AA missles undetectable?

[sprayer_faust 0]

I'm with Beagle for the same reasons. Arma is not a proper aircraft simulation. Aircrafts ruin Warfare at later phases.

Example: A skilled fly-boy was harrasing our base (in AV-8B). He dodged four Tor-M1 missiles (Mando's implementation of mid-range SAM) and was finally shot down after the fourth Tunguska missile. All of which happened in less than ten minutes.

I could see on the radar that he had the Tor's figured out - flying in circles around it, keeping velocity vector perpendicular to the incoming missile's flight path... It's too easy to survive AA once you have the game mechanics figured out.

[Der_Waffen 28]

i'm sorry but the " this is an arcade " is not what the game was advertised as, and as far as this being a so called Ground simulator, I don't buy that either. I don't think it is your place to comment on what the developers intended this game to be. I'm merely pointing out what needs to get fixed. You can agree or disagree.

Bottom line is You can't argue that the two points i've brought up aren't correct or valid. So put your personal theories aside in what the game "should be" and either support the theory I have put forth, answer and questions that I ask, and QFT.

[Beagle 684]

i'm sorry but the " this is an arcade " is not what the game was advertised as, and as far as this being a so called Ground simulator, I don't buy that either. I don't think it is your place to comment on what the developers intended this game to be. I'm merely pointing out what needs to get fixed. You can agree or disagree.

Bottom line is You can't argue that the two points i've brought up aren't correct or valid. So put your personal theories aside in what the game "should be" and either support the theory I have put forth, answer and questions that I ask, and QFT.

the point is...it won't change the way it is, so we have to make the best out of it, and thats avoiding to use airplanes at all. The airplanes in Armed Assault have not changed much since operation Flashpoint (2001), but great steps have been made for Helicopters and all ground units. The poitn is to focus on the parts of the game that are good...and to simply avoid the parts that spoil the in general good gameplay by introducing tab & kill flying tanks with UFO features and magic radars. Edited January 31, 2011 by Beagle

[Der_Waffen 28]

so why would BIS make such an awesome game and stick planes in it if they perform so badly? Why not just leave planes out?

And are you so certain that planes won't receive a major overhaul in future patches?

[celery 8]

so why would BIS make such an awesome game and stick planes in it if they perform so badly? Why not just leave planes out?

Because then this forum would be full of people whining for planes to be in the game, even in a less detailed support role (like they are now) than none at all. And surprise surprise, Arma 2 is an infantry game where vehicles are in a secondary, supporting role. Just like tank, plane or helicopter games where the other types are less detailed and supporting the main aspect of the game. The difference between them an Arma 2 is, however, that you can drive anything in Arma 2, but only the main vehicle type in the others.

Edited January 31, 2011 by Celery

[max power 21]

so why would BIS make such an awesome game and stick planes in it if they perform so badly? Why not just leave planes out?

And are you so certain that planes won't receive a major overhaul in future patches?

The aircraft are what they are, and I think they add dimension to the game.

[Beagle 684]

The aircraft are what they are, and I think they add dimension to the game.

As long as noone thinks ArmA2 is a nuts and bolts simulation. It's a procedural simulation, not a physics and system simulation.

[Star Four One 10]

seriously, not flaming anybody here.. but before people "Think" they know something, please, please, research what you are talking about.

Su-25, and A-10 doesn't use "80's technology" anymore.

Read what the russians have done to upgrade ALL their Su-25 Variants. Currently 60% of Russia's ENTIRE Su-25 have been upgraded to include the more sophisticated ECW and Radar Sweet. The new Koypo Radar provides all weather, day/night attack capabilities, and just read the spec's on how the New ECW suite can detect and defend against IR, Heat, and Radar controlled missles.

The electronic countermeasure (ECM)system is intended to carry out electronic reconnaissance and all-directional protection of aircraft in radar and IR band of electromagnetic waves inautomatic mode of operation without the pilot’s interference.

The system comprises:

- electronic reconnaissance set intended to pinpoint all existing ground, airborne and shipborne radars used for detection and fire-control, operating in 1.2-18 GHz and determine the most dangerous target, its coordinates and distance to it;

- small-size electronic active jammer, generating deflecting, noise, scintillating and re-targeting to underlying surface interferences;

- optronic jammer, generating an amplitude-frequency modulating interference to IR missile seekers;

- dispenser of IR decoys with 192 decoy projectiles generating passive jamming in conjunction with "cold" aircraft engines intended to frustrate at a critical moment over a target the AD missile portable systems of enemy attack;

- aircraft decoys to detect and deceive AD enemy systems lurking in ambushes, onboard fighter radars and missiles with all types of seekers.

So any type of missile fired at the "new" ECM suite on the su-25 will at least be detected, and most often will be automatically dispersed of, without imput from the pilot.

Your right, the Hog nor the SU-25 uses 80's technology - MANPADS and SAMs don't either. It's alot cheaper to create a more powerful mobile aircraft killer then it is to compact radars and electronics into a airframe. The US had systems with the same effect on their Vipers in Desert Storm, and Decoys were also used off of Rhino's in the early stages of the war.

Our older jets (Both Bug and Viper) could detect and place where threats are located, and produce a "threat circle" on the MFD to avoid them. Russia, as of your post seems to only be touching this area in 2010/11. Day and Night capability! We had that in the Gulf war!

@DM

Passive or active seeking does not matter, EVERYTHING you fire at an aircraft these days can be detected, tracked and countered (well, everything but bullets can be countered

Yes it matters very much which seeker is fired at your jet. With new 5th Generation a/c like the F-35, DAS will be able to detect all incoming friendlies or threats. However, active seekers kick in when they obviously become active themselves and require ZERO guidance from the host - If I were to launch a slammer on your MIG29, you would have around 7 seconds to respond to that, AFTER my missile goes active. Technology can only go as far as it's implementation.

S41

Edited February 1, 2011 by Star Four One

[max power 21]

As long as noone thinks ArmA2 is a nuts and bolts simulation. It's a procedural simulation, not a physics and system simulation.

:crazy: How could anyone ever mistake ArmA 2 as a nuts and bolts sim? I think that might require quite extensive brain damage.

[dm 9]

@DM

Yes it matters very much which seeker is fired at your jet.

If I were to launch a slammer on your MIG29, you would have around 7 seconds to respond to that, AFTER my missile goes active.

You seem to be missing the point that there are systems which detect the rocket plume of an incoming missile, not its seeker head.

Yes, I appreciate your aircraft actually has to be fitted with the system for it to work, but saying that "omg mah missile is undetectable" is just BS.

Edited February 1, 2011 by DM

[Star Four One 10]

You seem to be missing the point that there are systems which detect the rocket plume of an incoming missile, not its seeker head.

Yes, I appreciate your aircraft actually has to be fitted with the system for it to work, but saying that "omg mah missile is undetectable" is just BS.

Ex. EODAS, and new systems from Lockmart that are currently integrated on 5th Gen fighters, by presentation pick up exactly what you said. Other designs include taking up a hardpoint, or paying the bills to place the system within the airframe. None of which are spread around the AF.

"Picking up the plume"(Which btw, depends entirely on the MANPAD), needs to be visually identified; either by system or eyeball.. one of which is operating on mass scale today.

S41

Edited February 1, 2011 by Star Four One