AA missiles locking on ground vehicles?

[icebreakr 3159]

Does anyone have a scientific proof or a research link concering this matter? Is that actually possible in RL, to use such technology on ground vehicles?

Problem is that I have a CAS plane carrying 4 AA misiles and AI *always* fires them on our ground units with massive success (superb 98% locking). Is there a way to disable russian and US AA misiles to target vehicles on height <5?

[HyperU2 11]

AIM-9X has been smashing ground targets irl, can't speak for the others.

Edit, now with video.

k8q_02vhdtI

Edited July 21, 2011 by HyperU2

[sickboy 13]

You should be able to adjust the behaviour by changing weapon/ammo config properties, one of them is the cost parameter.

I think Robalo has been experimenting with some settings to improve this.

[[frl]myke 14]

Old issue, according to kju it is by design: http://dev-heaven.net/issues/11086

[Robalo 465]

I don't know of any other way of limiting this except making the ammo cost higher than the ground vehicle (cost value in config).

For example, if a HMMWV has a cost of 100000, you have to adjust missile's cost in CfgAmmo to something higher. A Strela missile's default cost is I think 7000.

All aircraft have huge costs so the AI will still engage them.

Perhaps a better change (for MANPADS) would be to alter the flight trajectory so it gets a higher probability of impacting something else before reaching a ground target.

Edited July 21, 2011 by Robalo_AS

[[frl]myke 14]

I don't know of any other way of limiting this except making the ammo cost higher than the ground vehicle (cost value in config).

For example, if a HMMWV has a cost of 100000, you have to adjust missile's cost in CfgAmmo to something higher. A Strela missile's default cost is I think 7000.

All aircraft have huge costs so the AI will still engage them.

That's correct but it has a negative side-effect: cost also determines how many of these weapons are loaded in a ammotruck (on a per-missile basis, not per magazine). If you rise the cost of these weapons, a reammo truck is far quicker emptied. Didn't made any in-depth research so far, just noticed that with raised cost i could rearm a plane only once completely, the second time rearming stopped while half the missiles were still missing.

[gossamersolid 155]

I think it should be re-written on the engine side that AA missiles do not even lock ground targets, they should only lock targets in the "Air" class type.

[[frl]myke 14]

I think it should be re-written on the engine side that AA missiles do not even lock ground targets, they should only lock targets in the "Air" class type.

Please feel free to vote on my above linked CIT ticket. ;)

[gossamersolid 155]

Myke;1986447']Please feel free to vote on my above linked CIT ticket. ;)

Firewall at work blocks dev heaven, so I'll wait till I'm at home :)

[sickboy 13]

I think it should be re-written on the engine side that AA missiles do not even lock ground targets, they should only lock targets in the "Air" class type.

Not sure about that.

If the missiles can destroy the vehicle, then why not use it. It's kill or be killed?

Of course best would be that they don't use the weapons, IF others are near with the appropriate weapons etc, but hm :)

[[frl]myke 14]

If the missiles can destroy the vehicle, then why not use it. It's kill or be killed?

Sorry, really no offence but i lol'd when i was reading that. ;)

First, AA Missiles are designed to down air vehicles which tend to be much less armoured than a usual tank. Also it is designed to not rely on direct hits but near hits (approach detector). So it's armor penetrating capabilities is quite low, in fact for a armored vehicle too weak. It's main effect is the shockwave and fragmentation effect of the warhead.

So this disqualifies AA weapons for threats like Shilka or Tunguska. It can disable a car or fairly light armored vehicle which would make the HMMV Avenger a appropriate target. For this single case i agree with you: it's kill or be killed.

But so far this is the only threat that fits in this category as far as i know. Anything else that has armor that is weak enough does not have enough firepower to be enough of a threat that it comes to "kill or be killed" situations. Those can be handled with the gun ,or FFAR if available, pretty effectively (and by lower cost aswell but ingame this has no meaning).

Personally, when flying missions with a A-10, i prefer RTB to rearm the AGM's and keep the AIM-9L for possible AA threats on the way back instead of wasting them on low prio ground targets. GAU8 serves well for this. ;)

[sickboy 13]

First off there's a lot more vehicles than armored ones like shilkas and tunguskas or heavier armor.

Secondly AA missiles are not only carried by planes.

Third I don't see AI units RTB to reload by themselves :)

Of course the missiles shouldn't be used on vehicles where it makes no sense to use them on, and they should be configured as such as well (no damage to the armored targets, and preferably don't try to use the missile at all on these targets).

"If the missiles can destroy the vehicle, then why not use it"

Edited July 21, 2011 by Sickboy

[[frl]myke 14]

"If the missiles can destroy the vehicle, then why not use it"

Realistic behaviour. I guessed a ACE lead programmer would have known this.

Don't waste weapons on low prio targets that might save your life on the way back home to base.

Shilka and Tunguska will laugh when hit by AA missiles and take you down anyway, forget anything with higher armor values. The only valuable target which would justify a AA missile is actually the HMMV Avenger as it is a real threat and actually can be disable by a AA missile. Oh i forgot, the Ural with mounted ZU-23 is a valuable target aswell, forgot about this one. Although not that much of a threat like the avenger with much higher engagement range.

[Beagle 684]

Myke;1986519']Realistic behaviour. I guessed a ACE lead programmer would have known this.

Don't waste weapons on low prio targets that might save your life on the way back home to base.

Welcome to the amazing world of ArmA online, where men on Motorbikes are valuable Hellfire targets becausse you won't make it back to base anyway. Edited July 21, 2011 by Beagle

[gossamersolid 155]

Mando takes care of this at least, Air weapons can only target air units.

[Beagle 684]

Mando takes care of this at least, Air weapons can only target air units.

That's not realistic at all and simply not true for IR guided missiles...the seeker does not care if the hot spot is at 30m altitude or on ground. You can even Shoot AIM-9 at ground targets in Simulationn like LockOn, Jane's F/A-1 & F-15 or Falvon 4.0 that are far from arcade ArmA targeting. But you can also target and kill aircraft with hellfires and mavericks in this sims. It's not easy and it needs an unaware target but it is manageale in a narrow delivery profile. Edited July 21, 2011 by Beagle

[dmarkwick 261]

I have a hard enough time getting units to attack their target with the correct weapon as it is, sometimes they just fart about doing nothing, at worst they attack tanks with their rifles instead of their AT.

Perhaps what's needed is a more fine-grained option, so that as well as saying "unit X attack target Y" you could specify "unit X attack target Y using weapon Z" where weapon Z is a list of that unit's weapons.

*edit*

Off to the ArmA3 wishlist thread I go... :)

Edited July 21, 2011 by DMarkwick

[sickboy 13]

ninja edited :)

Edited July 21, 2011 by Sickboy

[NoRailgunner 0]

The problem is the AI and how they use (waste) weapons/missiles.

AA missiles should be used by AI primary only on AA threats and only if AG missiles/bombs/rockets are depleted they should use remaining AA missiles on high threats. Guess its a flaw in design of weapon configs and AI fsm. Lets see how long it takes till someone appear and say - "It's a feature!" :p:D

[dm 9]

Welcome to the amazing world of ArmA online, where men on Motorbikes are valuable Hellfire targets becausse you won't make it back to base anyway.

Except that there are plenty of reports of Apaches engaging Cars and Bikes with hellfires in Afghanistan because its a guarenteed kill/IED detonation...

Edit to add: Early missiles like sidewinder were so sensitive, they'd break off from the tail of Vietnamese MiGs and go chasing after the sun... (I realise the sun is retardedly hot, but up in the atmosphere, it is much cooler than an afterburner - relatively speaking)

Edited July 21, 2011 by DM

[[frl]myke 14]

ninja edited

Disregard, case closed.

Edited July 21, 2011 by [FRL]Myke

[Petar 10]

Hated this problem in OFP when AI AA soldiers wasted Stingers on tanks and BMPs and then getting smashed by hinds.

[max power 21]

Myke;1986519']Realistic behaviour. I guessed a ACE lead programmer would have known this.

Don't waste weapons on low prio targets that might save your life on the way back home to base.

Shilka and Tunguska will laugh when hit by AA missiles and take you down anyway' date=' forget anything with higher armor values. The only valuable target which would justify a AA missile is actually the HMMV Avenger as it is a real threat and actually can be disable by a AA missile. Oh i forgot, the Ural with mounted ZU-23 is a valuable target aswell, forgot about this one. Although not that much of a threat like the avenger with much higher engagement range.[/quote']

Actually, Shilkas in particular have a reputation for being lightly armoured.

Think of a heavily armoured helicopter like an apache vs. a lightly armoured APC like a bmp or an m113 that are vulnerable to 7.62mm ammunition. The Strela, Igla, and Stinger all have delayed blast fuses.

I don't know what would happen, but I don't think that the end result of a missile travelling at 2 times the speed of sound crashing into a shilka would be laughter.

That said, reality and the game are quite different. The AI shouldn't be making the decision to shoot manpads at jeeps in the first place.

Edited July 22, 2011 by Max Power