Jump to content

Maybe MANPADS are op?!


Raviar

Recommended Posts

As a UH-1H pilot I like that the manpads are efficient because they are part of the role I perform as a virtual helicopter pilot, but I did some tests with different countermeasures programs, at different speeds and it is true that from an F -18 it costs a lot detach from one of its missiles.

 

In the first test I did a pass at mach 0.8 within range, firing two flares at 1 second intervals with ten reps. The manpad caught up with me.

 

On the second pass, I fired two flares at 0.5 second intervals with five reps at mach 0.9 with evasive maneuvers and was also hit. It was like carrying a missile connected to a probe behind the plane. The flares had no effect.

 

On the third pass, I set two flares at 0.5 second intervals with ten reps at mach 0.9 speed and evasive maneuvers and this time I managed to dodge them, but I was left with the feeling of having to use too many flares for just one. manpad.

 

It is not a criticism, it is something I attach simply to provide another point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Too many flares for just one MANPAD' because you're flying where the MANPAD is effective, and you're not practicing one-pass-haul-a** which is what an F-18 would most likely do in a lot of situations.  You'd hit your target and leave, not this DCS mission thing where you constantly re-attack.

 

MANPADS have to be credible threats, otherwise why should they be there at all?

  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think manpads are supposed to be effective in real life too. Not sure what type exactly are in discussion here but modern, shoulder carried IR\UV\Imaging AA missiles are extremely effective inside their engagement ranges. Especially if fired correctly, from an angle where the target has very little chance of spotting it coming at them. 


Edited by Lurker
  • Like 1

Specs: Win10, i5-13600KF, 32GB DDR4 RAM 3200XMP, 1 TB M2 NVMe SSD, KFA2 RTX3090, VR G2 Headset, Warthog Throttle+Saitek Pedals+MSFFB2  Joystick. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hace 12 minutos, GGTharos dijo:

'Too many flares for just one MANPAD' because you're flying where the MANPAD is effective, and you're not practicing one-pass-haul-a** which is what an F-18 would most likely do in a lot of situations.  You'd hit your target and leave, not this DCS mission thing where you constantly re-attack.

 

MANPADS have to be credible threats, otherwise why should they be there at all?

 

I'm not going to discuss it, but the flares should be effective. I accept the takedown if I haven't seen the missile coming, but if I know where it's coming from and I'm throwing flares at it, I must be able to evade it.

 

I did these tests after seeing the footage of heavy duty military aircraft flying slow and heavy in the retreat from Afghanistan and I thought in DCS those flares would have no effect on a slow heavy aircraft, if an F-18 at mach 0.8 is no it is able to evade a manpad with a program of 2 countermeasures per second and ten repetitions. But as I say, it is not my intention to argue, just to give another point of view.

 

So there are two options, the manpads are beyond your capabilities or the Hornet flares are like skim milk.

Edited by La Unión Atazar
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, La Unión Atazar said:

 

 but if I know where it's coming from and I'm throwing flares at it, I must be able to evade it.

 

 

 

Actually that is very, very highly dependent on the type of MANPAD used. In RL at least. Unfortunately in DCS flares are dice rolls. Which means if you throw out enough of them they will work even against manpads which use other types of guidance systems in addition to IR and against which flares should be ineffective. 

  • Like 1

Specs: Win10, i5-13600KF, 32GB DDR4 RAM 3200XMP, 1 TB M2 NVMe SSD, KFA2 RTX3090, VR G2 Headset, Warthog Throttle+Saitek Pedals+MSFFB2  Joystick. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hace 1 minuto, Lurker dijo:

 

Actually that is very, very highly dependent on the type of MANPAD used. In RL at least. Unfortunately in DCS flares are dice rolls. Which means if you throw out enough of them they will work even against manpads which use other types of guidance systems in addition to IR and against which flares should be ineffective. 

 

 

My opinion is that it doesn't matter how slow and heavy you fly, if the flares emit enough heat to deflect the IR missile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's also important not to fly in full AB. That tends to make flares less useful, including in DCS. You can see that with the A-10, MANPADS go for flares quite often (especially from the front), and even more for helos from head-on. If you're presenting your tail or a huge AB plume to the launcher, then maneuvering is of little help. And that helps even if a missile has flare rejection, it's never perfect, and the brighter the flare is relative to the engines, the better. The bit transports, especially turboprops, would be affected by this, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, La Unión Atazar said:

My opinion is that it doesn't matter how slow and heavy you fly, if the flares emit enough heat to deflect the IR missile.

 

The primary way flares work is that they cause the seeker to lock onto them before launch, therefore operators are trained not to launch if there are flares in or near the missile's FoV.  This important part of the whole deal is not modeled in DCS.

 

After the seeker is locked on, flares will work but you'll need a lot of them for any kind of modern seeker, and for some modern seekers they won't have any effect at all.

  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hace 12 minutos, GGTharos dijo:

 

The primary way flares work is that they cause the seeker to lock onto them before launch, therefore operators are trained not to launch if there are flares in or near the missile's FoV.  This important part of the whole deal is not modeled in DCS.

 

After the seeker is locked on, flares will work but you'll need a lot of them for any kind of modern seeker, and for some modern seekers they won't have any effect at all.

 

I agree with the theory, but in all my tests there were flares in the seeker's field of view, with a schedule of ten repetitions of two flares per second. Something, therefore, is wrong, be it the ability of the manpad or the effectiveness of the Hornet's flares. I like that manpad is efficient because 50% of the time it is my ally, but something is not right if in 80% of the tests, the flares do not work against the threat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont know why certain user wants to project manpad should be as effective as it is in the current state of dcs, it should be effective for sure against rotary.

I provided more than 30 tacviews, if people just spend 15 mins it certainly show how wild the manpads are against jets! That doesnt make sense to me!

 

Ok here in the scenario, as viper/hornet/... pilot, imagine u have certain task, not even bombing, but just fly over, two manpads fire, i drop 10 flares. 2 flares per 0.2 seconds for repetition of 5, repeat this for twice with 5 to 6 G evasive manuver. If i had more time i didnt bother to jettison my entire Countermeasures to evade, but the manpad still hit! And we simulate it as the pilot got surprised.

 

I dont get into discussions as when i fly in uh1 i can defeat it! Thats another topic.

 

Im in doubt of manpad missile heat detection, track and missile trajectory!

 

The flare seems doesnt reduce the hit signature of the jet engines in certain altitudes and conditions!

 

They can shoot even if a jet fly towards to sun! Or heading from sun.

 

The pre-flaring is really effective but then why not the flares after launch?!

 

 


Edited by Raviar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Raviar said:

The pre-flaring is really effective but then why not the flares after launch?!

IRL you mean? It's because once launched, the difference in movement and heat makes it reasonably easy to reject flares as not the target you were going after to begin with.

In DCS, however, pretty much the exact opposite is true: pre-flaring does not really affect target acquisition, whereas flares after launch are — as previously mentioned — just die rolls for whether or not the missile should randomly go after them or not.

❧ ❧ Inside you are two wolves. One cannot land; the other shoots friendlies. You are a Goon. ❧ ❧

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an example of manpad vs Mirage 2000, in 1995 in Bosnia. Please note that it is debatable if the used manpad was actually Igla (if I recall correctly officially not in the inventory), or Strela-2M.

 

 

 

 


Edited by okopanja
Removed second video for not being relevant to the performance of missile
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

after some testing i can fur sure say, that in the last year something has changed in dcs which makes manpads way more effective than they were before.

 

i have a small mission for the a-10c, which i considered to be easy. the target area is protected by some light AAA and 4 x SA-18 manpads, but the mission is designed so that you have to go in low and personal. even with the "old" a-10c and it's reduced flare count it was not difficult: put on a continues flare program (2 flares every 1.5s or similar), bomb all tree lines that might hide a manpad and the threat was easily dealt with before the flares ran out.

i played the mission again and it's unbeatable now. i now switched to the new a-10c (2), which can bring 480 flares and even with a continues program of 2 flares every 0.5 seconds i get hit before i can even start a second attack run.

 

there were hundreds of flares in the air and they stills hot me down, over and over again. it feels wrong, because the sa-18 declassifies every AAA piece and even the sa-9. so it's performance seem unrealistic compared to other air defense systems. maybe that's because there is no operator error in dcs and sa-18s always launch with proper lock?

ED should definitely take a look at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some nice videos of training with Strela-2M, Serbian Armed Forces:


Highpoints:

- Target used was 122mm shell launched from a mortar
- 2:10 TV guy: "During NATO aggression (1999 in Yugoslavia) Strela-2M was very successful: it shot down 2 UAVs, several cruise missiles, but the biggest success was hitting the A-10 (it removed one engine, but the aircraft landed in Skoplje)."

 


Highpoints:
- 0:13 instructor corrects the hand position it has to be tight (and since this is a lady he provides some additional support just in case)
- 0:27 instructor holds the back of tube (I gather this is what I would call cheating)

 

Russian material (also with some live firing)

 

Highpoints:
- maximal speed 1440 km/h
- 1:01 against flares throwing target
- 2:39 there appears to me some level of situational awareness, since the tactical units have SA receiver, which indicates were the targes are located. Mind this is from Soviet times!
- 5:17 variant with 2 missiles fired simulataniously


Turkish helicopter being brought down by Kurds:

 

Based on what I have observed special emphasis is place on the acquisition and correct posture at launch time. Basically, at the time of firing as the rocket travels through the tube, the center of gravity is shifted to the front and this has to be compensated for optimal results.  You will notice the correct posture in first 2 videos , compared with incorrect handling in last video, which still hits the target. Credits to guidance system, which was more forgiving in the case of Igla.

So major issue here is:
- Igla must be prepared to fire (SA exists as we saw in the video from russian side)
- Target must be within launch parameters

 

So looks like DCS works as designed and in RL.

 


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

4 hours ago, okopanja said:

So looks like DCS works as designed and in RL.

 

Then maybe most other redfor point defenses are too weak in DCS (or just too old?) compared to an SA-18?

 

I propose the following experiment. In the mission editor place down some unarmed stationary target vehicle and set up a player flown a-10c to attack armed with rockets or dumb bombs and gun only (and maximun amount of flares).

Now put down different point defenses (only one set at a time).

a) 4x shilka

b) 4x gopher SA-13

c) 4x manpad SA-18

 

You'll find that the SA-18 is the most deadly system, despite being the cheapest and lightest by far. You'd expect that the SA-18 would have made other systems obsolete immediately after it entered service, however it didn't.

While i see the benefit of the shilka in denying the attack run in the first place (SA-18 only excelling on aircraft egress), it's a much more expensive system.

The SA-13 and SA-9 (9K31) however are laughable ineffective compared to the SA-18, while being way more complex and expensive.

 

I do understand that the SA-18 is the newest russian built IR SAM in DCS, so maybe that is the reason that it outclasses it's bigger brothers by so much.

It would be very nice to have an SA-7 manpad then to compare.


Edited by twistking
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, twistking said:

Then maybe all other point defense air defense are to weak in DCS?

Nah. They're just obsolete.

SA-13 is from the mid-70s

Shilka is from late Ordovician.

The “SA-18” we have is identical to the incorrectly named SA-24, which we also have, and which is from 2004.

 

That said, yes, most SAMs are a bit too weak and easy to defeat, unless we're talking about the naval systems. This includes the MANPADs.

  • Thanks 1

❧ ❧ Inside you are two wolves. One cannot land; the other shoots friendlies. You are a Goon. ❧ ❧

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, you are missing the point GGTharos was making before. Manpads are really, really dangerous against ANY fighter, even a high performant one. This is due to a compilation of several reasons:

 

  • They are really difficult to spot, in fact they could be launched just after you overfly one, so they can be virtually invisible to the receiver, requiring wingman visual support.
  • They are shot from very close range/altitude and they are FAST (
    ). You cannot make a proper missile defense, as normally you are just 2 seconds away from an impact. 
  • At those altitude, normally you may not be as fast as you would like to, or you just made a gun or bomb run and you maybe low of speed.
  • Modern Manpads have very good CM resistance.

So, can you evade a manpads by a coordinated maneuver? Well...Yes, you can perfectly do it in DCS, you just need to be aware of where it is, be prepared, and have enough speed to orthonal roll or split-S the missile, which is normally the best methods. But in reality, both IRL and also totally applicable to DCS you should consider the following:

  • You just dont enter a manpad WEZ...ever.
  • If there are manpads in the area, Gun or bomb runs are made at 14.000-16.000 feets, not lower, and always with preventive flares and no AB
  • If you enter is only because you don't know it was there and because is just part of your low alt ingressing route (imagine a Viggen, tornado, F111...), in which case you should be going really fast giving you evading options
  • You always hit a target and replan a new attack, you just don't get flying around, slow and low in a manpads infected area, its a recipe for disaster.

Edited by falcon_120
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Nah. They're just obsolete.

SA-13 is from the mid-70s

Shilka is from late Ordovician.

The “SA-18” we have is identical to the incorrectly named SA-24, which we also have, and which is from 2004.

 

That said, yes, most SAMs are a bit too weak and easy to defeat, unless we're talking about the naval systems. This includes the MANPADs.

I understand. Did not know the shilka was that old, but i guess that explains the exoskeleton look of it.

 

But what's up with the SA-24? How are they identical, why is it incorrectly named and why haven't i found it in the mission editor?

 

11 minutes ago, falcon_120 said:

Guys, you are missing the point GGTharos was making before. Manpads are really, really dangerous against ANY fighter, even a high performant one. ...

 

No, i don't think we are.

I was wondering only about the effectivness of the system compared to other more complex/expensive systems, and i think @Tippis has answered that sufficiently.


Edited by twistking
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, twistking said:

But what's up with the SA-24? How are they identical, why is it incorrectly named and why haven't i found it in the mission editor?

We have two “SA-18”s in the game: the Igla and the Igla-S. The latter is not an SA-18, but the SA-24. Not that it matters because both use the exact same unit and missile definitions so it just ends up being a way to use labels separate two different skins. This happens a lot with anti-air in DCS.

  • Thanks 1

❧ ❧ Inside you are two wolves. One cannot land; the other shoots friendlies. You are a Goon. ❧ ❧

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, twistking said:

You'll find that the SA-18 is the most deadly system, despite being the cheapest and lightest by far. You'd expect that the SA-18 would have made other systems obsolete

immediately after it entered service, however it didn't.

Being cheap does not mean ineffective, but first mistake you make here is comparing the different kinds of anti-aircraft weapons with different use cases. Manpad is meant to be the cheapest, and considering the amount of money it is the most effective. You do not need a particularly trained personal (although it is highly recommended 🙂 ). In contrast both Shilka and Strela-10 are much more complex systems, and require highly trained personnel. Furthermore Strela-10 had rocket upgrades several times already.

 

Strela-2M did hit A-10 and blow up one of its engines (enough to take it out from further combat). In contrast with Strela-10 and its missile the aircraft would probably not be able continue flying and probability of loosing your pilot is much higher.

 

There are 3 elements that contributed to the effectiveness of anti-aircraft systems:

1. situational awareness: ability to receive the target from other systems (ERW, nearby radars, AWACS, radio-locating stations, spotters). You will notice that Igla does come with very portable unit able to receive and display up to 4 targets.

2. ability to detect and track your target: your own eyes (manpad), your own radar, optics, camera, night camera, thermal camera, laser range finders, etc.

3. characteristics of launch platform and rockets/shells such as: velocity, horizontal/vertical range, warhead, guidance...

 

If you do not know about incoming target, you will not have time to react. This is why Igla is accompanied by additional device. Without it, probability of intercept would be based only on number 2, it is not the same when you have to scan 360/90 and when you focus only one small particular part of the sky. If you are not able to observe target yourself, again you will not be able to fire. E.g. some systems had issues with too narrow FOV, which would hinder finding what was reported at stage 1. The transition between stage 1 and stage 2 is the most sensitive part of interception.

 

It is a proven fact that until the 90s many of these systems were used in conflicts as independent systems without situational awareness. During 80s you had to have dedicated radio + display device, but today you can use a cell phone and app for this.

 

 


Edited by okopanja
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/11/2021 at 9:15 PM, okopanja said:

Here is an example of manpad vs Mirage 2000, in 1995 in Bosnia. Please note that it is debatable if the used manpad was actually Igla (if I recall correctly officially not in the inventory), or Strela-2M.

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the video, im aware of it, as it is in the list of shootdown which I provided earlier.

However as you can see the mirage is flying straight and level without flaring

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, on this subject I'll just say this: MANPADS are meant to be part of a proper air defense regime, one that incorporates multiple systems all working together to make an entire stretch of sky a complete no-fun zone for aircraft.

 

The first layer is made of the bigger and nastier systems, such as Patriot and the SA-2 or SA10, which sit in a predetermined area, and basically dare the other guy to come at them.

 

The second layer is typically mobile systems that can be in one spot one day, and another spot the next. The US doesn't have many of these at the moment, as we relay on CAP, but the Reds use the SA6, SA11, and similar systems for this purpose. Note that all of the aforementioned systems up to this point are firing missiles the size of telephone poles, which is part of the reason for their speed and range.

 

Once you're through that layer, now you have to contend with what I call the 'roving' systems, such as Geopard, Roland, Linebacker, Avenger, Tunguska, Shilka, Tor (hiss), and that Chinese thing we have in game. As well as static short-medium range missiles like the Hawk, Rapier, NASAMS, and SA3. These are meant to fill the gaps where the more expensive systems can't quite cover.

 

Finally, you have the systems meant to catch the guys trying to be sneaky. Typically these are MANPADS like Igla and Stinger, but can also be some of the short-ranged stuff mentioned above that doesn't rely on radar, so they're even harder to locate for SEAD flights. You may even attach something like Avenger or a really skilled Shilka to the bunch, and just have them move around from time to time. If they hear something coming, that will mean they have time to set up and be ready for the aircraft to enter the kill zone. This part is actually pretty easy if the preparations were done right, as the hostile jet will be flying within the envelope by this point (for fear of getting smacked by the telephone poles mentioned earlier), and will be going slower than they normally would to avoid having a sudden and violent interaction with the terrain, which makes them easy meat for a MANPADS.

 

So basically, you're damned if you fly above the MANPADS range, because the bigger SAMs will shoot at you, and damned if you fly low to avoid the big scary SAMs because the smaller ones will get you. Helicopters get it the worst because they can't fly out of the MANPADS engagement zone, and rely on being very proactive to avoid getting a missile up the backside.

 

So in short, if you're flying a mission where you can't figure out how to penetrate the enemy airspace because of the various AA threats, and brute forcing it isn't working, then maybe you should try doing what modern planners have done: Use the weapons designed around this problem for their intended roles. Weapons like the JSOW were meant to be hurled at high value targets deep inside enemy territory, because who cares if 7/8 get shot down, if the 8th hits the target, the job is done, head back to the boat for beer and medals.

 

The problem isn't the weapon system you're up against... maybe, the problem is you, and you need to rethink how you approach the problems the mission designer presented.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

The problem isn't the weapon system you're up against... maybe, the problem is you, and you need to rethink how you approach the problems the mission designer presented.

 

Great write-up for realistic setup of defences. Manpads are fun to locate and kill, but not in above scenario.

Many of us are not hardcore milsim players.

 

Honestly, I think DCS is just tedious and to difficult if you make too hyper realistic milsim scenarios. I love something between arcade and milsim.

 

Most DCS F-14 pilots fire more Phoenix missiles in one playing session, what the whole US-fleet has fired in combat through history 😉 

 

For me DCS is a sandbox for fun scenarios:  Setup a mission that is possible to complete with a wingman.
Not penetrate a multi layered SA-defence, peppered with lots of enemy planes. 

 

 


Edited by MIghtymoo

Intel i9 13900K | RTX4090 | 64 Gb DDR4 3600 CL18 | 2Tb PCIe4.0 | Varjo Aero | Pico 4 on WIFI6e | Virtual Desktop running VDXR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

Yeah, on this subject I'll just say this: MANPADS are meant to be part of a proper air defense regime, one that incorporates multiple systems all working together to make an entire stretch of sky a complete no-fun zone for aircraft.

 

The first layer is made of the bigger and nastier systems, such as Patriot and the SA-2 or SA10, which sit in a predetermined area, and basically dare the other guy to come at them.

 

The second layer is typically mobile systems that can be in one spot one day, and another spot the next. The US doesn't have many of these at the moment, as we relay on CAP, but the Reds use the SA6, SA11, and similar systems for this purpose. Note that all of the aforementioned systems up to this point are firing missiles the size of telephone poles, which is part of the reason for their speed and range.

 

Once you're through that layer, now you have to contend with what I call the 'roving' systems, such as Geopard, Roland, Linebacker, Avenger, Tunguska, Shilka, Tor (hiss), and that Chinese thing we have in game. As well as static short-medium range missiles like the Hawk, Rapier, NASAMS, and SA3. These are meant to fill the gaps where the more expensive systems can't quite cover.

 

Finally, you have the systems meant to catch the guys trying to be sneaky. Typically these are MANPADS like Igla and Stinger, but can also be some of the short-ranged stuff mentioned above that doesn't rely on radar, so they're even harder to locate for SEAD flights. You may even attach something like Avenger or a really skilled Shilka to the bunch, and just have them move around from time to time. If they hear something coming, that will mean they have time to set up and be ready for the aircraft to enter the kill zone. This part is actually pretty easy if the preparations were done right, as the hostile jet will be flying within the envelope by this point (for fear of getting smacked by the telephone poles mentioned earlier), and will be going slower than they normally would to avoid having a sudden and violent interaction with the terrain, which makes them easy meat for a MANPADS.

 

So basically, you're damned if you fly above the MANPADS range, because the bigger SAMs will shoot at you, and damned if you fly low to avoid the big scary SAMs because the smaller ones will get you. Helicopters get it the worst because they can't fly out of the MANPADS engagement zone, and rely on being very proactive to avoid getting a missile up the backside.

 

So in short, if you're flying a mission where you can't figure out how to penetrate the enemy airspace because of the various AA threats, and brute forcing it isn't working, then maybe you should try doing what modern planners have done: Use the weapons designed around this problem for their intended roles. Weapons like the JSOW were meant to be hurled at high value targets deep inside enemy territory, because who cares if 7/8 get shot down, if the 8th hits the target, the job is done, head back to the boat for beer and medals.

 

The problem isn't the weapon system you're up against... maybe, the problem is you, and you need to rethink how you approach the problems the mission designer presented.

 

you are explaining the SAM systems setup and tactics! thats not the issue here and out of topic! in any CAS mission the manpads can be anywhere ! 
I believe the mission designer know how to setup the SAM and IADS ! (or at least they have to know it)


Edited by Raviar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Raviar said:

Thanks for the video, im aware of it, as it is in the list of shootdown which I provided earlier.

However as you can see the mirage is flying straight and level without flaring

Sadly, the video does not show the moment of the impact.

 

First scene shows Strela-2M operators, possibly not even taken at the time. If you pay a close attention what follows in next scene (you hear the cheers from the civilian observers, which means they knew it was hit already), Mirage was already a non-maneuverable fireball (onboard fuel burning), then the aircraft disintegrates and falls down. As for flares, I always had a great respect for french pilots, I very much doubt they did not throw flares. Their mission was to hit targets on the ground, the itself weather was cloudy which forced them low, it's a mountains region and they easily found themselves within the missile envelope.

 

Economics and effectiveness is clear: Mirage $23M, Strela-2M , obsolete back in 90s, but costingpossibly well below $5K, since it was domestically produced.

 

Regarding those other flares being thrown: their effectiveness against any version of Igla is rather dubious. IMHO: they are used more for psychological self-assurance.

 

Already today we will see the range of these missiles being extended, with additional tubes, SA and advanced sensors enabling them to acquire the target well ahead of the range of the human eye, day or night. Not a great news for A-10 or Su-25 future.

 

Any low level (below 5000-6000m) air operator seeking direct encounter with ground troops armed with manpads should rethink his approach.

 


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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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