SAM Site Ranges

[sgt_savage 586]

I found that in ofp all the missles,Sam's ect all have too much velocity, i would like to see them slowed down at least enough so you can manouver out of the way.This would be interesting when Arma is released so we can set the viewdistance up high. As far as range, 3-4km range is ok for now  

[EricJ 759]

2) Whilst AI planes can cope  with the sam threat to an extent, helicopters are sitting ducks. One possible solution would to use the fired eventhandler on the sam system to run a script on the targeted aircraft, forcing it to drop to a minimal height ( flyinheight 30?) and head away from the incoming missile. Even more complexly, you could force it to randomly adopt one of a number of possible evasive manourvere patterns.

3) Rather than just being warned when a missile is incoming, it would be useful to know when you're being targeted ( I believe that a lot of modern aircraft can detect active radar detection). You could maybe do this using the 'knowsabout' value. I.e. once the value goes over a certain figure for a given aircraft, the pilot of the aircraft would be warned that they have been detected. Again the A.I's response to this warning could possibly be scripted. For example if they were carrying anti-radiation missiles they would engage, otherwise they would turn and flee.

4) Personally I would probably like to see fairly long engagement ranges for the sam's. It would seem a bit strange to have a handheld strela engaging out to about 3000m, whilst an sa-5 missile weighing a few hundred kilo's still only engaged to 5000m. As a balance it would be useful to have minimum engagement ranges as well ( up to a 1000m or so for the larger missiles) where they were basically unguided, as I believe is the case irl.

Well, when you're talking about helos, the dropping to the floor is the best option. requires some timing, but was effective in Longbow 2. However, terrain masking is the best approach in all cases.. Though for a Co-op situation in MP, you want your ground element to engage any AAA/SAM systems so that your flyboy buddies can start killing from the air.

And yes, most modern fighter planes have a good set of radar warning recievers that tell you that you have a SAM system locking you up, and in most cases, can tell you what type that's targeting you.

The main problem with OFP is that the map sizes are really too small to accurately portray most SAM systems (compared to say, Lock On, which has PLENTY of terrain to play with), which is why they dominate so well, they can practically cover the whole map given certain systems.

[Footmunch 0]

Just to be clear - my planes _don't_ have RWR, but they do

usually have 'Launch Cues', either in the form of sounds or

animations.

This, to some extent, simulates the SAM system tracking using

_optics_ only, which the more modern systems are capable of.

Once the missile is launched, the radar system goes active to

give course corrections to the missile. Most semi-intelligent

mobile SAM commanders wouldn't sit there broadcasting, unless

they _wanted_ the enemy air to know they are there, for some

particular reason.

As LizardX mentioned, full RWR is possible, but complicated, and

would require an updating list of what addons are considered

'radarTargets'.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

You’ll excuse the long rambling answers here.  I’m going to try and answer a lot of the questions and pre-empt a few others.  Apologies Weasel if it seems like I’m picking on you but its your own fault for bringing up too many good points to explain

Inspired by this thread I've spent a few hours playing around with the project Mcar sam systems ( sa-8 & sa-9) and Footmunch's planes…

I started looking into SAM systems in part because of the MCAR project but came to the conclusion they were much too potent for the unscripted AI to tackle.  If you fly anything near the MCAR SA-9 you’ll know how effective it is. I went back to basics to a certain extent and tried to use the basic functions of the OFP engine.

I have some limited experience with real world SAM systems,  I’ve spend a lot of time learning how to deploy Rapiers around airbases etc whilst in the RAF Regiment.  A real system is nowhere near as effective as ‘gamers’ think or expect.  Even the best systems in the world only ever achieve an 80-90% hit rate (contrary to some nationalistic claims).  Even then that rate is usually achieved by clever deployments and good fire control.

Quite frankly the OFP game engine isn’t good enough to simulate a true to life SAM system without some help.  The unscripted missile systems are working quite well – 60% kill rate for some systems.  This will hopefully increase with a decent fire control system.  But the AI just fires everything its got at you the first chance it gets.  The Fire Control Radar, illuminates, tracks the targets.  Assigning missiles to incoming aircraft and then handing off to the next launcher for the next target; this is the aspect that is missing from OFP.  Being 100% honest the “success†of the entire concept swings around UNN’s scripting.  (No pressure )

What we would like to do is satisfy the Hardcore gamer and the player that wants a realistic scenario. We don’t expect to satisfy everyone, but hopefully we’ll please the majority.

1) For human pilots, as long as you get a warning of the incoming missile, the engagement range doesn't seem to make that much difference. As long as you can get low ( sub 50 metres) and use the terrain, you've got a reasonable chance of avoiding the missile. It certainly gives you a scare though. Playing hide & seek with the sam launchers in a helicopter is fantastic fun.

2) Whilst AI planes can cope  with the sam threat to an extent, helicopters are sitting ducks. One possible solution would to use the fired eventhandler on the sam system to run a script on the targeted aircraft, forcing it to drop to a minimal height ( flyinheight 30?) and head away from the incoming missile. Even more complexly, you could force it to randomly adopt one of a number of possible evasive manourvere patterns.

The default AI in OFP is pretty dumb.  But it does have a tendency to fly between 30-60m. On most of the large (who wants to put sam site on small islands?)  islands there is lots of terrain to hide behind even for the AI Helo pilot.  So I’m not too concerned about that.  If the mission planner wants to create a realistic scenario they wouldn’t be operating helicopters near sam sites anyway… It may mean that you can no longer swarm the target with Apaches but that’s got to be a good thing surely?

As for scripting evasive manoeuvres, I wont be doing that. It’s not really practical and it adds extra complexity to the mission maker’s job.  It would mean providing and assigning a unique ID for each possible target in the mission editor.  If people want to add that to the mission then it can be done using a trigger in the mission editor.

1)

3) Rather than just being warned when a missile is incoming, it would be useful to know when you're being targeted ( I believe that a lot of modern aircraft can detect active radar detection). You could maybe do this using the 'knowsabout' value. I.e. once the value goes over a certain figure for a given aircraft, the pilot of the aircraft would be warned that they have been detected. Again the A.I's response to this warning could possibly be scripted. For example if they were carrying anti-radiation missiles they would engage, otherwise they would turn and flee.

As Footmunch rightly said his nor do any other plane in OFP have realistic RWR.  Again this version of the SAM systems isn’t going to focus on Radar Warning systems.  Its purely about bringing a semi realistic air defence solution into the game,  Its not really even about Radar, although it does play a part.  The scripts that UNN is developing make the group leader responsible for assigning targets to individuals units and ensuring that the launchers don’t waste ammo spamming the first aircraft to appear.

As Footmuch briefly mentioned,  many older and even ‘modern’ systems don’t give their presence away until the last possible moment it at all.  The first a pilot will know is when the RWR detects an active lock of the missile usually in it terminal phase.

If you really want RWR, albeit a basic system can be easily simulated with a simple script run in the mission setup.  It’s not needed in either the SAM or Aircraft addon.  Just create trigger using “Detected by…†that runs a bearing and range calculator there is an AWACS script available that does just that.  It’s been done several times before in a lot of missions.

4) Personally I would probably like to see fairly long engagement ranges for the sam's. It would seem a bit strange to have a handheld strela engaging out to about 3000m, whilst an sa-5 missile weighing a few hundred kilo's still only engaged to 5000m. As a balance it would be useful to have minimum engagement ranges as well ( up to a 1000m or so for the larger missiles) where they were basically unguided, as I believe is the case irl.

In the real world you wouldn’t deploy a single system to defend a base/airfield/installation.  You would use a layered defence using multiple systems with varying and overlapping ranges.

Long Range system – 15 – 70km

Med Range system – 3 – 20km

Short Range system – 0 -3km

This may be:

SA-5 Gammon

SA-2 Gainful

SA-7 Strela Manpad and ZSU-23-4 Shilka.

It may be a more complex mix or even simpler mix that relies on Air superiority (western strategy is more dependant on air superiority).  Either way it’s the old adage “use the right tool for the jobâ€.  

What you can expect…

We’re trying to build a series of medium to short range systems that will provide a more realistic air defence to the game.  Longer range systems are planned but they will be released later on.   Each system will have unique characteristics.  Some will be able to engage point blank, others will have minimum ranges.  This will reflect the real world limitations of system and the layered air defence principles of most nations.

We will NOT be adding RWR system nor AWACS at this time.  With the work that has been done it certainly seems possible to support these functions in future, but not in this release.

Also just to clear up the question of engagement ranges.  The 3-5km range is based on the average speed of OFP aircraft @650 vs the AI weapon release stats.  Due to the performance of some of the systems the actual ranges set in the CPP are much higher but are countered by various factors.  IE the actual size and mass of the missile (larger faster missiles don’t turn as fast etc).  This means that an SA2 may engage at a greater range than an SA-6 but it doesn’t mean it’s any more effective.

Finally in reply to some of the more colourful emails I’ve had on this topic:

This isn’t going to be the end of air warfare in OFP its going to add another aspect to it.  A lot of people are saying that the environment in OFP is “too small†for realistic SAMs and its “pointlessâ€.  I don’t think so, the majority seem to be excited by the prospect and are at least open minded enough to wait and see.  You never know you may even find that you like it!

Cheers

Rock

[franze 196]

If the mission planner wants to create a realistic scenario they wouldn’t be operating helicopters near sam sites anyway… It may mean that you can no longer swarm the target with Apaches but that’s got to be a good thing surely?

Actually attack helicopters would be ideal for taking out SAM systems, depending on the terrain and conditions of course. Especially if you consider a attack helicopter can take out the major critical systems to a SAM site with precision and speed without being detected. I think this is especially true in OFP, up to the point that AAA systems and shoulder launched missiles are the most effective against any aerial threat (my opinion, of course).

Trying to defeat a SAM system, be it MANPADS or a SA-13, in a fixed wing jet is pretty tough, especially when you can't easily just drop into the dirt and hide.

In the real world, you also have to consider the fact that SAM systems, especially those that rely upon radar for tracking and guidance, have a hell of a time tracking a object moving through the weeds and various obstacles, compared to one moving at 250+ meters at a speed of 700-800kmh.

Naturally this is mostly speculation on my part as I have no experience with SAMs whatsoever, but it seems to me that helicopters would be much better suited to attack air defenses than fixed wing jets, which when we're talking systems like the SA-2, would be exactly what the SAMs like to target.

On a different note, I think when it comes to other features, such as RWR, it's far easier, and far more definable to have a mission setup properly to employ those features rather than trying to include them in the addon itself.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Actually attack helicopters would be ideal for taking out SAM systems, depending on the terrain and conditions of course. Especially if you consider a attack helicopter can take out the major critical systems to a SAM site with precision and speed without being detected. I think this is especially true in OFP, up to the point that AAA systems and shoulder launched missiles are the most effective against any aerial threat (my opinion, of course).

Actually its really a matter of doctrine.  You can use helicopters if the terrain allows but western doctrine dictates the use of fixed wing assets in the SEAD role.  They are a lot less vulnerable.

Fixed position SAM systems especially those that are part of a layered defence system would not make a very good target for attack helicopters.  Common western practice is to remove the Radar coverage using Anti Radiation Missiles or bombardment.

Attack helicopters have been effectively used against mobile SAM sites in the Gulf in '91 but really only in the right environment.  Flat open cold deserts aren’t conducive to stealthy approaches as the US army discovered.  Success against Mobile batteries of Launchers and AAA was on a 'target of opportunity' basis in both the invasions of Iraq.  In the Balkans, several regions were no go areas for helicopters due to the MANPAD and mobile SAM threat.  Fixed wing aircraft have always been tasked to the SEAD role in western policy.

Trying to defeat a SAM system, be it MANPADS or a SA-13, in a fixed wing jet is pretty tough, especially when you can't easily just drop into the dirt and hide.

In the real world, you also have to consider the fact that SAM systems, especially those that rely upon radar for tracking and guidance, have a hell of a time tracking a object moving through the weeds and various obstacles, compared to one moving at 250+ meters at a speed of 700-800kmh.

Defeating MANPADS in a fixed wing aircraft isnt practical as you rightly said.  But over the years NATO has determined that most attack helicopters are too vulnerable to be considered practical.  Add to that the political pressure not to lose soldiers and crew means the helicopter is no longer a viable platform for active SEAD strike roles.

On a purely technical stand point you are also partially correct about tracking.  However there are systems that are designed to actively track low flying high speed targets.  Rapier is just one, even the older FSB2 system '86 onwards could track at target at 450kts below 25m.  The newer FSC with optical tracking is a lot more effective and can even account for terrain changes.  Later versions of Roland & Aspide have been upgraded and now have similar capabilities.  Where systems can’t cope with the terrain they are usually deployed to make target acquisition easier. IE they are placed on likely approaches, have overlapping acquisition fields or are linked by a separate fire control system.  

If the defence planner has done his job properly you wouldn’t be able to get a helicopter in and out again.  You may lose one launcher but another would  take it out.

Naturally this is mostly speculation on my part as I have no experience with SAMs whatsoever, but it seems to me that helicopters would be much better suited to attack air defences than fixed wing jets, which when we're talking systems like the SA-2, would be exactly what the SAMs like to target.  

You are forgetting about the way wars are now being fought.  SEAD strikes go hand in hand with Active Jamming, cruise and standoff missiles even Stealth aircraft and drones.  SEAD and “Iron Hand†tactics have been perfected of the last 50+ years.  The simple fact that the survival rates of fixed wing aircraft vs rotary wing in the first day of war scenerios make the use of planes a lot more logical.  Add to that the practicalities of operational range, payload and cost.  It just makes more sense.

I should own up here and confess I wrote several white papers on SAM systems for the MoD a few years back as part of a project I was doing.  I also had to do comparative studies during my training at RAF Cranwell.  Air Defence and Anti Air systems is a speciality of mine

On a different note, I think when it comes to other features, such as RWR, it's far easier, and far more definable to have a mission setup properly to employ those features rather than trying to include them in the addon itself.

Totally agree with you.  

[Colossus 2]

Hey, just search for other SA types and found this webpage which was a bit interresting:

LINK

Anyone tried making SA-11, RAPIER M548 or SA-8 before?

Oh and btw FDF mod makers, what about Crotale on a SISU?

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Hey, just search for other SA types and found this webpage which was a bit interresting:

LINK

Anyone tried making SA-11, RAPIER M548 or SA-8 before?

Oh and btw FDF mod makers, what about Crotale on a SISU?

[url=http://www.aechelon.com/products/models/thumbnails/CROTALE.GIF

The SA-11 is an advancement of the SA-6 TEL and missile. I'll probably make that too.

DKM is making a Tracked Rapier (M548)

SA-8 is already made (albeit a basic one) by MCAR.

and whats this about FDF?  This is an RKSL thread shoo  

[sniperuk02 0]

You quoted yourself, the page has went all funny now.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

You quoted yourself, the page has went all funny now.  

LOL yeah i know i fixed it! Its late what can you do...

[Colossus 2]

Hey, just search for other SA types and found this webpage which was a bit interresting:

LINK

Anyone tried making SA-11, RAPIER M548 or SA-8 before?

Oh and btw FDF mod makers, what about Crotale on a SISU?

[url=http://www.aechelon.com/products/models/thumbnails/CROTALE.GIF

The SA-11 is an advancement of the SA-6 TEL and missile.  I'll probably make that too.

DKM is making a Tracked Rapier (M548)

SA-8 is already made (albeit a basic one) by MCAR.

and whats this about FDF?  This is an RKSL thread shoo  

I can't keep track on every development, I have to get it from somewhere.

To get to topic: Go RKSL, I'm looking forward to the release

[da12thMonkey 1943]

The proposal you've made for SAMs in OFP sounds ideal to me Rock. The ranges aren't excessive to the point that you're buggered as soon as you enter the map's airspace, and give you some room to get your bearings around the island, but they're effective enough to keep you on your toes and use the most feasible tactics aircraft can employ to avoid SAMs given OFP's limitations in the field of aircraft handling and target engagement.

I'm looking forward to what you deliver mate.

[Katar 0]

2) Whilst AI planes can cope  with the sam threat to an extent, helicopters are sitting ducks. One possible solution would to use the fired eventhandler on the sam system to run a script on the targeted aircraft, forcing it to drop to a minimal height ( flyinheight 30?) and head away from the incoming missile. Even more complexly, you could force it to randomly adopt one of a number of possible evasive manourvere patterns.

Helicopters have a distinct advantage in SEAD due to the fact that they can use the terrain to mask themselves. A friend and I have managed to wipe out an entire enemy battalion in OFP with just two helicopters despite them being protected by MCAR's Gaskins whose missiles are passive and do not show up on RWR. Like any war machine, it is how you use it, not just the machine's capabilities.

In both iraq wars AH64s were used for SEAD to clear a path for fixed wing aircraft.

[franze 196]

Actually its really a matter of doctrine. You can use helicopters if the terrain allows but western doctrine dictates the use of fixed wing assets in the SEAD role. They are a lot less vulnerable.

Forgive me if I seem a bit dense here, but how are fixed wing assets less vulnerable to a SAM defense compared to a rotary asset?

Quote[/b] ]

Fixed position SAM systems especially those that are part of a layered defence system would not make a very good target for attack helicopters. Common western practice is to remove the Radar coverage using Anti Radiation Missiles or bombardment.

Why wouldn't a fixed position make a good target for attack helicopters? Aside from the obvious reason that it will (probably) have mobile AAA defensive systems around it, what's to keep a helicopter from performing a bob up attack on the target behind cover?

Quote[/b] ]

Attack helicopters have been effectively used against mobile SAM sites in the Gulf in '91 but really only in the right environment. Flat open cold deserts aren’t conducive to stealthy approaches as the US army discovered. Success against Mobile batteries of Launchers and AAA was on a 'target of opportunity' basis in both the invasions of Iraq. In the Balkans, several regions were no go areas for helicopters due to the MANPAD and mobile SAM threat. Fixed wing aircraft have always been tasked to the SEAD role in western policy.

Desert is naturally no place for an attack helicopter, but lest we forget, attack helicopters did open up a corridor for the fixed wing aircraft by destroying a radar warning station - which I should also note didn't detect them before they struck, either.

Quote[/b] ]

Defeating MANPADS in a fixed wing aircraft isnt practical as you rightly said. But over the years NATO has determined that most attack helicopters are too vulnerable to be considered practical. Add to that the political pressure not to lose soldiers and crew means the helicopter is no longer a viable platform for active SEAD strike roles.

I'd have to agree that most attack helicopters are too vulnerable to be used for SEAD; but with attack helicopters similar to the AH-64, would your opinion change any?

Quote[/b] ]

If the defence planner has done his job properly you wouldn’t be able to get a helicopter in and out again. You may lose one launcher but another would take it out.

But that assumes that the helicopter is spotted in the first place, and it assumes theres only one or two helicopters attacking the target. Why should attack helicopters operate with less numbers than wild weasels in the SEAD role?

Quote[/b] ]

You are forgetting about the way wars are now being fought. SEAD strikes go hand in hand with Active Jamming, cruise and standoff missiles even Stealth aircraft and drones. SEAD and “Iron Hand†tactics have been perfected of the last 50+ years. The simple fact that the survival rates of fixed wing aircraft vs rotary wing in the first day of war scenerios make the use of planes a lot more logical. Add to that the practicalities of operational range, payload and cost. It just makes more sense.

Survival rates between fixed wing aircraft and helicopters has more to do with the fact of what helicopters are: mobile assets that move around to support the ground forces. That leaves a lot more frequency for helicopters than fixed wing aircraft, and with that you're going to be shot at more. I'd say that more helicopters go down from AA guns rather than AA missiles. Get a fixed wing aircraft to operate at low altitudes, with the same frequency as helicopters and I'm sure they'd suffer more losses as well.

Quote[/b] ]

I should own up here and confess I wrote several white papers on SAM systems for the MoD a few years back as part of a project I was doing. I also had to do comparative studies during my training at RAF Cranwell. Air Defence and Anti Air systems is a speciality of mine

I'm sure you know far more than I do about SAM systems, I've been more interested in rotary wing aircraft than anything. Although I have to admit for some reason, the SA-9 is a personal favorite of mine.

From a pure *gameplay* perspective, I find it much easier to deploy a attack helicopter to destroy SAM systems rather than trying to engage them with jets. I find this especially true with the MCAR SA-9 and SA-8, even if those have unrealistic capabilities; but it also applies to smaller threats as well.

If what you propose will enable the fixed wing aircraft a better opportunity, I still don't know what the reason would be not to use a attack helicopter against an area with SAM systems deployed when you can get far better bang for the buck out of a helicopter compared to a jet.

(Sorry for the thread Hijack. )

[Katar 0]

SEAD does not only apply to missiles. It also applies to cannons like the ZSU. Jets cannot even engage MANPADS. It is kind of hard for a Gundish to shoot at a helictoper masking and using LOAL. While any helicopter equipped with a turreted cannon can defend itself against MANPADS.

In the game I have found it easier to evade SAMs and AAA fire from helicopters than from aircraft. Once I see a Shilka I mask then lock and fire LOAL. Or if I am in a non-LOAL helicopter, just bob up real quick and fire a missile.

[h - 169]

You are always welcome to shift this whole MCAR discussion to our thread...

Would be more helpfull to us to have your opinnions there and not stumble on them almost by accident ...

So I won't say more about the engagement ranges etc. here

[sa8gecko 0]

To RockofSL: sorry to spam your thread, but:

Quote[/b] ]SA-8 is already made (albeit a basic one) by MCAR.

What do you mean exactly with 'basic one' ? Don't get mislead by

the tone of my words (I'm not too familiar with english): I just want

to know if and how I can make it better (a part the model side of

it, in which I'm not too skilled) and what's wrong with it at the

moment.

About the power of MCAR sams: I must admit we made them with

the purpose to make life impossible for air units. In the last times

they just grew too powerful, in my opinion. Now the AI can shoot down

even planes flying at 1300-1500 km/h. Anyway there's a plethora

of Gaskins, to offer the user a variety of possibilities and level

of difficulty. I admit that only the IRs and 'Lead Pursuit' ones

are the more near to reality, because they simulate an IR guided

missile, and as such are much more easy to evade than the

others, that are radar controlled (a part some variant that has

in-built countermeasure for the targeted aircraft).

Returning to the scope of this thread, I'd prefer medium-long ranges sams

against short ones: the short ranges sams are only useful for

helicopters, and against them you can always use Shilkas and

MANPADS. Against, for example, Footmunch's F15 and JASDF's

F16, which fly at 900+ km/h, with short range systems AI hasn't

even the time to aim the launchers, before being wiped out.

I think long range systems (5+ km, I'm talking OFP world here)

should have a minimum range: big missiles take some time to

accelerate and so achieve a sufficient turning rate to engage

maneuvering targets: regarding this I think we did a good job with

the SA-8: if you can get till less to 1200-1000 meters from it

you're pretty safe. Also, if you fly below ten meters (I know,

they're a 'little' too few, but I made this mostly for choppers)

or destroy the launcher the missile looses lock and goes ballistic.

I think this could be done also with standard OFP sams, but only

easily for the 'launcher destroyed' part.

Another question: will your current project of grouping SAMs and

assign targets being addon specific, or will you made it universal,

so that, for example, it could be used even with older vehicles

like BKM SA-11 or Murphy and Müller's SA-13 ?

Being UNN(amed) behind it, I've no doubt you'll succed.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Ok this is heading off topic but since I started it ….

In both iraq wars AH64s were used for SEAD to clear a path for fixed wing aircraft.

In the first war the US tried and had significant problems using AH-64s against fixed SAM batteries and the supporting defences (SA6/9 ZSU etc). So much so that they were specifically not tasked for SEAD roles after the first 3 days of the War. The support costs (both in money and lives) were proving too high.

One other aspect that had an affect was the speed of the advance in the second war. Allied forces moved so quickly into Iraq from the West supply lines were overstretched meaning that fuel and ammo resupply took longer than was planned for.

The source of that is from the US Army analysis from the first war and the NATO documents NW-2334 and NW-2785. (There are titled: “Operation of NATO Attack Helicopters†and “Operational Analysis of Iraqi Air Defenceâ€. The first was published in ’93, the second in Dec ’04.) Both of which highlight the short comings of helicopters when tasked against Air Defence networks. (They are public documents but I’m not sure where you can get them from? Mine were issued to me)

In the most recent war, AH-64s were used in assaults on Airbases defended by SAMs but not in the SEAD role. The fire control radar for the fixed batteries had already been destroyed by fixed wing bombing/SEAD strikes and the Apaches were sent in to mop up. This function does NOT constitute SEAD under the NATO definition.

Forgive me if I seem a bit dense here, but how are fixed wing assets less vulnerable to a SAM defense compared to a rotary asset?

The NATO concept states that a fixed wing aircraft has a higher factor for surprise, lower costs (this means not only cash but operational support etc) to operate for extended periods and has a higher survivability ratio on deep strikes. Helicopter missions are more often compromised and the support infrastructure is too vulnerable.

Why wouldn't a fixed position make a good target for attack helicopters? Aside from the obvious reason that it will (probably) have mobile AAA defensive systems around it, what's to keep a helicopter from performing a bob up attack on the target behind cover?

Well in NATO vs Soviet inspired tactics using layered defence the helicopters survival chances are pretty low. Bob up tactics are great if you can get close enough, but to use the Invasion of Iraq again, the terrain is sometimes against you.

In the case of Iraq in ’91 the Iraqi’s used a 4 layer systems sometimes 40km deep around key installations. Even then each of these layers usually overlapped into another installation’s coverage. Giving some incredibly dense Anti Air coverage.

The RAF attacks on airfields using the JP233 showed up how effective the coverage was. It also proved how expensive cold war tactics could be.

Although the Allied forces quickly gained air superiority the air defences proved very capable. Cruise missiles and high altitude bombing with LGB’s proved the best way to remove the threats for fixed sites. The early SEAD attacks focused on fixed installations like SA-2 and EW Radar Sites but later were forced to hunt for mobile SAM units & sites. A-10s and F16s were tasked for S&D missions against mobile units after the first few days.

Desert is naturally no place for an attack helicopter, but lest we forget, attack helicopters did open up a corridor for the fixed wing aircraft by destroying a radar warning station - which I should also note didn't detect them before they struck, either.

If we’re talking about the ’91 Gulf war its true that the Radar site raids in South and South western Iraq on the 17/18 Jan didn’t detect them on the way in, but on the way out supporting units gave the Apaches got a good pounding. Losing both Kiowas and one Apache in the group, 25% loses on one strike. Not good really

I'd have to agree that most attack helicopters are too vulnerable to be used for SEAD; but with attack helicopters similar to the AH-64, would your opinion change any?

Nope, I’m basing my comments on official US and NATO documents. While they are and have been used to attack SAM sites these aren’t strictly SEAD missions. Most of the occasions where they have been used is because no other more appropriate asset was available in time.

During the liberation of Kuwait when the Iraqi forces were withdrawing the allied advance was so fast that (and unexpected) that no long range air cover was available to give the proper cover. Several missions had to be re tasked to cope. So that air cover could be maintained. This meant that there was a greater reliance on rotary wing aircraft.

But that assumes that the helicopter is spotted in the first place, and it assumes theres only one or two helicopters attacking the target. Why should attack helicopters operate with less numbers than wild weasels in the SEAD role?

Its kinda hard to explain this without diagrams and I don’t have the time to do any atm. As I said if the planner has done the job properly then 2, 4 or 6 helos wont make a difference. NATO’s approach to air defence relies on small mobile batteries interlocking coverage and decent real time links. It would be very hard for a helicopter or a group of helicopters to enter a defended area without detection.

Survival rates between fixed wing aircraft and helicopters has more to do with the fact of what helicopters are: mobile assets that move around to support the ground forces. That leaves a lot more frequency for helicopters than fixed wing aircraft, and with that you're going to be shot at more. I'd say that more helicopters go down from AA guns rather than AA missiles. Get a fixed wing aircraft to operate at low altitudes, with the same frequency as helicopters and I'm sure they'd suffer more losses as well.

You’d be surprised, the statistics form both Gulf wars show that manpads are more effective than guns. While fixed wing assets do have casualties they are no where near as high as rotary wing aircraft.

You also have to bear in mind how the actual SEAD missions work and how the Missile and Radar systems operate. There is a huge difference that makes the likely hood of losing the unit a lot less.

Most SEAD missions are performed at altitude. The aircraft will fly around effectively screaming “look at me!†in the hope that the radars will light up and provide the Anti Radiation missiles (ARM)something to lock onto. Most of the older Soviet derived missile systems are Semi Active systems. They require a Fire Control (FC) radar to provide guidance until the actual missile seeker can get a target at close range. If the radar is destroyed then the site become effectively useless.

With the use of modern ARMs it only takes a few seconds of broadcast from the FC Radar to provide targeting information. The missile is released and the aircraft evades. This can be done from 30+km away safe at altitude. The aircraft can return un harmed with a low risk to the base

Now compare the exposure a helicopter will have to suffer. It has to get within 5-8km for a decent hellfire solution assuming it has something designating for it and it uses indirect fire. Possible closer depending on environment. It’s constantly under threat of detection and fire from ground troops so the risk is a lot higher.

From the recent conflicts a lot of lessons have been learnt very quickly. Admittedly Saddam’s decisions at times have been suspect and rather stupid but both the Gulf wars have been proving grounds for both NATO and Soviet style tactics. Its also brought even more pressure on the armed forces not to risk lives that they don’t really need to. It’s no longer politically acceptable to lose troops/aircrew. It always ends up on the News at 6. Decisions were made and helos don’t get used as a SEAD platform unless absolutely necessary.

From a pure *gameplay* perspective, I find it much easier to deploy a attack helicopter to destroy SAM systems rather than trying to engage them with jets. I find this especially true with the MCAR SA-9 and SA-8, even if those have unrealistic capabilities; but it also applies to smaller threats as well.

If what you propose will enable the fixed wing aircraft a better opportunity, I still don't know what the reason would be not to use a attack helicopter against an area with SAM systems deployed when you can get far better bang for the buck out of a helicopter compared to a jet.

I know what you mean, there is something rather cool about flying around at tree top height in a gunship.

The MCAR stuff isn’t unrealistic vs reality. But it’s a bit too effective in OFP. I have to say that without a doubt they are the best Sam systems we’ve seen so far. The scripting is amazing and I’m always impressed with what Gecko and HaterKint produce. But it goes back to the balance of gameplay vs missile performance, which is what this thread started about.

I found that a lot of the systems (not just MCAR) produced for OFP were either too effective or not effective enough. That why I wanted to produce my own SAM systems.

(Sorry for the thread Hijack. )

Don’t be its not so much of a hijack as a progression

To RockofSL: sorry to spam your thread, but:

Quote[/b] ]SA-8 is already made (albeit a basic one) by MCAR.

What do you mean exactly with 'basic one' ? Don't get mislead by

the tone of my words (I'm not too familiar with english): I just want

to know if and how I can make it better (a part the model side of

it, in which I'm not too skilled) and what's wrong with it at the

moment.

This is where I own up and apologise to you. When I said that I hadn’t actually seen you latest SA-8 model. The one I had previously was a basic model with little detail and simple textures. The new one is a lot better! The description wasn’t meant to insult. I do apologise.

About the power of MCAR sams: I must admit we made them with

the purpose to make life impossible for air units. In the last times

they just grew too powerful, in my opinion. Now the AI can shoot down

even planes flying at 1300-1500 km/h. Anyway there's a plethora

of Gaskins, to offer the user a variety of possibilities and level

of difficulty. I admit that only the IRs and 'Lead Pursuit' ones

are the more near to reality, because they simulate an IR guided

missile, and as such are much more easy to evade than the

others, that are radar controlled (a part some variant that has

in-built countermeasure for the targeted aircraft).

I’ve got been playing with the latest beta today I have to say I really liked the balance of the IR ones. We’ve been having some problems working this morning, 4 of us have been playing with them for most of the day. I got an unpleasant surprise in 2000km/h TSR2 plane I made. I was surprised to get hit so quickly even with countermeasures.

Returning to the scope of this thread, I'd prefer medium-long ranges sams

against short ones: the short ranges sams are only useful for

helicopters, and against them you can always use Shilkas and

MANPADS. Against, for example, Footmunch's F15 and JASDF's

F16, which fly at 900+ km/h, with short range systems AI hasn't

even the time to aim the launchers, before being wiped out

I agree completely, compared with the speed of the planes some of the systems are so slow to react its proving impossible to launch. I had a debate with someone about this and they said it was realistic. I’d have to disagree, this is where UNN’s scripting makes the difference.

Even short range systems like the SA-9/Rapier/Roland etc can receive targeting data from other sources. This means that the launchers are given advance warning so know where to look and are ready to fire once in range.

.

I think long range systems (5+ km, I'm talking OFP world here)

should have a minimum range: big missiles take some time to

accelerate and so achieve a sufficient turning rate to engage

maneuvering targets: regarding this I think we did a good job with

the SA-8: if you can get till less to 1200-1000 meters from it

you're pretty safe.

Well I’ve been looking at the real world figures for most SAM systems, the fixed units like the SA-5 really don’t even become active for 3-5km from the launchers. Assuming an OFP range of 10km that scales down to between 700-1000m minimum range. The exception to this the modern SA-2 derivatives. It seems they can fire from as little as 500m (the Chinese versions anyway) I’m assuming this is at a target going away from the launcher. Because of the closing speed etc.

.

Also, if you fly below ten meters (I know, they're a 'little' too few, but I made this mostly for choppers) or destroy the launcher the missile looses lock and goes ballistic.

I think this could be done also with standard OFP sams, but only easily for the 'launcher destroyed' part.

This is something I haven’t looked at. I’m playing with scripts that prevent the missiles from firing if the radar unit isn’t alive but our missiles aren’t scripted so we have no control over them.

Another question: will your current project of grouping SAMs and

assign targets being addon specific, or will you made it universal,

so that, for example, it could be used even with older vehicles

like BKM SA-11 or Murphy and Müller's SA-13 ?

Being UNN(amed) behind it, I've no doubt you'll succed.

From what I under stand about the way the scripting works it would be addon specific. I suppose older unit could be converted but it works on the idea that there are different units doing different roles. Hence why I am making not only the launchers but the radar systems too.

For example the Rapier FSC system is made up from:

Dagger Long ranger surveillance Radar

Blindfire Fire Control Radar

FSC Launcher 1

FSC Launcher 2

The Dagger provides detection; The Blindfire assigns a launcher to a target, launcher 1 fires. The next target is handed off to launcher 2 etc as it would be in real life.

This is really only useful when you are dealing with multiple launchers as part of a defence ‘network’ controlled by Radar systems.

Its proving a very interesting project hopefully we'll actually carry it off

[havocsquad 0]

Will this effort also work on standardizing configs & scripting for naval SAM's and sensor ranges as well?  I ask because most ships with SAM defense tends to use it way too late.  This project would also help efforts to bring useful command warships to OFP. (Frigates, Destroyers, and of course Transports)

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Will this effort also work on standardizing configs & scripting for naval SAM's and sensor ranges as well?  I ask because most ships with SAM defense tends to use it way too late.  This project would also help efforts to bring useful command warships to OFP. (Frigates, Destroyers, and of course Transports)

Naval...erm nope not even thought about it. Ships aint my thing.

Although standardising SAM classes might be an idea....

[havocsquad 0]

Not too hard really, most of the SAM's will be static units constantly Setpos'd on the ships, making it easy.  Basically, If its an SA-N-6c or SM-MR III or IV, make it the effective range of the Patriot system or longer.

I'm just asking that if you can help warship addon makers utilize this to make them more effective.

[-HUNTER- 1]

There is lots of talk about the sam systems, and their radar and the engagement ranges but there should also be a nice solution like a good working HARM missile?.... maybee with realistic capabilities like the lockon when radar of enemy vehicle is turned on, like in static mode or something...

talk>>>

[franze 196]

RockofSL, I'd like to debate more with you but I think I'd be going off topic, so I'll just stick to a couple points and move on.

Quote[/b] ]

If we’re talking about the ’91 Gulf war its true that the Radar site raids in South and South western Iraq on the 17/18 Jan didn’t detect them on the way in, but on the way out supporting units gave the Apaches got a good pounding. Losing both Kiowas and one Apache in the group, 25% loses on one strike. Not good really

Ok, two points:

1 - Kiowas in '91 were unarmed scout aircraft.

2 - One Apache out of 8? That's not the story I heard. One out of 8 is not a "good pounding". Plus I don't recall there being any losses to the strike package of January 17, consisting of 8 AH-64A and 1 UH-60. The total losses of all coalition aircraft, from the statistics I found for Desert Storm, show only 75 aircraft of all types lost. I doubt all 75 of those were helicopters. In addition to that, the first aircraft damaged on that day was a F-15 due to - if I remember correctly - a SAM. According to most places I've checked out on the net, the helicopter losses were as follows: 5 combat, 18 noncombat. If I'm reading that correctly, that's only 5 helicopters lost to combat action! Considering how many helicopters we deployed in Desert Storm... That's small beans. And I don't even have a clue at how many of the helicopter crews died.

Quote[/b] ]

You’d be surprised, the statistics form both Gulf wars show that manpads are more effective than guns. While fixed wing assets do have casualties they are no where near as high as rotary wing aircraft.

I'll copy and paste the *total* losses of all coalition aircraft from Desert Storm (not Iraqi Freedom)

Fixed wing, 37 combat, 15 noncombat

U.S. losses, 28 combat, 12 noncombat

Helicopters, 23 (all U.S.): 5 combat, 18 noncombat

It seems to me that the amount of fixed wing aircraft lost greatly outnumbers the amount of rotary wing lost in Desert Storm. Here's the aircraft losses for Iraqi Freedom, March 19 to April 18:

Due to Enemy Fire 7

4 – AH-64D (Longbow Apache)

2 – AH-1W (Cobra)

1 – A-10A (Warthog)

Other 13

6 out of 7 were helicopters. The reason? Well... AKs and RPGs.

Quote[/b] ]

Now compare the exposure a helicopter will have to suffer. It has to get within 5-8km for a decent hellfire solution assuming it has something designating for it and it uses indirect fire. Possible closer depending on environment. It’s constantly under threat of detection and fire from ground troops so the risk is a lot higher.

Longbow Hellfires can function as AR missiles, so they could function as well as a HARM or similar even with decreased range. In addition, Longbow Hellfires do not require constant designation as with the older AGM-114A and AGM-114K with LD based seekers.

Quote[/b] ]

I know what you mean, there is something rather cool about flying around at tree top height in a gunship.

But, why should we, for example, use a Footmunch F-16 with HARM against a SAM site, putting this aircraft at risk, when (shameless plug) I could take a AH-64D from behind a hill or other obstacle, bob up, acquire the target, switch to LOAL and blast that SAM radar to bits without it even knowing I was there?

Quote[/b] ]

I found that a lot of the systems (not just MCAR) produced for OFP were either too effective or not effective enough. That why I wanted to produce my own SAM systems.

On that note, what do you think would be a good average effectiveness rate for all missiles that track aerial targets? On all the SAM/AAMs I've made thus far, I've aimed for a 50-60% hit ratio. Also, how do you ensure a weapon system is effective from a certain direction? I don't know how real world SAMs best target, but I'd presume that tail-on launches would be the best aspect. In OFP I find that most AA missiles function better from frontal or side launches.

Honestly, I'm really looking forward to a SA-2 system, as it would prove to be a effective team oriented target. I could imagine throwing a few ZU-57, ZU-23, SA-9, SA-13 around a SA-2 site to provide a very challenging target for helicopters, jets and ground forces to attack. Perhaps if the scripting you intend to use won't work, you could leave it up to a mission maker to incorporate the group links?

Sorry again for the thread hijack above, but I was enjoying that debate.

[.COMmunist 0]

Ok, enough of this bullshit. Both of you are right, we all give up. Who cares... RockofSL started this thread to get ideas for his Anti-air ground defence system, not to compare brains. There are milion other websites out there where people compare their military dicks with each other. Lets get back to the world of OFP. IN OFP seems that planes have better chance surviving because of their speed and manuverability. I belive that most of us would agree. So, let stick to that, because if we are going to try to compare with all the info we read on the internet about the real deal, this discussion will never end. I, personaly liked everything that the author said so far about his air defence system.

[franze 196]

Quote[/b] ]Ok, enough of this bullshit. Both of you are right, we all give up. Who cares... RockofSL started this thread to get ideas for his Anti-air ground defence system, not to compare brains. There are milion other websites out there where people compare their military dicks with each other. Lets get back to the world of OFP. IN OFP seems that planes have better chance surviving because of their speed and manuverability. I belive that most of us would agree. So, let stick to that, because if we are going to try to compare with all the info we read on the internet about the real deal, this discussion will never end. I, personaly liked everything that the author said so far about his air defence system.

Well gee .COMmunist, aren't you the enlightened one.

Isn't the whole point of SAM systems to attack aircraft? That would mean that RockofSL's systems would directly affect how we make aircraft addons, and as a result of discussion, he can better decide how to make a SAM system that maintains a average effectiveness against all forms of aircraft, which is my basic concern.

Frankly, .COMmunist, I don't know about RockofSL, but I enjoy(ed) discussing how SAM systems work and the effects they have on aerial operations.

If RockofSL has problems with how we're discussing this, then I'm sure he'll speak up. Til then, please keep your rude comments to yourself.