistic, for some systems or during certain timeframes.

 

 

Implementing IADS correctly can be tricky, because it depends on a multitude of factors, rather than waving some magic code and saying "you all work in conjunction with each other now" (please don't read any snark in that, none's intended). Integration means different things to different systems. Does that mean shared air picture? Perhaps for upper tier or himad...not so much for shorad . Even if there is a shared air picture, how much data is passed and who can see what? Depends on the system. Ed would have to model communication networks to model how data is passed and how it may be disrupted. There has to be a determination of which systems may be integrated together. Knowing how those networks operate puts more burden on those making missions to know how to set them up. No commo or data= no integration. Finally, the client states that operate some of these air defense systems may not operate using the same tactics or techniques as the countries that sold the system (that's not unique to air defense, I don't have the link, but Google " the myth of Soviet arms and tactics in the middle east)

Integration of air defenses (correctly) is a huge undertaking and requires a large base of knowledge which ED may not have access to or be at liberty to utilize. I would love to see it done, but not holding my breath

Thanks for the insights, that is very interesting. On PAC2 & 3: that does make sense, although seeing the latter modelled in DCS at some point (to complement PAC2) still strikes me as appropriate. It falls comfortably within the intended timeframe and would be a fascinating addition in that its unique combination of an AESA seeker and ACMs for terminal maneuvers would make it easily one of the most technologically sophisticated missiles in game.

As for GBAD integration, I can see how this could become a rabbit hole that is very deep indeed. For clarity, my comment on multiple missiles being used on the same target was referring to the way DCS SAMs simply fire on anything that enters their WEZ, so if you have multiple SAM systems located near one another they will all fire at the same target simultaneously with no regard for conservation of munitions or optimal launcher selection or salvo size. Moreover, they will generally start firing at or near the max range of their missiles, making it fairly straightforward to bleed them out of munitions by repeatedly flying in and out of the SAM WEZ.

I think a system akin to what is shown in the video I posted above would be a great step forward, alongside AI behaviour that would see them hold fire until a higher missile pK is achieved. That said, I do appreciate that this is a complex topic that would be challenging to implement in a way that is representative of real life systems.

Thanks for the insights, that is very interesting. On PAC2 & 3: that does make sense, although seeing the latter modelled in DCS at some point (to complement PAC2) still strikes me as appropriate. It falls comfortably within the intended timeframe and would be a fascinating addition in that its unique combination of an AESA seeker and ACMs for terminal maneuvers would make it easily one of the most technologically sophisticated missiles in game.

 

The -3 is a very capable missile, in several respects more than the -2 (but its not just the missile, the entire system is upgraded- launchers, ECS, ICC, radar) But its not very useful in DCS without an adequate target, as long as we dont have functioning ballistic missile launchers (well, perhaps against cruise missiles- i havent looked at what we have there). While other nations may do things differently when theyre operating on their own, in the post-2003 world i can say with near certainty that neither family of patriot missiles will be used against aircraft in a situation where the US holds engagement authority.

as for implementing them in game, it wouldnt be difficult- minor changes to the radar and launcher models, and a different flight model for the lockheed missile. the biggest conundrum is how to code missile selection and two separate missile counts per battery. In the decade or so i spent with patriot across 5 countries, ive never seen a unit of pure pac-3 missiles. in reality, youll find a mix of missile types in each battery.

Well there is a Scud incoming, and once thats in it opens the door for more ballistic flight models. The other day Deka mentioned no modern air defense as a contributing factor to why they didn’t add CM-400AKG to JF-17, an MLRS converted to air launch with tri guidance MITL and a semi ballistic flight profile capable of terminal evasive maneuvers

The -3 is a very capable missile, in several respects more than the -2 (but its not just the missile, the entire system is upgraded- launchers, ECS, ICC, radar) But its not very useful in DCS without an adequate target, as long as we dont have functioning ballistic missile launchers (well, perhaps against cruise missiles- i havent looked at what we have there). While other nations may do things differently when theyre operating on their own, in the post-2003 world i can say with near certainty that neither family of patriot missiles will be used against aircraft in a situation where the US holds engagement authority.

 

 

as for implementing them in game, it wouldnt be difficult- minor changes to the radar and launcher models, and a different flight model for the lockheed missile. the biggest conundrum is how to code missile selection and two separate missile counts per battery. In the decade or so i spent with patriot across 5 countries, ive never seen a unit of pure pac-3 missiles. in reality, youll find a mix of missile types in each battery.

Yes I hear you. FWIW the LACM threat is certainly modelled (eg. Kh55/65) alongside some MLRS threats (Smerch off the top of my head) but you are correct to point out that the systems PAC3 is chiefly geared around (correct me if I'm wrong) like SCUD/Tochka/Iskander are currently absent. With that said, the inclusion of PAC3 would increase the missile count of in-game Patriot batteries and present defending aircraft with a different kinematic threat compared to PAC2.

Well there is a Scud incoming, and once thats in it opens the door for more ballistic flight models. The other day Deka mentioned no modern air defense as a contributing factor to why they didn’t add CM-400AKG to JF-17, an MLRS converted to air launch with tri guidance MITL and a semi ballistic flight profile capable of terminal evasive maneuvers

Now that IS interesting :-)

Well there is a Scud incoming, and once thats in it opens the door for more ballistic flight models. The other day Deka mentioned no modern air defense as a contributing factor to why they didn’t add CM-400AKG to JF-17, an MLRS converted to air launch with tri guidance MITL and a semi ballistic flight profile capable of terminal evasive maneuvers

While the cm-400akg is something different entirely, it reminded me of Lockheed's idea of loading Pac-3 missiles on f-15s (Air Launched Hit to Kill). I've seen lots of concept art, and I know the project had a couple million allocated to it, but I've never seen an actual photograph, and that's probably a good thing, it sounds like an awful idea

Another one would be the Israeli "Sparrow" and "Rampage" family of air launched ballistic missiles. I believe the former are used as targets for testing of ABM systems, but otherwise similar in concept.

Yes I hear you. FWIW the LACM threat is certainly modelled

-snip-

some MLRS threats (Smerch off the top of my head)

 

 

No, rocket artillery is not a target for any of the western air defense systems modeled.

Regarding Patriot, I don't even know how the system would classify rocket artillery, but the common sense test is consider the volume of fire for a smerch battery....or a grad battery, then look at the number of interceptors patriot has to counter that. Reload on a launcher is an hour, a sharp crew can knock that time down in an eval, Ina combat scenario this can be potentially cut a little more but at some point, the choke point becomes the reload vehicle, and number of spare missiles on site. Blow your load on a single rocket artillery volley, and your hot crew is apt to spend the next 6 hours reloading all the launchers...they'll come up one at a time, of course, but no where near as fast as the mrls reloads happen.

Perhaps the only suitable system for that, one that could be implemented in DCS easily to boot, is C-RAM( look it up on YouTube) . It's essentially a Phalanx CIWS mounted on a trailer, loaded with exploding rounds (to prevent a hail of spent bullets from raining down on populated areas, something seaborne phalanxes don't need to contend with)

No, rocket artillery is not a target for any of the western air defense systems modeled.

Regarding Patriot, I don't even know how i

The system would classify rocket artillery, but the common sense test is consider the volume of fire for a smerch battery....or a grad battery, then look at the number of interceptors patriot has to counter that. Reload on a launcher is an hour, a sharp crew can knock that time down in an eval, Ina combat scenario this can be potentially cut a little more but at some point, the choke point becomes the reload vehicle, and number of spare missiles on site. Blow your load on a single rocket artillery volley, and your hot crew is apt to spend the next 6 hours reloading all the launchers...they'll come up one at a time, of course, but no where near as fast as the mrls reloads happen.

 

Perhaps the only suitable system for that, one that could be implemented in DCS easily to boot, is C-RAM( look it up on YouTube) . It's essentially a Phalanx CIWS mounted on a trailer, loaded with exploding rounds (to prevent a hail of spent bullets from raining down on populated areas, something seaborne phalanxes don't need to contend with)

No argument there - just pointing out that this is about as close as you get to a BM in DCS at the moment (not very). Yes I have seen the footage of the "land Phalanx" C-RAM that was used in the ME. I get the impression the US is trying to move beyond that now by looking into things like MML and the MHTK interceptor, Iron Dome and possibly even high powered lasers (IFPC).

No argument there - just pointing out that this is about as close as you get to a BM in DCS at the moment (not very). Yes I have seen the footage of the "land Phalanx" C-RAM that was used in the ME. I get the impression the US is trying to move beyond that now by looking into things like MML and the MHTK interceptor, Iron Dome and possibly even high powered lasers (IFPC).

I can't speak for what they have lined up in the chute these days. When I left, meads had been cancelled a few years previous, SLAMRAAM had been cancelled, thaad was still neck deep in an extended gestation period and hadn't stood up a single line battery (when ft bliss was the center of the universe for US air defense artillery, I saw a thaad radar stripped to the Bone and left parked at an air field) , and it looked like Bradley linebacker was going to make a comeback (which was perhaps the only useful ground based platform for stingers). C-RAM was the cat's meow, the newest and perhaps most relevant system at the time.

But that was 7 years ago (time flies!!). Who knows what they have up their sleeves today

Finally, the client states that operate some of these air defense systems may not operate using the same tactics or techniques as the countries that sold the system (that's not unique to air defense, I don't have the link, but Google " the myth of Soviet arms and tactics in the middle east)

Integration of air defenses (correctly) is a huge undertaking and requires a large base of knowledge which ED may not have access to or be at liberty to utilize. I would love to see it done, but not holding my breath

Yeah this is gonna be the really difficult thing of how to implement "doctrine" in the game.

You can have SA-6 batteries manned by russians in an effective IADS enviroment

You can have SA-6 batteries manned by Serbs that are still sort-of using soviet doctrine

You can have SA-6 batteries that are manned by Syrians, who think its a brilliant idea to hide the SAM site with a huge smoke screen so the israelis can't see it... (PS this worked rather the opposite way as one might expect, hey whats that huge very visible smoke cloud over there? lets drop CBU's all over it)

I mean, I guess we could have "skill" levels or something like that, but really, I think it will be really hard to model different types of strategies as well.

And really an IADS model without a decent EW system/model is 50% worthless anyway.

As for "its happening" I'm not gonna hold my breath. I mean how long have "clouds" been "happening"...

Yep, another difficulty is what about countries like Iran who have us made systems (like hawk), Russian made systems, and indigenous systems guarding the same airspace

Speaking of hawk, it would be nice if heatblur allows us to load that on the f-14a when it finally comes out

From what I understand, it was only a test, and not a very successful one, but technically, it can be loaded on the f-14

 

A man can dream though can't he? :smilewink:

Yes.... but you are causing reckless times with such a dream AI capabilities...

IMHO ED should have "fairly easy time" to develop AI better, because they can take the basic modern military doctrines and trainings and program those for the AI to use.

Most common basic things would be huge step in everything.

Sure it would take time, but point being that when you don't need to invent things and not even train AI, but take the procedures from the smallest unit scale and you get eventually the large scale as well working correctly.

Like smallest would be things like how a teams build a squad, how squads build a platoon etc.

Then simple formations, commands etc for each step. Such actions like how a squad mounts and unmounts from vehicles, how the vehicle supports the squad. How the vehicles moves and behaves etc.

Eventually you get to point where you have command structure instead groups and each unit has basic training and last orders to follow. And when you add some basic logic to all of it, you would get even complex defense structures build like in your video that how the SAM sites engage targets etc standalone as when communicating.

The current SAM AI is rather simple and there is hardly any coordination between ground units. In the last few months I have been working on an IADS script for DCS: https://github.com/walder/Skynet-IADS to create a more realistic and challenging operating environment.

Within the limitation of DCS it provides a fairly good IADS. SAMS stay dark until an EW radar informs them of a target in range. You can define connection nodes and power sources and command centers. Once these are destroyed the IADS degrades. So lots of options to simulate a more complex environment until DCS updates its core.

@nsgreenaway if you have some info you can and would like to share to improve the script let me know. I got my ideas for the IADS by reading lots of public available docs.

Yes.... but you are causing reckless times with such a dream AI capabilities...

Some call it reckless, others call it genius

But in all seriousness my initial reason for making the thread was to propose the inclusion of some more modern SAMs at some point down the track. The implementation of decent IADS modelling would just be the cherry on top. Here's hoping it happens :thumbup:

The current SAM AI is rather simple and there is hardly any coordination between ground units. In the last few months I have been working on an IADS script for DCS: https://github.com/walder/Skynet-IADS to create a more realistic and challenging operating environment.

 

Within the limitation of DCS it provides a fairly good IADS. SAMS stay dark until an EW radar informs them of a target in range. You can define connection nodes and power sources and command centers. Once these are destroyed the IADS degrades. So lots of options to simulate a more complex environment until DCS updates its core.

 

@nsgreenaway if you have some info you can and would like to share to improve the script let me know. I got my ideas for the IADS by reading lots of public available docs.

Does it work with online servers?

 

 

From what I understand, it was only a test, and not a very successful one, but technically, it can be loaded on the f-14

Those were still ground guided IIRC by the hawk radars? Seems like it was very weird attempt to increase the range of the system (air vs ground launch).

Does it work with online servers?

it does. played a few missions, check the discord group for mission builders who use it on a large scale