SAM Site Ranges

[Katar 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.

We enjoyed debating about SAM systems. If you dont like it, ignore it.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Right first of all pack it in all of you.  After this post if you want to debate it further go to my site and we’ll continue this OT conversation there.

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.

Your point about Kiowas is true but it didn’t stop them being used in frontline operations.  If you do some more research into how Apaches are actually used you’ll discover that the Kiowas are used to designate targets in much the same was a FAC is used for fixed wing ops.  They are just as prone to attack as the apache and they are still counted as a combat asset.  Also a point to correct you on.  Not all Kiowas were unarmed.  Some were fitted with MG & FFAR in the field.  It didn’t become standard fit until about ’95 (Im not 100% on the date).

Point 2 – a good pounding refers to the amount of ‘returned fire’ they received.  Some even did a TV show about that raid.  All the surviving aircraft were damaged as a result.  It was the last time the US Army carried out such a raid without either softening the target first with indirect fire or CAS support.  If I find the report online I’ll PM it you.

I don’t beleive those stats are showing the full story, it certainly doesn’t show how many aircraft were laid down for repair and how long they were out of action. If you were to take a lookat some of the maintenance areas at the support bases along The iraqi borders you would have seen alot of aircraft in bits for repair. 

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.  

Goto the NATO site and have a look at their stats…they are a bit different as are the reports of the reasons.

Longbow Hellfires can function as AR missiles, so they could function as well as a HARM or similar even with decreased range.

HAHA Where did you get that from?  I love these internet myths.  I seen that said somewhere before.  The seeker units on either the 114A or any of the later models will not actively home on radar sources.  The only missile in that class that will do that is Brimstone and even then it’s not a true AR missile because target lock is on from the designator on the launcher and guidance is via GPS just like the K series.

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?

YOU can do what ever you like in OFP I’m not stopping you from doing anything.  I am just pointing out that in REALITY helos are not just on active SEAD missions as directed under NATO policy.  I’m not saying its not possible, just that it isn’t done anymore due to the risks.

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.  

Thank god, back on topic…  It depends on the system and the range.  I’m not aiming to blow everything out of the sky but I am aiming to make it a lot harder for players to ponce around the sky with impunity.  

You can improve effective ness by tweaking the probability values in the weapon/ammo config in the CPP.  Also try experimenting with the thrust values of the launcher.  High thrusts seem to have the effect of making head on engagements unlikely to work.  You get a better hit rate on tail shots.

In real world systems the best solution varies due to detection ranges, vector from launcher to target, Guidance and homing technology used.

Most IR systems are tailchashers, Radar guided system are usually nose or tail. Side shots are always a bit dodgy because of the physics involved in getting the missile from the launcher to the target.  It takes a lot of energy for the missile to change direction and track the target in mid flight.

In OFP the best way to control the directional effectiveness is by balancing the thrust/speed of the missile with the manoeuvrability values.  To make a head on / tail chase missile increase the thrust and drop the manoeuvrability a bit.    Side shots would best be done with a slow missile with high manoeuvrability.  

If I can find the relevant diagram I’ll post links or pics.  You have to balance the game engines interpretation of inertia.  The faster the object is moving the longer it take to manoeuvre.  But the mass and size of the object affect the performance of the missile.

To give an example:

The Rapier missile is 2.25m long has Thrust of 900 and Manoeuvrability of 45.

The SA-2 missile is 10m long has a thrust of 1200 and Manoeuvrability of 125.

The rapier is more effective and more manoeuvrable. Yet on the face of it the SA-2 should fly rings around anything.  The Size and speed have a big factor in the OFP engine.

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.  

We didn’t get much work done today in my office, my colleagues spent most of the morning playing with the scenarios MaxDog has created.  

The beta testers are having a good laugh trying to find ways to evade, kill, splatter, maim and generally pulverise the SA-2 and SA-5 sites.  The Rapier is proving to be very unpopular at close range as is the ASPIDE ground launchers linked to the Skyguard FC Radar.  AAA has also been added on some of the missions and once the Fire control scripts come into use it going to be an interesting game. :P

[FerretFangs 0]

Excellent discussion. I appreciate what's being done to make the game better. Nothing to add, but a "Bravo Zulu".

For purposes of clarification only, I assume the '91 Apache mission being referred to was "Normandy"?

OPERATION DESERT STORM - The "Normandy" Mission *

* EXTRACT from "Tapes show division firing first shots of war" by Rob Dollar, KENTUCKY NEW ERA Staff Writer

On January 17, 1991, four MH-53 Pave Low III helicopters from the 20th Special Operations Squadron led two flights of Apaches to make the first strike of the war. Pilots of the two flights, eight AH-64A Apache attack helicopters of 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) fired the first shots of Operation Desert Storm. Code named "Normandy", in rememberance of the 101st "Screaming Eagles" airborne operation during World War II, the dangerous mission consisted of simultaneous attacks designed to knock-out two key early-warning radar installations in western Iraq at precisely 0238 hours, January 17, 1991. Both radar sites, each hit by a team of four Apaches, were destroyed within a time span of 4 Ë minutes. Each pilot's primary target became the secondary target for adjacent Apache team members.

The first combat mission of the gulf war was launched at 1300 hours January 17th from a staging airfield in western Saudi Arabia, with the two teams of Apaches flying about 90 minutes to the two radar sites about 35 miles apart. The Apache crews observed a radio blackout until 10 seconds before unleashing up to 27 Hellfire missiles that destroyed 16 to 18 targets at each site.

The near perfect mission opened a 20 mile wide corridor all the way into Baghdad, Iraq. Moments later, some 100 U.S. Air Force jets streaked across the border for an undetected bombing run on Baghdad that marked the start of Operation Desert Storm's punishing air war. By the end of the day 900 coalition aircraft passed through the corridor.

http://tri.army.mil/LC/CS/csa/aptoc.htm

If I'm not mistaken, ( It does happen ) there were no allied losses during this particular mission. Had it not been for the Pave Low's advanced nav system, this mission would have not been possible. In 2003, Apaches certainly recieved a "good pounding".

Sorry for the OT. Carry on.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Nope it wasnt "Normandy" The target was a Mobile EW radar site, defended by SA-6(?) & SA-9 SAMs. The group was made up of Apaches and 2 Kiowas. On the entry and exit routes they encoutered several unexpected sites. The actual target wasnt touched.

It was 2330 in the 18th Jan 91 - I finally found the reference in a book "Military lessons of the Gulf War" 2nd Edition. I'll post the extract on the RKSL forums when i reply to his post later this evening.

Going back on Topic and by way of a little update.

UNN has given me an update on the scripting and as a result of some ofht the questions raised by people on this thread and other discussions we have some news.

So far the first phase of the fire control system is working, in the course of developing the scripts it now seems likely that we will be able to simulate mission based "Descritpive RWR". By this I mean any OFP aircraft can be warned of an active radar, Missile lock and launch.

In addition to that it also seems possible to create a more realistic couter measures system, introduce usuable Anti radiation missiles and possibly a few other things. The final product is very much still in devleopment. These latest 'ideas' arent even in code but as more of the system is devleoped, the more possibilites are occuring.

So...small update i know but I'm hoping to post some more pics after the weekend of the SAM systems that should satisfy the curious.

Cheers

Rock

[UNN 0]

Quote[/b] ]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.

I've added custom events similar to those in the ATC system. You can attach these to any aircraft in the mission editor and direct them to the scripts you want to run. So it's easy enough to call scripts when a Radar source is detected, or call your launch cues automaticaly.

ATM I have:

Search Radar Detected

Fire Control Radar Detected

Missile Locked Detected

Missile Fired Detected

The Missile Fired event is exactly the same as OFP's IncommingMissile event but gives you all the information your currently getting with your scripts and more, and does not need an IR lock.

Quote[/b] ]As LizardX mentioned, full RWR is possible, but complicated, and

would require an updating list of what addons are considered

'radarTargets'

Thats pretty much what we have. short of the mission designer configuring each aircraft and Radar system with thier own parameters, if required. It needs no user intervention, other than placing the stuff on the map.

Quote[/b] ]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 ?

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

That is the desired goal, although the Rapier system might be released as is for now. To test out the idea and placate some of the concers about having a SAM systems that work at longer ranges. But as Rock said, you can use the current scripts with any addon, as long as you don't mind it operating like the FSC Rapiers. The final system could be used to simulate most of the common SAM systems, and possible provide Fire Control for all sorts of Addons, not just aircraft and missile launchers.

We are trying to add as many features as possible, to help players and AI defend themselves against a valid threat. Might even be able come up with a few new features for OFP, in the process. But the idea is not to blow everything out of the skies, just scare the c*%p out of you

[shinRaiden 0]

While it is possible to create maps (51~102km) that allow for accurate realistic SAM/AAA placement and ranging, practicality demands that accomodation be made for the smaller normal sized maps.

You've got several options there :

1) shrink the total envelope - aquisition and engagement ranges

2) shrink only the engagement range

3) scale the engagement speed, but maintain accurate ranging

4) leave it as-is with RL values

5) make a OFP-lite version and a mirrored RL values version.

To optimize it, I think you have to consider the role and ranges that aircraft have in OFP. Additionally, radar ranging does not appear to be affected by terrain, so artificially shortened ranges can compensate to simulate the effects of terrain-following flight models.