Air craft counter measures?

[wamingo 1]

judging by multiplayer games in arma, I'd say aircraft needs a sabot detector

[MBot 0]

A-10 ingame with SU-202/AAR-57 EOMS.

http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/8043/a1001h.th.jpg

AN/AAR-57 usage in the US military.

http://www.ecsel.psu.edu/design_projects/fa03/brochures/AN-AAR-57.pdf (see list on page 2 *)

* Some aircrafts like the CH-46 are missing but are also equipped with the system nowadays

I think those knobs on the nose of the A-10 are something different because they are also on A-10s from 1982 (when MLWS was still far away). Most likely just the RWR.

I would remain sceptical about that brochure, it is mostly marketing and talks about planes that -can- be equiped with that system. One thing I learned about such topics is to not trust the internet, photos of showing the stuff on operational airframes is hard currency :)

Edited June 15, 2009 by MBot

[Curious 0]

Its a shame we dont have flares. Its too easy to get shot down...

[T.S.C.Plage 0]

I think those knobs on the nose of the A-10 are something different because they are also on A-10s from 1982 (when MLWS was still far away). Most likely just the RWR.

I would remain sceptical about that brochure, it is mostly marketing and talks about planes that -can- be equiped with that system. One thing I learned about such topics is to not trust the internet, photos of showing the stuff on operational airframes is hard currency :)

You're maybe right and they're just the sensors for the RWR but this also could be AN/AAR-44 passive infrared warning receivers. Actually there are so many systems in use that I'm getting confused which is used on which platforms and which sensors belong to which system.

I read something about AN/ALQ-212 for AV-8BII and AN/ALQ-213 for the A-10C but the sources are not always up to date and matching or even seem to mix the systems up. It seems like you can get much infos about the systems themselves but not on which aircraft they're used or you get contradictory infos. Anyways lots of systems were produced and they've to be used somewhere.

[An Fiach 10]

I'm not against having CMs but I think they would probably have a negative effect on gameplay and performance.

[max power 21]

Can functions be linked to buttons already designated?

Yes. There are already many multimapped keys by default. For example, forward is run forward, drive forward, and nose down in helicopter, nose down in jet.. Left click is hold breath / zoom in when a soldier, zoom in / acquire target in vehicles, something else when in command mode. Any button that's not being used in the context of what kind of unit you're controlling can be mapped to another context specific function.

[Alex72 1]

Its a shame we dont have flares. Its too easy to get shot down...

We will get them... Patience my young padawan - this is the ARMA community you know. ;)

[frederf 0]

Making up new keybinds is not terribly easy or graceful. ACE has a tough time of it with ArmA1, making you edit a text config file if you want to change their keys (which are listening to the keyboard with a script).

[ziiip 1]

I'm pretty sure they said somewhere that they didn't want to add counter measures because air vehicles already had a huge advantage over ground troops.

I still reckon they should be in though.

Yes the choppers have the huge advantage of beign a total waste for they last as long as an AA soldiers spots him.

No military chopper would be built if the stituation in RL was as horrible as in ArmA2.

Those flying guides worth donkey dicks, we need proper countermeasures. :(

[galzohar 31]

Making up new keybinds is not terribly easy or graceful. ACE has a tough time of it with ArmA1, making you edit a text config file if you want to change their keys (which are listening to the keyboard with a script).

Ouch, you'd think they'd make it easier in a 2009 game that relies on modding to live... :(

[Alex72 1]

ACE keys worked perfectlly for me. ACE is ACE.

[Hell_Toupee 0]

I'm talking about laser and missile warners here which trigger the launch of flares automatically if a threat is detected.

Only Electro optical systems tho will detect manpads, and their not on every western helicopter.

Usage should still be for preemptive flare usage.

Edited June 16, 2009 by Hell_Toupee

[jump artist 0]

Yes it would be nice to have them in the game but would it make the game unbalanced. Like in RTS games the ROCK-PAPER thing needs to be inplace to make the game balanced/fair and fun to play as every unit.

Unbalanced?? Are you insane? Unbalanced is After using all those hills to mask yourself, roll in on an attack run and basically pull down your pants and wait for the missle that will kill you.

Its about being fair. If you put in AA you need to put in its defense. Effective 100% of the time, no. But something, because right now its 99% death anytime you get in a chopper.

[NoBF2boy 10]

there are no countermeasures ingame, maybe in the campaign triggeredby a script, but definetly not as a default aircraft config.

[pchaxor 0]

Did anyone mention adding an "audible" alert by chance so you know when to actually deploy the countermeasures?

*bweep* *bweep* *bweep*

[cm 0]

Didn't ACE have them?

That's all we need :)

[An-225 0]

ACE isn't everything...

I'd rather have a fully functioning vanilla game (no doubt though, that flares do not constitute "fully functioning" and we will surely receive content later on).

[pchaxor 0]

*bweep* *bweep* *bweep* "Incoming Missle"

WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!

*bweep* *bweep* *bweep* "Incoming Missle"

[-Paladin- 10]

*bweep* *bweep* *bweep* "Incoming Missle"

WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!

*bweep* *bweep* *bweep* "Incoming Missle"

turning around with 10 G and poping flair´s with no efacts to pilot and plane -.-

great just great

[holyseal 10]

hey there, just registered to add my 2 cents.

i'm not a big arma player (yet) but I love sim oriented games.

i'm a huge aviation enthusiast, and i gotta say i'm a bit frustrated by the plane/heli controls in the game, but as some mentioned, it's not an aviation sim at the core, so i don't complain too much about that.

still, about flares, i believe they should be implemented.

either that, or make target acquisition for AA require a bit more skill.

for example, maybe it should take a bit more time to get a solid lock (i don't care about realism here, no idea how long it takes to actually get a lock IRL, i've never fired a manpad and don't plan to :) i'm more towards gameplay)

it should be that the AA player doesn't just think "oh look a plane" and go click BAM, but should consider it like "ok i've got only 1 missile, let's try to get it right so it does hit the target"

i suppose the angle at which the missile flies to the target should be taken in consideration; maybe when you shoot at a target sideways, the missile will have a harder time to steer towards that nice IR source.

but well that would help fast moving planes, but not helis...

hence another idea: I think the way flares were used in BF2 was ok:

the thing is, you drop flares PRIOR to getting the missile shot, so the operator has trouble locking onto you because the heat seeking will tend to lock on the hot flares... giving you a few seconds to evade.

then, they could either just implement a flare popping button so you spam some when going for a run, or, you can at least get a warning that someone is trying to lock you (again, i don't care about realism here, but gameplay. if arma was totally realistic... well. air enthusiasts will agree with me, planes wouldn't really be the way they are :) ) so you can try some kind of evasive manoeuver (trying to get behind a hill, or something)

flares shouldn't be a PERFECT escape. because otherwise you just keep spamming when doing a strafe run and you're invincible...

it should be that, even if you use flares, if AA is shot your way from the right angle (i suppose it should be from behind ?), it would still lock easier on you than on the flares... (and again... i insist... i'm thinking gameplay wise)

[pchaxor 0]

I think that since there are going to be alot of Tk's and such with all the new players they should also add in a warning system for them too. LOL

*bweep* *bweep* *bweep* "Incoming Dumbass TK"

WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!

*bweep* *bweep* *bweep* "Incoming Dumbass TK"

[NKato 0]

I have advice for when you're using aircraft in ArmA 2. Here they are, listed by aircraft type:

AH-1Z Cobra - Hover at around 600-1000 altitude, at a distance of around 2 to 3 kilometers away from the target. This will ensure that you are outside enemy AA engagement range (unless it's a player with a very high view distance, then you might be within engagement range). Use Hellfires to soften up the target's armor resistance. Only go in close range when you have full, undisputable confirmation from ground troops that all AA assets (vehicles, specifically) are dead. This still opens you up to enemy AA troops, but the best tactic to counter them is to fly low (under 50 ALT) and use buildings, trees, and terrain for cover.

Harrier GBU and F-35 - My advice is to avoid dive-bombing on the target entirely, and do high-altitude laser guided bombing runs. This requires an infantryman on the ground with a laser designator. When the target is lit and you have the laser targeted, you do a flyover at 1,500+ altitude, well outside AI AA engagement range (and outside most players' viewdistances, so they wouldn't be able to see you). Drop the bomb early enough, and it will glide in to the target with no problems.

A-10 Thunderbolt II - This one is a bit of a doozy. You're going to have Mavericks, so the best way to handle it is to do attack runs from long distance, then break off. Say you have an enemy tank in Krasnostav in the town center. You're better off flying in at a moderate altitude, around 140 ALT from the south. When you close the distance to about 3km and have a definite lock, fire then break off ASAP before you get too close and use the terrain as cover (low altitude flying) to evade any possible incoming missiles.

A little side story: Last night, I was flying the Seahawk in an Evo mission, and I was bringing a squad in to a very hot combat zone. Unexpectedly, I saw a missile coming at me from a Tunguska less than a kilometer away as I made my landing approach. I yanked hard to the left to evade. The missile exploded just past the helicopter, inflicting critical damage AND knocking the tail rotor out. I managed to land the helicopter with just a sliver of health remaining, and offloaded the squad. This was undeniable proof that the enemy's AA can be successfully evaded and are survivable even at close range, provided that you know how to evade them. (Bonus: Someone had caught it on FRAPS. I think the guy's name was Tuna Sushi or something like that.)

[chaplainDMK 10]

Flares that would tell you your being aimed at would encourage teamplay, alone youd probably never use flares since when you see the missle its too late, but if you got a wingman he could spot the missle before you do and pop flares.

I guess... But for the CoDers that will inevitably get some chopper playing as a team is a term as alien to them as something realy alien to someone... (couldnt think up of a comparison :D)

[jump artist 0]

I think alot of you are missing the point. The flare should not be a 100% defeat to the incoming missle. Nor should you get a tone from a manpad or optically guided AA missle. Flares should be used Pre-emptively against the possiblity of man pads. So you have a limited number of them say 50-60 (if they are dumped out like in RL) you dump your chaff and flare as you roll in for an attack run, go in to drop off troops, or do an exfill.

I do not want 100% spoof, I just a fighting chance at survival.

[frederf 0]

Most modern IR missiles will hit you the same whether or not you launch flares post missile launch. I like the idea of starting a flare sequence before your attack run and tripling the lock time for any IR threats on the ground. It promotes prior planning, limited engagements, and missiles aren't wasted on over-effective flares.

It would also look pretty to people on the ground. :D