Jump to content

Unrealistic Threat Types


MRaza

Recommended Posts

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

T.16000m HOTAS + Pedals || TrackIR5 ||

Win10 64bit || 120+500GB SSD, 1TB HDD || i5 4440 @3.3GHz || 16GB RAM @ 1600MHz || GTX1070 G1 ||

FCIII, L39ZA, AJS-37, Normandy '44, Persian Gulf, Channel

F/A-18C, Bf-109 K-4, WW2 Asset Pack, CA, P-47, F-16

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

T.16000m HOTAS + Pedals || TrackIR5 ||

Win10 64bit || 120+500GB SSD, 1TB HDD || i5 4440 @3.3GHz || 16GB RAM @ 1600MHz || GTX1070 G1 ||

FCIII, L39ZA, AJS-37, Normandy '44, Persian Gulf, Channel

F/A-18C, Bf-109 K-4, WW2 Asset Pack, CA, P-47, F-16

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Primary Computer

ASUS Z390-P, i7-9700K CPU @ 5.0Ghz, 32GB Patriot Viper Steel DDR4 @ 3200Mhz, ZOTAC GeForce 1070 Ti AMP Extreme, Samsung 970 EVO M.2 NVMe drives (1Tb & 500 Gb), Windows 10 Professional, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS, Thrustmaster Warthog Stick, Thrustmaster Cougar Throttle, Cougar MFDs x3, Saitek Combat Rudder Pedals and TrackIR 5.

 

-={TAC}=-DCS Server

Gigabyte GA-Z68XP-UD3, i7-3770K CPU @ 3.90GHz, 32GB G.SKILL Ripjaws DDR3 @ 1600Mhz, ZOTAC GeForce® GTX 970.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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


Edited by probad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.


Edited by Fri13
  • Like 1

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

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.

 

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.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2

 

Spoiler

Intel 13900K (5Ghz), 64Gb 6400Mhz, MSi RTX 3090, Schiit Modi/Magi DAC/AMP, ASUS PG43UQ, Hotas Warthog, RealSimulator FSSB3, 2x TM MFDs + DCS MFDs, MFG Crosswinds, Elgato Steamdeck XL

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:thumbup:

 

Great conclusion Eddie. Nothing more to add from the former WP/NATO border.

i9 9900K @ 5,0GHz | 1080GTX | 32GB RAM | 256GB, 512GB & 1TB Samsung SSDs | TIR5 w/ Track Clip | Virpil T-50 Stick with extension + Warthog Throttle | MFG Crosswind pedals | Gametrix 908 Jetseat

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :music_whistling:

i9 9900K @ 5,0GHz | 1080GTX | 32GB RAM | 256GB, 512GB & 1TB Samsung SSDs | TIR5 w/ Track Clip | Virpil T-50 Stick with extension + Warthog Throttle | MFG Crosswind pedals | Gametrix 908 Jetseat

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do missions have such unrealistic air defenses?

 

Because its fun.

i9 9900K @ 5.1Ghz - ASUS Maximus Hero XI - 32GB 4266 DDR4 RAM - ASUS RTX 2080Ti - 1 TB NVME - NZXT Kraken 62 Watercooling System - Thrustmaster Warthog Hotas (Virpil Base) - MFG Crosswind Pedals - Pimax 5K+

VFA-25 Fist Of The Fleet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smallwoods book begs to differ. In Gulf I the A-10s and others were up against an entire Soviet armada. SA-2,3 all the way to SA-15,16,19... Your assumption that loiter time is connected to clearing out SAMs is wrong. Wild Weasels exist for that job. Its A-10s pilot standard to fly as low as 100 feet and navigate with markups on maps through rivers, valleys, forest clearings and even roads. They simply fly this way because its the only way to defeat a rich, high threat environment.

 

I'm an armchair general so dont take me seriously. I parrot what I read in books.

AWAITING ED NEW DAMAGE MODEL IMPLEMENTATION FOR WW2 BIRDS

 

Fat T is above, thin T is below. Long T is faster, Short T is slower. Open triangle is AWACS, closed triangle is your own sensors. Double dash is friendly, Single dash is enemy. Circle is friendly. Strobe is jammer. Strobe to dash is under 35 km. HDD is 7 times range key. Radar to 160 km, IRST to 10 km. Stay low, but never slow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have already been a couple of good comments about the threat environment the A-10 was expected to operate in in the 1970s and 80s.

 

There have been a couple of comments that SEAD would have neutralize the air defense for the A-10. At least with regards to the Central European scenario, I think that is an idea that should be abandoned. First because of the sheer number of threat systems (*). Second because NATO SEAD capability in Europe during the Cold War were a lot smaller than is generally expected. The only HARM shooting aircraft in Europe were a mix of 72 F-4G and F-16C (without HTS) of the 52nd Tactical Fighter Wing at Spangdahlem. In addition there were two USAF F-4G squadrons in the USA for worldwide reinforcement, some of which might come to Germany. The F-4G were a very scarce and precious resource. I think it is reasonable to assume that they would have been used to support high-priority missions, such as to open breaches to the enemy's rear for F-111 and Tornados, that were to strike nuclear delivery systems, HQs, bridges or airbases. Destroying the Vistula bridges in Poland for example would prevent dozens of Soviet second echelon divisions to reach the front. In this light I can not imagine that the few F-4G would have been wasted to suppress the myriads of battlefield SAMs at the FLOT in order to support A-10s to kill individual tanks. The A-10 were on their own.

 

The SEAD success of Desert Storm cannot be compared to Central Europe by the way. Not only were Iraqi air defenses not comparable to what was found in East Germany, the coalition SEAD capability was also considerably better by the participation of the US Navy. The Navy shot the majority of HARM: 4 carriers supplied about 160 HARM shooting aircraft (F/A-18, A-6E, A-7E, EA-6B). A reinforcement which would not have been available in Central Europe.

 

 

 

(*)

Number of deployed Firing Batteries/Battalions in East Germany (East German Air Defence, East German Army Air Defence and Group of Soviet Forces in Germany):

 

SA-2: 34

SA-3: 31

SA-4: 36

SA-5: 6

SA-6: 78

SA-8: 75 (4 independent firing units each, so 300)

SA-10: 2

SA-11: 20

SA-12: 12

 

These forces do not include units of the Polish Army, Czechoslovak Army, Hungarian Army and Soviet 2nd strategic echelon committed to operations in Germany.


Edited by MBot
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

You can always add 2 ship flight consisting of F-16s,F-18s.They can do their thing than you can do yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going along with Mbot's comment, consider the following

 

Even in Desert Storm, where the Coalition had overwhelming technological superiority and specops forces causing havoc behind enemy lines... Iraqi ADS shot down I believe around 80 aircraft? Their defenses were outdated, and flawed, but they still had 3x the air defenses around Baghdad that the Vietnamese had around Hanoi.

 

In Vietnam, where the two combatants were closer to a technological parity, the Western air forces suffered roughly 4,000 losses across all types. Some aircraft models lived and died there, with almost the entire inventory being lost.

 

 

In conclusion, if a scenario is realistic, you will be taking casualties. To get a look at the sheer destructive capability of modern weaponry, examine more closely the 2008 war in Georgia and even the fighting in Ukraine. These are both examples of limited conflicts, where the combatants aren't really going at each other full tilt, in the Georgian case it only lasted a few days.

 

 

Now, while looking at those casualty numbers, how some individual battles turned out, imagine 'What would it be like if these guys WEREN'T holding back?'

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the missions I create, I like to try and make the environment realistic, but provide deviation for those who want it. A good example is Build Up in Patara Valley. In this mission you take off and hold pattern until SEAD reports decreased threat, then you go in and take out two mech convoys. You have the option to call off SEAD with F10 if you want to take care of it yourself from the A-10, or there are client Blacksharks available to start the mission as SEAD then move to the A-10. If you're an A-10 and in the pattern waiting for SEAD to complete, you can F2 over to Apaches and watch them take out 10 AA positions. You have F-15 cover overhead, which gets in a low level furball you can watch from the cockpit, after MIGs enter low over the mountains. There's about a 20% chance you get shot down at that point. If you F10 to take care of SEAD from the A-10, you have NAV marks at the last known locations of enemy AA assets. Two of the ten move a few clicks, so you have to deal with that.

 

Apaches do SEAD, you say? I watched a swarm of Apaches move into the desert on the opening day of Desert Storm. It was one of the most glorious things I've ever witnessed. Do some research and you'll find that they were tasked with the opening attacks against the Iraqi radar net that controlled their air defenses. Make no mistake, the Iraqis had formidable AA and experienced operators.. just not formidable enough considering what Schwarzkopf had in store for them with Operation Secret Surprise. The Iraqis prepared for HARMs and Stealth Fighters.. instead they got an alpha strike from low level AH-64s and A-10s, and high alt precision strikes from cruise missiles launched from B-52s which had deployed from the US mainland. It was also known as Operation Secret Squirrel, which still tickles me.

 

EDIT: We lost 28 fixed wing aircraft during ODS. 5 A-10s were lost, and ~70 took damage, during 8,775 sorties.

Iraq had a modern and formidable Integrated Air Defense System they built with assistance from a French contractor, which included SA-2/3/6/7/8/9/13/14/16, I-Hawk, and ROLAND I/II SAMs.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/air-defence.htm


Edited by StrongHarm

It's a good thing that this is Early Access and we've all volunteered to help test and enhance this work in progress... despite the frustrations inherent in the task with even the simplest of software... otherwise people might not understand that this incredibly complex unfinished module is unfinished. /light-hearted sarcasm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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