Jets - Sensor overhaul (Radars, IRs, Lazors, PGMs)

[snoops_213 75]

Which would be a shame if it was left like this. Granted most weapons wouldn't be capable of this and most sensors wouldn't wouldn't be either, but there are some that are, and would add more to gameplay. The data link has potential not just for jets /drones but AAA/SAMs Radar/AWACs and maybe even AI FAC\FO operators. This could also be used in the Tanks DLC as a way to simulate current/future battle management systems that are out there ie real time position reporting, enemy reports on a digital map. I do truly hope that even though it might not make Jets DLC that  this will be worked on and expanded to if full. I was testing the V-44 last night and was finding while in loiter 500m orbit radius and 300m alt it couldn't find enemy troops. If i spotted them as pilot/gunners it worked as it should. If a vehicle was in the area it was toast but groups of troops it cant find. Can you make this a bit more sensitive to finding ground troops? This is also where HLAD linked to a radio to reveal (not just report)  targets to AI CAS jets/helos would be cool.  

[chortles 263]

@snoops_213 Note that "finding ground troops" instead of vehicles is via having a sensor which has componentType="ManSensorComponent "; as the quadrotors do.

[xxgetbuck123 945]

10 hours ago, Strike_NOR said:

If BIS decide to do datalink guidance or lock-on datalink, it would actually open to door for how most modern SAM systems work too. A dedicated command vehicle/unit with radar for search and/or track, and the other launch-vehicles just use the shared datalink from the command vehicle to select targets and fire. This way, you would only see one active radar on your radar warning display, while there could theoretically be an infinite amount of launchers linked to that one radar source :)

 

It would also allow for advanced weapons to do indirect fire, where you can launch weapons vertically first to clear terrain (or get out of a forest) then shift to horizontal flight towards the target.

 

Either way, they have stated already that semi-active guidance won't make it for Jets DLC, so maybe the future :)

 

We need some fuckin hardcore SAMs to counter the jets. The current AA doesnt cut it. 

[ski2060 167]

Well, right now that is that POOK's SAM pack does.  It will mess up Aircraft if they are just flying willy nilly.

I sure do hope he's working on updating his SAM system to utilize the new sensors an radar etc.  I mean, being able to set your Active radar out as far as you want for modders.. well,  Get ready for 50KM BVR engagements ;)

 

[xxgetbuck123 945]

Just now, ski2060 said:

Well, right now that is that POK's SAM pack does.  It will mess up Aircraft if they are just flying willy nilly.

I sure do hope he's working on updating his SAM system to utilize the new sensors an radar etc.  I mean, being able to set your Active radar out as far as you want for modders.. well,  Get ready for 50KM BVR engagements ;)

 

 

I know POOKs it out there, but I'm talking from a vanilla aspect. BI should release a single SAM site for each faction in response to the jets. 

[snoops_213 75]

This was what i was saying a couple of pages back. The AA systems are to limited and weak. Even with the new allowmark command to limit rwr targeting i still have planes thats pick them off from outside their killzone (4.9k with sam).  Even if they introduced the same vehicle with radar sams that strike out to the current radar range(8km) would be a big help. A radar thats able to detect out to say 15-20km with target handoff would be the ultimate but we'll have to see. This wouldn't be overpowered either because there are enough ways to counter this already although would make a great case for ecms

[ski2060 167]

I hear you about having a good SAM system in Vanilla.  
We still have 2 months until release.  Maybe BIS can be talked into either a SAM Launcher for each faction  with a good range and target capability (possibly limit it to things over 200 meters and/or over 100KPH).

Or they can work on the current AAA vehicles to extend their lethality.  I think Oukej mentioned that he was aware of the shortcomings of the current AA vehicles.

[dragon01 902]

The biggest problem is a complete lack of AA capable of reaching beyond MANPADS range. Titan AA is literally all we have, the AA systems are comparable to M6 Linebacker or ZSU-23-4M4. Even the Tunguska, the most advanced AA system ever introduced in ArmA, has a range of 8km IRL. We'd need something like the Pantsir, with range of 20km or so.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

1 hour ago, ski2060 said:

I hear you about having a good SAM system in Vanilla.  
We still have 2 months until release.  Maybe BIS can be talked into either a SAM Launcher for each faction  with a good range and target capability (possibly limit it to things over 200 meters and/or over 100KPH).

Or they can work on the current AAA vehicles to extend their lethality.  I think Oukej mentioned that he was aware of the shortcomings of the current AA vehicles.

brought it up in the form of MRAP's with their IRL Counterparts (Fenek AA and corresponding counters of other factions). They could make Launchers that use ASRAAM's, or just make a different kind of AA. But they likely won't, for free at least. If they haven't done it by now, it won't be done at all, and i wouldn't expect anything with Tank DLC either... However, IF they were to do something similar to the Dynamic Loudout System for ground vehicles where you can switch our Turrets, it's very possible that it'd become much easier to implement vehicles with a variety of defensive and offensive loadouts.

[snoops_213 75]

1 hour ago, dragon01 said:

The biggest problem is a complete lack of AA capable of reaching beyond MANPADS range. Titan AA is literally all we have, the AA systems are comparable to M6 Linebacker or ZSU-23-4M4. Even the Tunguska, the most advanced AA system ever introduced in ArmA, has a range of 8km IRL. We'd need something like the Pantsir, with range of 20km or so.

With the current system all that would need to be done is make a search radar with hlad and a 15-20km range. With sams replace titan with the amraam looking model( the long range a2a model) with a range of the current vehicle radar (8km) and when hlad targets come into their radar range they turn their radar on for targeting. The ai would have to learn about the target at some point which it doesn't do so that would need looking at or have their behavi set to combat so the radar is forced on. I don't really expect anything like new models, except that i don't think there's a suitable model in game for a radar, but a few config changes so we get a short range and long range version of the AA vehicles would be simpler and quicker and a good start. 

[jarrad96 1940]

I would love to see a Fennek AA for the AAF, as it would be a very different vehicle to the gun-based SPAAG we have for both NATO and CSAT right now.

A fast moving but lightly armoured, small, missile based AA, on a similar concept to the Humvee Avenger would be unique to have and it would tie in well with the radar improvements. The ability for it to zip around the area and re-position faster would mean that it would be a bit more complicated to fight compared to the more static SPAAG for other factions, where if you know the range you can just loiter outside it.

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

While I agree that the current SHORAD and MANPADS weve got are very limited I do believe that mission design can play a HUGE part in over coming these shortcomings.

 

Reverse slope defense backed up with TITAN infantry is still going to be a massive pain for all but the most experienced pilots.

 

Im super keen to see what the likes of Pook and the RHS team come up with. S300s or Patriot anyone?

[snoops_213 75]

16 hours ago, Imperator[TFD] said:

While I agree that the current SHORAD and MANPADS weve got are very limited I do believe that mission design can play a HUGE part in over coming these shortcomings.

 

Reverse slope defense backed up with TITAN infantry is still going to be a massive pain for all but the most experienced pilots.

 

 

While i agree with this, it should be problem is there isnt much they can do. While i bag the aa systems out they are good to a point. Now the big problem is with the new sensor systems coupled with high viewdistance nothing stops bombing up to 6000m, above that and targets get hard to distinguish. If you fly at 5000m ( this doest matter about viewdistance) and slowly drop to 4800m aa will engage. Pull back up to 5000m+ and missiles wont get you. Do this 3 more times and the aa killzone just halved. With rwr showing active radar even with a low viewdistance this is easy enough to learn. With practice you can even do this against the gun system rendering it useless without firing a shot. Obviously it gets trickier with the more systems you face, but doable with practice.  If we had a system that made it deadly upto say 8000m ( would need to depend on capability of new jet sensors/weapons) it would make this tatic harder and low level a better choice. I know ive not included any type of air cover but again the tatic here would be climb 5000+ stay out of sam range fight the air cover negate sams kill primary go home. Dont get me wrong the aa we have atm is deadly if you come across a silent system on cas runs or against helicopters, but with the jets they have shown recently this might become an even bigger problem. Take the blackwasp, based on f22 fa18e type planes. Would have a much better radar range capability fly faster stealthier, so if they do make radar the radar reflect that advancement say by even 2km over the current planes out to 6km it could  out shoot the aa system with no need to even climb. Not to mention how much harder it would be to detect them to begin with. Hopefully bis has something to counter this hiding away

[midnightwyvern 1]

At the risk of asking a question others might already have, will it be possible to see the sensor feed from the visual sensor via a virtual head-mounted-display such as with modern aircraft like the F-35?

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Given the Black Wasp 2 doesn't have a HUD, it's likely that aircraft will use largely HMD. 

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

4 hours ago, snoops_213 said:

While i agree with this, it should be problem is there isnt much they can do. While i bag the aa systems out they are good to a point. Now the big problem is with the new sensor systems coupled with high viewdistance nothing stops bombing up to 6000m, above that and targets get hard to distinguish. If you fly at 5000m ( this doest matter about viewdistance) and slowly drop to 4800m aa will engage. Pull back up to 5000m+ and missiles wont get you. Do this 3 more times and the aa killzone just halved. With rwr showing active radar even with a low viewdistance this is easy enough to learn. With practice you can even do this against the gun system rendering it useless without firing a shot. Obviously it gets trickier with the more systems you face, but doable with practice.  If we had a system that made it deadly upto say 8000m ( would need to depend on capability of new jet sensors/weapons) it would make this tatic harder and low level a better choice. I know ive not included any type of air cover but again the tatic here would be climb 5000+ stay out of sam range fight the air cover negate sams kill primary go home. Dont get me wrong the aa we have atm is deadly if you come across a silent system on cas runs or against helicopters, but with the jets they have shown recently this might become an even bigger problem. Take the blackwasp, based on f22 fa18e type planes. Would have a much better radar range capability fly faster stealthier, so if they do make radar the radar reflect that advancement say by even 2km over the current planes out to 6km it could  out shoot the aa system with no need to even climb. Not to mention how much harder it would be to detect them to begin with. Hopefully bis has something to counter this hiding away

 

Yes this might work in terrible crappy missions like I&A where players are given free reign but in a properly built mission where the designer places AA down with a mindset of "if I were defending this objective against jets wjere would i hide?" its a whole different ball game.

 

Also, I was playing around with the Neophron last night and had a hell of a time trying to even take down a single Cheetah because of these new systems. He saw me welllll before I saw him, every time and I even knew exatly where he was on the map as I placed him.

 

Coupled with the new jet hitpoints AA is a serious threat now. Even a near miss has the potential to end you as damage will jam your FCS and youll have to either wrestle the jet home or just eject.

 

As a mission designer I am beyond excited for this stuff. :)

[snoops_213 75]

 I am bagging out a system that works very well at what its supposed to be mobile and deadly which they are. I've made them sound like they dont work and easy to defeat, this is on my part a mistake. They are deadly and will fuck your day right up. As i've said before i am testing with long range stuff and i know some of what im saying doesnt apply to most online play. All my tests have been against AI with remote sharing long viewdistances  and shit you wouldn't do online. AI become aware of active radars and given enough distance from target will still lock and kill from outside sam range. Dont get me wrong ai is not smart enough to stop from attacking head first into the other active systems and will get shot down. And this is where mission design is critical with dynamic loads you could arm you plane to the teeth ?

I too find it hard to visually find the ground vehicles even when i know where they are but the ai doesnt seem to have that problem even when you try to hide them and radar off. 

[woore 10]

 

Guys, the current system gradually slows down the target ID process for the planes and gives more time for AA, so I wouldn't come up with such ambitious SAM propositions just now. Let's see how it will turn out.

I'd love to see the medium-range AA, if the devs would provide the ECM framework. A response-delaying ECMs could be already simulated in a way by spawning invisible objects with RadarTargetSize above zero  around the plane though.

@oukej is something like that planned to be hardcoded, or any ECM framework planned?

@dragon01 Pantsir S1 is far from 20 km targeting range, it's rather ~12 km, and it suffers from the same precision problems as Tunguska, since he utilizes bicaliber missiles and same flight path calculation algorhytms. It's advantages are rather about new sensors, target selection, APAR with its resolution and sweeping friquency and so on.

 

About mid- and long-range SAM simulation, the main problem lies not in the lack of SACLOS, but in the lack of deep in the radar simulation - different modes, frequencies, targets filtering and selection, switchable missile-path algorhytms and their details, missile target tracking errors and so on. Modern SAMs are still far away from "tab-cklick" mode, as well as the future ones. The other problem is that the aerial combat is downscaled in Arma due to island size)

@oukej btw is there currently any way to simulate target tracking errors of the missile? I know you can simulate manuevering errors and 3-point/3-point average/pursuing modes in some way, but is that all? Can't find anything else in MissilesConfig reference.

 

On 28.03.2017 at 3:40 AM, Imperator[TFD] said:

While I agree that the current SHORAD and MANPADS weve got are very limited I do believe that mission design can play a HUGE part in over coming these shortcomings.

 

Reverse slope defense backed up with TITAN infantry is still going to be a massive pain for all but the most experienced pilots.

 

Im super keen to see what the likes of Pook and the RHS team come up with. S300s or Patriot anyone?

 

It's quite of a problem here. First because their simulation would be oversimplified, second - while it's possible to fit mid-range AA like Buk into Arma scale (with ~12 km range or so in the game), it comes to be a problem with long-range AA. How should we simulate MIM-104C with 100 km range IRL? A missile system which covers all the map? Arma 2 Tunguska covered a half of the map too though.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

14 minutes ago, woore said:

 

Guys, the current system gradually slows down the target ID process for the planes and gives more time for AA, so I wouldn't come up with such ambitious SAM propositions just now. Let's see how it will turn out.

I'd love to see the medium-range AA, if the devs would provide the ECM framework. A response-delaying ECMs could be already simulated in a way by spawning invisible objects with RadarTargetSize above zero  around the plane though.

@oukej is something like that planned to be hardcoded, or any ECM framework planned?

@dragon01 Pantsir S1 is far from 20 km targeting range, it's rather ~12 km, and it suffers from the same precision problems as Tunguska, since he utilizes bicaliber missiles and same flight path calculation algorhytms. It's advantages are rather about new sensors, target selection, APAR with its resolution and sweeping friquency and so on.

 

About mid- and long-range SAM simulation, the main problem lies not in the lack of SACLOS, but in the lack of deep in the radar simulation - different modes, frequencies, targets filtering and selection, switchable missile-path algorhytms and their details, missile target tracking errors and so on. Modern SAMs are still far away from "tab-cklick" mode, as well as the future ones. The other problem is that the aerial combat is downscaled in Arma due to island size)

@oukej btw is there currently any way to simulate target tracking errors of the missile? I know you can simulate manuevering errors and 3-point/3-point average/pursuing modes in some way, but is that all? Can't find anything else in MissilesConfig reference.

 

 

It's quite of a problem here. First because their simulation would be oversimplified, second - while it's possible to fit mid-range AA like Buk into Arma scale (with ~12 km range or so in the game), it comes to be a problem with long-range AA. How should we simulate MIM-104C with 100 km range IRL? A missile system which covers all the map? Arma 2 Tunguska covered a half of the map too though.

Long Range AA, wouldn't be too much of a problem. I've found ways in Arma 2 to defeat it, miraculously in an SU-25, which by the way gives you no warning that your being locked or shot at. You would be required to come up with a clever way of defeating it, but it's very doable. 

[woore 10]

@darksidesixofficial the problem isn't about defeating them (most of antiradiation missiles have roughly the same range, US planes can carry cruise missiles and so on, which could be done in the game quite nice), but about unrealistic coverage _dencity_ we'd have with them, enemy airstrips covered by them (which isn't realistic at all, not even close) while having their range quite overshortened due to the Arma terrain limitations (and hence - engagement time), and oversimplified simulation of their systems (tab-click again?).

If the one wants no jets in the air, he could just exclude them from the mission.

[x3kj 1247]

If CAS dont have radar or magic "IR radar" but can only aquire targets visually using TGP or via locking on lasertargets from infantry its not quite so important to have long range AA.  The IR AA missiles on the A3 AA are almost useless against jets. Their lockon time is way too long. Before you have a lock, the plane is gone or past you, leaving your lock cone, resetting the locktime.

 

Something similar to Strela-10 would be usefull addition. It has RWR to detect air radar. Its missiles could be "upgraded" to be a bit longer reaching compared to manpads. With just the missiles, it would be less a threat to anything else.

[oukej 2910]

8 hours ago, woore said:

 

@oukej btw is there currently any way to simulate target tracking errors of the missile? I know you can simulate manuevering errors and 3-point/3-point average/pursuing modes in some way, but is that all? Can't find anything else in MissilesConfig reference.

Only these two
https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/A3_Targeting_config_reference#trackLead
https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/A3_Targeting_config_reference#trackOversteer

 

By a tracking error you mean something like temporarily guiding towards a different position than the current (or future) position of the actual target? Or loosing target because the target has got outside of the missile's field of regard?

[woore 10]

7 hours ago, oukej said:

By a tracking error you mean something like temporarily guiding towards a different position than the current (or future) position of the actual target? Or loosing target because the target has got outside of the missile's field of regard?

 

I mean the first, guiding towards a different position due to the errors in interception vector calculations or target coordinates estimations. The second is already implemented vith the new sensors system I believe. Btw, missile with, say, radar guidance on the vehicle with the radar locks on the targets in its lock cone, or in the vehicle radar cone only? Current Arma 3 Cheetah uses its radar to lock the targets, but Titan AA uses missiles' IR sensor as I see.

[chortles 263]

10 minutes ago, woore said:

Btw, missile with, say, radar guidance on the vehicle with the radar locks on the targets in its lock cone, or in the vehicle radar cone only? Current Arma 3 Cheetah uses its radar to lock the targets, but Titan AA uses missiles' IR sensor as I see.

The missile's sensor/locking is supposed to be independent of the vehicle's, so as you might be aware it remains possible for a Cheetah gunner to lock an air target with the Titan (AA) even with the Cheetah's active radar toggled off.

[woore 10]

2 minutes ago, chortles said:

The missile's sensor/locking is supposed to be independent of the vehicle's, so as you might be aware it remains possible for a Cheetah gunner to lock an air target with the Titan (AA) even with the Cheetah's active radar toggled off.

 And when the radar, say, turned on, you can lock the target and _successfully_ hit the target with missile even if the target is outside the missile radar/lock cone, or missile radar comes into account too in this case?