counter measures for aircraft

[diveplane 0]

hope this next title the aircraft get some flares and

chaff for protection..against ground threats..

[mr.g-c 6]

Of course this is a must have!

Together with a hit probability for the incoming missiles it would be awesome....

Best Regards, Christian

[SaBrE_UK 0]

Definitely not a must-have, but a good idea all the same.

[smellyjelly 0]

I agree that the aircraft needs some defense, and I'd also like to see a more detailed damage system rather than just smoke. It'd be fun it an engine or wing could brake, (with the debris actually falling to the ground), and the jet spins towards the ground.

[ricnunes 0]

Definitely not a must-have, but a good idea all the same.

Well I think it's definitly a must have not only because of all the realism reasons but also because one of the Air Defence Units featured in ArmA2 is the Tanguska which as some of you know has not only radar and guns (like the Shilka) but also SAM missiles so if there aren't any countermeasures for aircraft in ArmA2 (such as Flares for example) it will become almost impossible to operate any aircraft in ArmA2!

[sandzibar 0]

agreed. MANPADS make life tedious enough as it is as a pilot in arma. Tunguska's will make it impossible.

[max power 21]

I think that human controlled chaff and flare would be nice, but nothing automatic... and no missile launch warnings or anything like that, either. Just flare, chaff, and radar warning receiver... or just chaff as nothing is really radar operated in arma.

[Inkompetent 0]

or just chaff as nothing is really radar operated in arma.

In which case I'd correct the above and say "only flares", since chaff is 100% worthless against heat seeking missiles

[Frank-O 0]

I was on a VR Evo Server running pretty severe biskeys that filtered out my marpat marines. I was on counter AA duty at Somato and hunted down all the shilkas, and got to be Lt. I then proceeded to load up a bh with 2 ai gunners and raked the town and airspace below.

Warning: Missile lock

10 flares shot out below

missle hits one of the flares with AFX running at 20 feet to me port.

I just hovered there going...

WOW.

Mapfact? Could someone identify the mod I loaded responsible for this?

Was simply...amazing.

[jakerod 254]

I was on a VR Evo Server running pretty severe biskeys that filtered out my marpat marines. I was on counter AA duty at Somato and hunted down all the shilkas, and got to be Lt.   I then proceeded to load up a bh with 2 ai gunners and raked the town and airspace below.

Warning: Missile lock

10 flares shot out below

missle hits one of the flares with AFX running at 20 feet to me port.

I just hovered there going...

WOW.

Mapfact? Could someone identify the mod I loaded responsible for this?

Was simply...amazing.

I think that is just part of evolution. You got lucky I tend to just get the missile lock and then a SMACK as the missile nails my cockpit.

I do think flares and chaff would be good though especially if there is a tunguska. Im going to miss my shilka though.

[max power 21]

or just chaff as nothing is really radar operated in arma.

In which case I'd correct the above and say "only flares", since chaff is 100% worthless against heat seeking missiles

That's what I meant to say, thanks.

[Heatseeker 0]

Doesnt the SU34 have CM's already?

[ricnunes 0]

I think that human controlled chaff and flare would be nice, but nothing automatic... and no missile launch warnings or anything like that, either.  Just flare, chaff, and radar warning receiver... or just chaff as nothing is really radar operated in arma.

I agree except the part of "no missile launch warnings" since there are aircraft which do have missile launch warnings systems (called in real life, Missile Aproach Warning System) as for example many modern military helicopters such as the later versions of the Apache and the AH-1Z or the most modern versions of cargo planes such as the more recent C-130 variants or the C-17.

Note that a Missile Aproach Warning System isn't a RWR, the former system uses passive sensors (IR seekers) around the aircraft which detects any incoming missile (doesn't matter if it's IR guided, Radar Guided or Not guided such as an RPG). Of course that not all aircraft have such as system and in ArmA2 the only aircraft that should emit "missile launch warnings" should be the aircraft that have a Missile Aproach Warning System in real life.

[Frank-O 0]

@Jakerod & Heatseeker

I don't think default Evo has flare CM for aircraft. It's a mapfact addon that does it. If there was, ai aircraft would be dropping them too when targetted by AA missiles.

@ricnunes

I think an audio warning, not a direct speech screen font warning that should come up when you're under a lock-on. At most a flashing red lower corner icon for a visual indicator that tells you you're about to get hit. For bonus points add glow for nighttime strikes.

And you're right. only certain aircraft should have a missle warning system like the attack helos and CAS aircraft. For game balance, if BH's get flares, then so should Mi-17's'

[ricnunes 0]

I think an audio warning, not a direct speech screen font warning that should come up when you're under a lock-on.  At most a flashing red lower corner icon for a visual indicator that tells you you're about to get hit.  For bonus points add glow for nighttime strikes.

Yes, I completly agree.

Quote[/b] ]only certain aircraft should have a missle warning system like the attack helos and CAS aircraft. For game balance, if BH's get flares, then so should Mi-17's'

Most if not all military aircraft should have flares, these are very simple "countermeasures" (decoys is perhaps a more accurate name) to install and it would be very rare to see a military aircraft in a modern battlefield without that "basic" countermasures which are the flares.

But like I previously said a missile aproach system (and IR emitter countermeasures in case they will be modeled in ArmA2) should only be available in the aircraft which carries them in real life. And I'm against modeling equal systems for opposing similar role aircraft (for example the BH for the West and Mi-17 for East) just for "game balance" sake!

[kavoven 4]

OFP/ArmA never was and won't be a flight-sim. The areas are simply too small.

I think flares are some kind of extras which just eat up time that could be spend on other, more important things.

[Frank-O 0]

Yes, it's not marketed nor assumed to be a flight sim. Just the ability for any player to climb into a veh or aircraft and drive/fly it around. What other mil sim game out there does that? BF? COD4? We all know ArmA and OFP is/was in a league of it's own.

Just FYI. At one moment in OFP, you had radar missiles, radar scramblers that had multiple targets swimming around the enemy radar scope representing 1 aircraft. And yes, chaffe and flares were there too.

But that was OFP.

[max power 21]

I at least think there should be more to it than there is now.. now, and rightfully so, you launch missiles against aircraft and the aircraft is very likely destroyed or damaged. Those IR seeking missiles are very fast and manueverable. Mods with automatically deploying counter measures are just as if the missiles were less accurate.. with manually controlled countermeasures, though, protecting the aircraft is much more of an active task, and becomes more of a man vs man contest, and it forces the development of tactics and techniques for both the firer and the defender.

[ricnunes 0]

OFP/ArmA never was and won't be a flight-sim. The areas are simply too small.

I think flares are some kind of extras which just eat up time that could be spend on other, more important things.

OFP/ArmA may not be a dedicated flight-sim but certainly has flight sim elements or elso we wouldn't have helicopters/fixed wing aircraft with cockpits but instead we would fly those same aircraft from a 3rd person perspective or a 1st person without cockpit perspective at best.

And with that theory of yours we shouldn't have Surface-to-Air or Air-to-Air Missiles either.

You see like plaintiff1 said currently a SAM or Air-to-Air Missile has a probability of hitting it's target of 100% in OFP/ArmA which of course it's not real due in part to Flares and other types of countermeasures (of course evasion manouvers and missile failures also contributes for this as well). And while OFP/ArmA is not a dedicated flight-sim it's nevertheless a realistic oriented modern wargame and like it or not decoy Flares are an important part of modern warfare.

That is, if we have SAMs (Specially like the Tanguska) in ArmA2, aircraft must have Flares in the same game or else both should be delete or not include which I strongly believe must including yourself wouldn't like to see.

Finally, I current don't see or see very, very few "extras" (like you put it) that would be more important than Decoy Flares.

[MBot 0]

That is, if we have SAMs (Specially like the Tanguska) in ArmA2, aircraft must have Flares in the same game or else both should be delete or not include which I strongly believe must including yourself wouldn't like to see.

The Tunguskas missiles use command LOS guidance with the fire controll being by radar OR optical. So chaff and flares wont help anyway.

[ricnunes 0]

Hi Mbot,

Yes, you correct about the SA-19 (Tanguska's Missile) guidance which is guided by Radar Command Line Of Sight and not by IR as I previously (and wrongly) thought. Thanks for the info, that lead me to research more about the Tanguska system.

And since the SA-19 missile isn't IR guided you are also correct that flares wouldn't help an aircraft to spoof/evade that missile.

But I disagree about Chaffs since while researching about the Tanguska I noticed that this system detects and tracks the targeted aircraft using it's radar and if it uses a radar to track a target than it's prone to be spoofed by Chaffs (or by Electronic Countermeasures for that matter).

Of course that the Tanguska has a backup tracking Optical Sight which means that in theory a gunner could fire a SA-19 without the help from the radar but in that way the probabilities of hitting the targeted aircraft would be much, much lower since you wouldn't have for example target speed and direction calculations so in the end Chaffs would affect a Tanguska/Sa-19 system (and again not to mention ECMs).

Even if the SA-19 isn't IR guided the MANPAD SAMs such as the SA-7 Strella (in ArmA2 we will probably have more advanced SA-14/16) are and those are already a "pain on the ass" for helo pilots in ArmA so I still insist that Flares must be modeled and by the way Chaffs must be modeled as well because the later could help to deal with Tanguskas and also allow the modeling of other Air-Defence Units such as the SA-6, SA-8, etc... without compromising gameplay/realism balance.

[subs17 9]

Tunaskas can also network with early warning radars and other SAM radar sites and can use that to engage tgts as well. I think its a good idea to model chaff/flares/IR jammers and ECM so that in future expansions they could use those features for addons.

[Frank-O 0]

whoa whoa nelly.

(Corben Dallas)...shorter...shorter....*approaching palms*...*pinching motion*

How about we just deal with flares and chaffe for now, and leave ECM to dedicated aircraft and IR (jammers?) reduced exhaust vents as assumed on most aircraft?

[MBot 0]

Of course that the Tanguska has a backup tracking Optical Sight which means that in theory a gunner could fire a SA-19 without the help from the radar but in that way the probabilities of hitting the targeted aircraft would be much, much lower since you wouldn't have for example target speed and direction calculations so in the end Chaffs would affect a Tanguska/Sa-19 system (and again not to mention ECMs).

It's kind of off topic, but in case you are interested in the subject...

With SACLOS or ACLOS guidiance, target speed and range are not needed to know for fire control. All that need to happen is that the optical system is tracking the intended target. The fire control computer will then guide the missile in a way that it stays in the center of the optics and will eventually collide with the target or proxy fuse close to it (like a TOW). The optic can be pointed at the intended target automatically by radar or FLIR or manually by TV. In manual mode, all the operator has to do is point is optic at the target and the missile will be guided exactly the same way like in automatic mode. So chaff is really of very limited use against a Tunguska. Fist the chance of chaff to actually brake a solid lock of a ground based radar in a look-up situation is quite slim, second the Tunguska has still the ability to track targets by IR and TV systems. ECM would indeed be of better use at least against the radar tracking. In the end the Tunguska is a effective weapon system that basically creates a no-fly zone in its engagement envelope for aircraft that do not use terrain masking to their advantage.

Flares indeed suite better to a ArmA environment since they are effective against Iglas and Stingers.

[ricnunes 0]

While I would definitly see ECM and IR Jammers in ArmA2, I think I would be very happy if at least chaffs and flares would be modeled in ArmA2.

But again if we have Chaff and Flares in ArmA2 which are already existant in ArmA in the form of some addons, I believe it wouldn't be that hard to model ECM or IR Jammer since an ECM could modeled as some sort of a chaff dispenser with unlimited (and invisible) chaffs while the IR jammer could modeled as some sort of a flare dispenser with unlimited (and invisible) flares. But this is of course my 2 cents...