Unrealistic Threat Types - Page 2 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-13-2018, 09:01 AM   #11
Fri13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,512
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by probad View Post
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
You are again doing only ad hominems.

The modern doctrine of Anti-Air units following the armors was developed by Germans in WW and building a layered mobile anti-air network, then Soviets followed just at the neels the idea.
Israel wasn't even conquered illegally back then.

Last edited by Fri13; 01-13-2018 at 09:26 AM.
Fri13 is offline  
Old 01-13-2018, 09:19 AM   #12
NeilWillis
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4,610
Default

You're implying that the European cold war environment would be survivable. It was never envisaged that any asset would be safe. The entire purpose of the western defences was to make it impossible for opposition forces to attack without insuperable losses through the use of killing grounds. Vast numbers of tanks were anticipated, and any war would mean virtual annihilation of both sides. Life expectancy would have been measured in hours, not days - for anything close to or beyond the FEBA.

So, Warthogs, being as exposed as they inevitably must be, would be wiped out very rapidly, as would anything else that moved on the battlefield. Camouflage and ambush was the doctrine for ground forces, deployed in areas where ATGMs could hit opposing forces in the rear, by funnelling them through killing zones. Air assets were assumed to make one or at most 2 sorties. The chances of being able to land at a conventional airbase after war broke out would have been highly unlikely too it was assumed.

So yeah, SAMs were going to be a thing, and were always anticipated as a threat. The Gulf war was a very asymmetrical situation. Don't for a second think conventional war means one side plinking targets with impunity.
NeilWillis is offline  
Old 01-13-2018, 09:21 AM   #13
Fri13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,512
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frixon28 View Post
Well I guess if you consider 1970s-1980s Cold War Europe "Low Threat" . 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.
One of the core designs for A-10 was that it is cheap to build and cheap to maintain. So you can quickly get them out of the factory and spend them in attacks. The aircraft is very well only armored for two things: 1) Pilot survivability, as he is the most expensive part of the whole aircraft really. 2) Most important parts duplicated opposite sides so one side damage doesn't render aircraft down but allows pilot to reach back to safe zone to eject.
The aircraft was as well designed to easily be field repaired for minor damages from wings to tails to engines etc so if a strike force comes back with some operational aircrafts, they can be quickly swapped by parts to get them fly again for a second sortie by sacrificing few other more damaged ones.
It was never designed to be a "flying tank" (what is based to that idea it is a "tank buster" and meant to be used against armored vehicles) by the armor. So you are not meant to fly and take hits and survive from it like it is nothing.

Quote:
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.
Yes, but this is the problem in the current DCS (<2.5 at least) that we can't have a semi-realistic missions as we don't have a unit management as we should. Example, we should just be commanding a platoon or at most ATGM/Sniper team size infantry units and not individually but just as a platoon or team and let the AI position individual soldiers to positions they think is good. Same is with ie. MBT platoons that we are commanding individual ones, while we should just give a command for specific area and the threat direction, rules of engagements (zone, ranges, type etc) and let the AI to work out the rest. And then we don't have a communication simulation where delays of information passing between units is counted in, a inaccuracy of the units positions etc. Instead all is with perfect information.

But maybe we are getting there, ie how ED is developing the skeleton models for infantry etc. And as Wags mentioned that old engine before 2.5 was holding back the Combined Arms module, maybe it is a hint that they have been developing core functions for the unit commanding and all information warfare part that we can see in the future something closer to a "Close Combat" kind unit commanding and operations. So the AI would take care of the micromanagement and leave the mission designers to make the larger scale decisions if so wanted.

This could allow to build a more realistic missions more easily, or keep even the simple "fun factored" ones where target is a SA-6 or MBT Platoon alone middle of open field without any cover or support, just waiting that someone would toss a laser guided bomb at their direction.

Now alone the new engine in 2.x with Normandy tree system has started to change the techniques how to fly and how to deploy weapons, so when Caucasus 2.5 comes out, we might see a lot different methods to do the missions if mission designers are willing to polish the units operational tactics more realistic instead just throwing them to somewhere open.
And yet we will likely be seeing a multiplayer servers with easy target areas and air quake scenarios.
Fri13 is offline  
Old 01-13-2018, 11:06 AM   #14
Kang
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 507
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fri13 View Post
Yes, but this is the problem in the current DCS (<2.5 at least) that we can't have a semi-realistic missions as we don't have a unit management as we should. Example, we should just be commanding a platoon or at most ATGM/Sniper team size infantry units and not individually but just as a platoon or team and let the AI position individual soldiers to positions they think is good. Same is with ie. MBT platoons that we are commanding individual ones, while we should just give a command for specific area and the threat direction, rules of engagements (zone, ranges, type etc) and let the AI to work out the rest. And then we don't have a communication simulation where delays of information passing between units is counted in, a inaccuracy of the units positions etc. Instead all is with perfect information.

But maybe we are getting there, ie how ED is developing the skeleton models for infantry etc. And as Wags mentioned that old engine before 2.5 was holding back the Combined Arms module, maybe it is a hint that they have been developing core functions for the unit commanding and all information warfare part that we can see in the future something closer to a "Close Combat" kind unit commanding and operations. So the AI would take care of the micromanagement and leave the mission designers to make the larger scale decisions if so wanted.

This could allow to build a more realistic missions more easily, or keep even the simple "fun factored" ones where target is a SA-6 or MBT Platoon alone middle of open field without any cover or support, just waiting that someone would toss a laser guided bomb at their direction.

Now alone the new engine in 2.x with Normandy tree system has started to change the techniques how to fly and how to deploy weapons, so when Caucasus 2.5 comes out, we might see a lot different methods to do the missions if mission designers are willing to polish the units operational tactics more realistic instead just throwing them to somewhere open.
And yet we will likely be seeing a multiplayer servers with easy target areas and air quake scenarios.
While I agree with some of that being points that would especially make CA better, I don't see the connection here really. Just because the mission design takes more time and effort because you have to direct all units individually doesn't mean it's impossible to set up realistic missions. You always have the option of not showing unit positions on the map.
Kang is offline  
Old 01-14-2018, 11:52 AM   #15
Eddie
Veteran
 
Eddie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Somewhere in the PG Map
Posts: 4,862
Default

As has already been mentioned, your starting assumptions are entirely incorrect.

The A-10 wasn't designed for a low threat environment at all, in fact the exact opposite is true. The original design role of the aircraft, Air Interdiction against Warsaw Pact forces in Cold War Europe, was the highest threat environment ever envisaged in aerial warfare.

The expected loss rate was so high that almost every aircraft based in Western Europe was expected to be shot down within the first few days of any full scale conflict breaking out. In fact the whole plan hinged on that being the case, otherwise the stream of aircraft and Squadrons coming in to Europe from the US would have nowhere to operate from.

Throughout the Cold War, A-10 crews trained to operate at extreme low altitude, only climbing above 300 feet for the few seconds it would take to employ weapons against their target. And even then most were not expected to return from missions. The A-10s trained to fly at 300 feet AGL or below and 300 KIAS.

This wasn't unique for the A-10 either, aside from the extreme low level profile, all aircraft types were expected to have very high losses from the outset.

I think there is an assumption amongst many that military pilots will avoid threats at all costs, however this is also untrue. In reality there is a system called "Acceptable Mission Risk Level". This determines how crews will operate based on the importance of the mission they are flying.

An AMRL of low, would indeed see crews avoiding any threat and considering any losses unacceptable, therefore the mission would be aborted due to presence of threats. However at the other end of the scale, an AMRL of "Extreme" quite simply says "potential aircraft losses are not to preclude execution of the mission". In other words, even if there is no way to attack the target without being shot down, you will still attack the target.

Of course an extreme AMRL would only be in place in time of a major conflict where winning or losing is at stake. But medium and high AMRLs also allow for aircraft losses to varying degrees.

In short, a flight of A-10s facing MERAD and LORAD systems in order to attack their target is not at all unrealistic in itself.
Eddie is offline  
Old 01-14-2018, 12:38 PM   #16
FSKRipper
Senior Member
 
FSKRipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Germany / Greifswald
Posts: 1,000
Default



Great conclusion Eddie. Nothing more to add from the former WP/NATO border.
__________________
i7 4790K @ 4,8GHz | 1080GTX | 16GB RAM | 256GB & 750 GB Samsung SSD | TIR5 w/ Track Clip | Virpil T-50 Stick with extension + Warthog Throttle | MFG Crosswind pedals | Gametrix 908 Jetseat
FSKRipper is offline  
Old 01-14-2018, 06:27 PM   #17
TonyG
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 182
Default

This situation could be dealt with by having a true SEAD aircraft available to sweep the battlefield before the Warthogs arrived.

Need some Wild Weasels.
TonyG is offline  
Old 01-14-2018, 06:38 PM   #18
FSKRipper
Senior Member
 
FSKRipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Germany / Greifswald
Posts: 1,000
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyG View Post
This situation could be dealt with by having a true SEAD aircraft available to sweep the battlefield before the Warthogs arrived.

Need some Wild Weasels.
We have AI F16's with AGM-88 and get the flyable F-18 this year with the according munitions later on so I don't see a problem
__________________
i7 4790K @ 4,8GHz | 1080GTX | 16GB RAM | 256GB & 750 GB Samsung SSD | TIR5 w/ Track Clip | Virpil T-50 Stick with extension + Warthog Throttle | MFG Crosswind pedals | Gametrix 908 Jetseat
FSKRipper is offline  
Old 01-14-2018, 11:08 PM   #19
Kev2go
Senior Member
 
Kev2go's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,986
Default

The Tunguska dint really enter service until the start of the 80s with the TOR not being service until the Mid 80s as the earliest.


On the other hand AX program ( what would eventually become the A10) started at the late 60s and was not entering service until 1977, there werent as many threats back then. Thats what happens went you design a plane without taking consideration of Future potential threats. Thanks to the influence Armchair dinosaurs stuck in the past like Pierre Sprey, you had a plane that would have been excellent if one had a time machine to go back to ww2. . Except Mr didnt take into consideration that in ww2 the Germans didn't have mobile SPAAGs, radar guideed AIr defenses or Manpads.

The A10 was designed to take lots of hits from small arms fire and have some resistance against AAA guns up to 23mm like the ZSU Shilka. It has proven it can survive a shot from a Manpad. if it just hits an engine, but didnt fare as well against radar guided threats or against vehicles that could shoot off multiple IR missiles in succession.


So what you eneded up was a Plane That succeeded the skyraider by Being more Survivable sure , but still being more akin ww2- Korean era Design Mentality, and not enough consideration given for Future threats. ence why the Air force considered to retire the A10 before the gulf war. In thier view it wasnt survivable as they liked anymore against newer air defense threats that emerged. Post Gulf war A10's service was based primarily as being CAS aircraft for Low threat environments. IN the GUf war saddam only had more dated Defenses, and not anywhere in the ammounts as Soviets would have had if Cold war had gone hot. While the A10's did well, thier losses were still deemed high enough that they got pulled from performing Interdiction against the Republican guard.

A10's Save minor Chnages largerly remained the same all the way until 2006 When finally Long overdue Upgrades came in what would be the A10C.

Again Ironically while the FM pushed for the Gun being the primary tank killer and against any hiher tech weapons the Mavericks in the gulf war proved to be Primary weapons, the Far more effective tank killer over the gau8.



obviously Standoff range > low level gun runs. because with standoff range is preferable because one can avoid getting into the effective envelope of any Low level Defense protecting armored units.

So ia agree i too prefer more realsitic scenarios. WHere multirole fighters perform SEAD first to allow for the most serious AIr defense threats to be neutralized, AS hog pilots should ideally only have to contended with Small arms fire, SPAGG's and Manpads for the most part.
__________________





Build:

Windows 10 64 bit,

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z370- E Motherboard, Intel Core i7 8700k ( Nctua NH14S ),Crucial Ballistix DDR4 16gb ram (2400 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia Gtx 1080 8gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; WD 1TB HDD, samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD, Samsing evo 850 pro 512 gb SSD

Last edited by Kev2go; 01-14-2018 at 11:33 PM.
Kev2go is offline  
Old 01-15-2018, 01:06 AM   #20
Gladman
Senior Member
 
Gladman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Kitscoty, AB
Posts: 1,263
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MRaza View Post
Why do missions have such unrealistic air defenses?
Because its fun.
__________________
i9 9900K @ 4.9Ghz - ASUS Maximus Hero XI - 32GB 4266 DDR4 RAM - ASUS RTX 2080Ti - 1 TB NVME - NZXT Kraken 62 Watercooling System - Thrustmaster Warthog Hotas - MFG Crosswind Pedals - Samsung Odyssey, Pimax 5K+ enroute.
VFA-25 Fist Of The Fleet
http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic99190_2.gif
Gladman is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:41 AM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.