Vehicle Intercom/Intervehicle Comms

[franze 196]

Weapons, training and fuel don't cost anything in the Flashpoint world.

The problem they faced in Vietnam was massed small arms fire and the ever-deadly ZPU-4 towed AAA guns.

[grayace 2]

Shorta-1 only works properly ,from what i can find, if the missile is heading directly for the tank tank. Therefore if you were the lase the area around the tank and a second or so before impact, lase the tank, shorta-1 becomes useless does it not?

After small research I think that Shorta-1 is not about smokes/mirrors or cannot be useless if you lase ground, because systems are broad enough to pick up any LASER beam around the vehicle... I think-!-

I posted this before,

Quote[/b] ]-The T-90 is equiped with the TShU-1-7 Shtora-1 optronic counter measures system which is designed to disrupt the laser target designation and rangefinders of incoming ATGM. The T-90 is also equipped with a laser warning package that warns the tank crew when it is being lased. Shtora-1 is an electro-optical jammer that jams the enemy’s semiautomatic command to line of sight (SACLOS) antitank guided missiles, laser rangefinders and target designators. Shtora-1 is actually a soft kill, or countermeasures system

Probably-!- and like it was expressed in FAS, Shorta-1 is a counter measure to distrupt enemy "SACLOS" Semi-Automatic Command Line of Sight, previous version of this is M(A)CLOS Manual Command Line of Sight, in which Gunner has to aim a point where it would be the Impact Point to hit a manuevering target which could be very hard for fast movers. In SACLOS gunner only deals with targets location while computer calculating impact point and guiding the missile as needed. So, Shorta-1 could be something like ECM and giving "false" but amplified LASER reflections around the tank which could absorb "true" LASER point on tank...

[franze 196]

Laser energy doesn't work that way, nor does the HELLFIRE system. Once the missile is fired, it tracks the laser from above rather than horizontal - which is a key reason why Shtora would have a hell of a time trying to jam a laser guided weapon similar to HELLFIRE. As already stated, the laser doesn't need to be constantly on either, just in the last few seconds before the search phase.

Smoke launchers would be a more effective (not to mention econimical) deterrent against laser guided weapons IMO.

[grayace 2]

Laser energy doesn't work that way, nor does the HELLFIRE system. Once the missile is fired, it tracks the laser from above rather than horizontal - which is a key reason why Shtora would have a hell of a time trying to jam a laser guided weapon similar to HELLFIRE. As already stated, the laser doesn't need to be constantly on either, just in the last few seconds before the search phase.

Smoke launchers would be a more effective (not to mention econimical) deterrent against laser guided weapons IMO.

It works or not that is how they describe it and I hardly think that a new generation tank could be equipped with such "bogus" system...

And SACLOS definition is just as described which includes almost all well known wired/LASER/radio guided muntions (US/Russian/European) either for helicopter and tank platforms except the Hellfire...

And also, I dont know where you base your information on guidance principals of AGM-114 series but its described as it follows,

Quote[/b] ]In addition to the two methods of engagement, there are four modes of delivery that aircrews can utilize when firing the Hellfire missile. These delivery modes are driven by three factors: distance to the target, the weather (primarily visibility and cloud ceiling height), and terrain conditions under which the missile will be fired. When a Hellfire missile flies through obscuration (fog, clouds, smoke) or if the designator fails to lase the target properly until impact, the missile loses laser lock and will be lost for good. Only one model of Hellfire missile, the AGM-114K, has a built-in system to assist in the reacquisition of the target after laser lock-on is lost. The AGM-114L, when fielded, will provide a true fire-and-forget capability.

which briefly means that all 3 generations of Hellfire need proper LASER illumination of target till impact... and also it expresses that moving targets can easly lost their track to earlier Hellfires because of surrounding objects can obscure LASER beam... goodbye Hellfire and of course good bye forthy thousand US dollars!

About LASER beam and its constraints, may be you would like to take a look at this Hellfire.pdf and especially part describes limitations of LASER.

[franze 196]

Read the context of the article there. In LOAL mode, the missile doesn't search for the laser until the terminal phase. Therefore you can fire the weapon, then turn on the designator during the terminal phase of the missile. If the missile required a strict consistent laser designation, then it would be LOBL mode entirely - thus it wouldn't be possible to 'hand off' a missile to other units. LOAL overcomes this by searching for the laser at a later point in the launch profile - in a perfect world, you have one unit doing the designation, and one unit doing the launching. The launching unit is typically in a obscured position when it fires the weapon.

This is why, as the article states, battlefield obscurants can nullify the HELLFIRE's ability to find a target.

Also, take note in the article you linked to:

Quote[/b] ]

AGM-114K. This missile has the highest probability of re-acquiring a target if the missile flies into low clouds.

Which in other words, means that IF the laser designation is not present or is lost, the missile can attempt to re-acquire the target.

Again, in this article, which makes your argument about losing track of moving targets null;

Quote[/b] ]

....and even fast-moving boats can be effectively neutralized or destroyed. If needed, it can even be employed in the air-to-air role against slow-moving or hovering helicopters.

In addition, read this piece:

Quote[/b] ]

The laser designator or “observer,†either airborne or ground-mounted, must always positively control the missile after it is launched in order to bring it to bear on the target in question.

In which case, the unit doing the designation has control over the missile. This can either be the firing aircraft (if so equipped) or a alternative unit.

Additionally, see this part for information regarding AUTONOMOUS and REMOTE engagement modes.

Quote[/b] ]

These techniques are ultimately driven by the two engagement methods by which the missile can be controlled to the target: autonomous and remote....

In contrast, a remote engagement requires an aircraft to serve as a launch platform, providing a missile for another aircraft or a ground observer, designating with a laser, to guide the missile to its intended target. A ground designation station such as an FO or Combat Observation Lasing Team (COLT) accomplishes this with lasing devices like the G/VLLD or MULE. With a remote engagement, the air crew is responsible only for delivering the

missile toward the general location of the target, but is no longer responsible for its guidance once it leaves the external

launch rails. This allows remote engagements to provide one distinct advantage over autonomous engagements. Using

this technique, the launch aircraft is often able to remain masked behind terrain, greatly reducing its visible launch signature while delivering missiles toward the target array, thereby increasing aircraft survivability - a force protection consideration.

Read the part about the delivery modes again, but note that the AGM-114K is the primary laser guided missile currently in service - the older models are used for training launches.

Quote[/b] ]

The first delivery mode is known as the Lock-on Before Launch (LOBL) technique. In this mode, the missile laser seeker acquires and locks-on to the coded laser energy reflected from the target prior to launch. The advantage to using this particular delivery mode is that the air crew is assured that the missile has already positively locked on to the target prior to launch from the aircraft, thereby increasing its Ph and reducing the possibility of a lost or uncontrolled missile.

Which in other words, means that in LOBL, the missile has already acquired the target, prior to launch.

See this paragraph for LOAL mode:

Quote[/b] ]

Lock-on After Launch - Direct (LOAL-DIR) delivery mode. This

delivery mode results in the lowest of all trajectories during missile flight because it is employed using a laser designation delay. In this particular mode, the aircraft launches a missile toward the direction of the target before it is designated by a

laser. As a result, the missile travels “blind†initially. It will climb slightly, but remain relatively low until the laser is activated after a pre-determined time. Once the missile acquires reflected laser energy, it pitches up to achieve an optimum dive angle at the target.

In other words, it means that we can fire a missile, then designate the target when necessary.

Be sure to read these articles thoroughly when quoting information from them.

Lastly, note that the seeker on the missile is designed for a specific coded laser frequency. If that frequency isn't matched, the missile will ignore any laser energy that doesn't match that frequency.

[grayace 2]

Well my point is quite clear, dont trust those Hellfires as if they are totally fire&forget weapons, Only K series is able to re-acquire target with a limited possibility ("relatively" fast mover could easly get out of the seeker cone which makes reacquistion impossible) we are talking of seconds here if missile cant track the target in few seconds then it will never because seeker cone is getting narrower as it approaches the target and if this is a moving target then you got totally no chance if you lost it for once... (unless your Hellfire starts a search pattern like torpedoes)

For LOAL attacks, yes I read it, it seeks for LASER mark after a delay, but longer delay means increased chance of failure...

LOAL has a nice attack path since its attacking from above, which makes targets "can run but cant hide" but important thing is target can still move and get an obstruction between the spotter, or deploy smoke and move, which means no spot = no kill (unless you lase the target from above! or of course mount an additional IR/TV tracker to that then you may have chance again...

Plus, if target is getting lased over 4km then LASER reflection quality will be relatively weak and get worse during adverse wheather, so its getting just easier to evade LASER beam rider munitions.

also I would like to remind you that even K series was on limited use during 1990 first Iraq conflict, so 85 era has nothing to do with it.

and lastly, samething (encode) goes for RADARs but ECMs that has wide spectrum can still disturb "clean" detection and in fact LASER is not that clear or amplified as an RADAR wave... (any "coding" can be simulated back because source is sending it away while radiating/lasing!!! )

PS: Im not arguing with you but you seem a little overestimating the capabilities of US equipment

[franze 196]

As has already been stated the only true fire and forget HELLFIRE is the Longbow variant; just because the K can re-acquire doesn't mean it's fire and forget. It still takes some work.

The amount of time the missile has to re-acquire is dependent upon the remaining velocity of the weapon - in this case, the battery life is 46 seconds, +-2 seconds, but more to the point, how much energy can the missile gain after re-acquiring. It wouldn't do too well if it didn't have enough speed remaining for the kinetic damage.

The amount of time to designate a target is dependent upon the range of that target. For every amount of range, theres a time limit before the seeker is unable to acquire a target. I don't know what the FOV of a HELLFIRE seeker is, but my guess would be around 30-40 degrees.

Again, the problem is does the target know he's being lased? Does he know who is targeting him? Where he is? How many of them are targeting him? Can he take defensive action? What are his options?

You can't always assume theres going to be foilage and a easy escape route. Attack helicopter units had to make this transition in Desert Storm - and they were still remarkably successful despite how things might've looked from a straightforward perspective. On this note, laser guided munitions managed to perform in the harsh desert conditions - a place with plenty of battlefield obscurants - and still hit their mark. Most of the time anyways.

No, AGM-114K wasn't availible until post-Desert Storm. The latest model availible in Desert Storm was the C/F. Initial production and test contract for HELLFIRE II wasn't until 1992.

The only real way to send the same coding frequency back would be a mirror. That may not be a bad idea for camoflague, but you'd need some pretty strong mirrors to withstand typical soldier use.

Quote[/b] ]

PS: Im not arguing with you but you seem a little overestimating the capabilities of US equipment

No more than anyone else when talking about other equipment. For example, a Italian might tell you their A-129 Mangusta is the best attack helicopter in the world, or someone from Germany might call their Leopard the best tank in the world. All it comes down to is thats their personal opinion and they go with it. I go with this one because of that reason and because I do have a little insider info when it comes to items regarding US military aviation.

Understand that from my point of view, Shtora, Arena, ERA, etc. are all a bunch of hogwash that, if deployed, wouldn't be everything they claim to be. Now whether or not that conclusion is true isn't the point, it's simply the way I feel about those pieces of equipment compared to the knowledge I have at hand.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

You guys make it seem as if addons and scripting don't exist. I don't care about any of the default weapons and vehicles in ArmA, they can be as unrealistic as BF2 as far as I'm concerned. All I care about is the list of scripting commands and config entries. I'll do the rest myself...

[grayace 2]

You guys make it seem as if addons and scripting don't exist. I don't care about any of the default weapons and vehicles in ArmA, they can be as unrealistic as BF2 as far as I'm concerned. All I care about is the list of scripting commands and config entries. I'll do the rest myself...

I beg your pardon but scripts and addons are just screwing the gameplay, because some addon makers are entering so high values to their units...

We need standartization and properly balanced gameplay while expanded simulation issues are included...

[Big Dawg KS 6]

All I'm saying is that you should stop worrying about the default units, weapons, and vehicles and concern yourself with the things that make your suggestions possible. I myself aim for realism and I have been trying to script realistic hellfires for quite some time. Its hard to do and its very buggy. I have a whole list of commands that would make it so much easier if they were included. If BIS had to focus on including every last realistic detail, we would never see the release of ArmA. If BIS releases ArmA with a long list of new commands and engine improvements, you will see the community take over to transform the game into something 10x better than it was when it started out - just like we have seen with OFP. Without all of the addons and scripting, OFP would still be the same old CWC and Resistance themes.

Now, I'm all for standardization, but BIS has to keep it simple. Their job is to make the game, the community has enough skilled and devoted addon makers and scripters to make the game a lot better. And if it doesn't start off simple, it would be harder for the addon makers to jump right in and start enhancing our game.

[franze 196]

Kyle,

The capabilites of scripting and addons are a irrelivant point in this thread. There's lots of scripters out there that will no doubt make many things possible for ArmA, but what the stock game contains will influence the potential power the scripters have. This means that less work can be put into a feature already there (FLIR, for example) and more work into different functions which may or may not be availible in the stock game. So it's all good either way. Also keep in mind that additional unit scripting can use up finite engine resources as opposed to having the resources allotted by default.

@Grayace

I think the issue you speak of is more to do with the fact that a lot of addons are designed to be unbalanced - notice how we can have a T-34 that is tougher than BIS Abrams or a M113 more durable than a T-55. This is a combination of factors because as we all know, OFP isn't a perfect game world and as a result, what might be a realistic adaptation of a real life unit would be seriously overpowered (or underpowered) in OFP. Everyone has their own point of view, and addon makers will excersize their opinions heavily - which is a given, because they spend long times working on their addons and design them for their own - or perceived - need.

[Scrub 0]

*Hops off the runaway train and back on topic*

If there could be even very low bitrate voice comms (with old CWC selectable channels) ingame, there would be no problems for human players, but I agree the commands to AI need to be made in parrallel to their chatting about all the targets.

[franze 196]

Scrub killed a perfectly good discussion!

Anyways, perhaps something to consider for comms would be to give priority to internal vehicle commands as opposed to "M1A1 at 2 O'CLOCK" consistently before being able to say "Target M1A1" - during which time you're hosed because none of the crew is really that autonomous or aware of the threats that another crewmember may notice.

[funnyguy1 0]

Well, I`ve seen Cobras in Iraq (video "cobra_gunship_in_iraq" from militaryvideos.net), and gotta say that a lot of work has to be done, before ofp will be close to RL, when it comes to helos...

Nevertheless I hope at least in game 2 we`ll have a chance to see things like that....

back on topic :

Although ECP`s `radio chatter` is completely incomprehensible for me, It`s the best thing of ofp`s `intervehicle communication` thing...

There has to be alot more of "hmmm" "yyyy" "shit! what was that?!" "o my god!" "a close one!" "baaang!" in the air, when under fire...

[advocatexxx 0]

Do you know that helicopter pilots are trained to fly no higher than a lightpost level? IMO It would be more fun if we (pilots) have more room to implement tactics and show some skill and in return a hard but well earned success here is the stuff I like to implement in flying helicopter,

flying through river beds, tree formations to get around and take position for pop-up, firing laser/optical guided missiles one missile/one target, (in this case a talented/dedicated pilot/gunner should be able to;

cmon now, OFP chopper pilots (AI) end up crashing into one another all the time (given enough time), since they fly at the same exact altitude.

the fact alone that choppers maintain their altitude automatically according to terrain height is quite possibly the most unrealistic feature of ofp, and always has been.

if BIS doesn't wish to remove it completely, at least offer an option in the Veteran mode and allow some of us to fly choppers which obey the laws of physics realistically.

[funnyguy1 0]

[intentional off topick] Why It`s so hard to make `provisional` but working LASER guided missile, when we already have working LASER guided AT weapons? I`m not a mod maker or something like that, so don`t get me wrong, It`s just a harmless question... [/intentional off topick]

[franze 196]

OFP's laser system is buggy and very poor at functioning. At the very least, we'd need the laser - when turned on - to *always* be attached to the cannon firing point. As it is, you can use the laser, but when you cycle your weapons, it switches the laser to the current weapon's firing point.

[funnyguy1 0]

Just like I thought, there`s a big chance it will be in ArmA then...Am I right?

[franze 196]

I wouldn't invest a lot of hope into the laser designator getting fixed in ArmA, especially since some major glitches with the laser haven't been fixed since it's implementation.