Air craft counter measures?

[ricnunes 0]

Most modern IR missiles will hit you the same whether or not you launch flares post missile launch.

That's not entirelly correct. What you're talking about is missiles that have 4th generation IR seekers which are only included in the latest AIR-TO-AIR missiles such the AIM-9X, ASRAAM, PYTHON-4 or IRIS-T. As far as I know, no MANPADS SAM even the latest ones such as the SA-18 or the latest Stinger Blocks don't have such advanced IR seekers. This may be due to the fact that MANPADS SAMs are quite smaller than a "traditional" short-range IR AIR-TO-AIR missile.

And even missiles such as the AIM-9X, ASRAAM, PYTHON-4 or IRIS-T can be spoofed by Flares the diference is that it's much harder to achive this. If you can put a series of Flares between the incoming missile seeker and the targetted aircraft so that the aircraft's image is totally blocked in the missile seeker than there's no way for the missile to be able to keep tracking the aircraft. But again this is of course very hard to do or achive with missiles such as the AIM-9X but even so there are new countermeasures being developed to counter these lastest missile such as the ASTE wich is essencially a bigger Flare. See about ASTE here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/aste.htm

and here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/mju-7.htm

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

Yes, I agree with this idea as well and it's how aircraft (fixed wing and even helos) usually make their attack runs in real life.

Anyway, isn't ArmA2 supposed to have Flares??

It says in their webpage that some aircraft have simple defensive countermeasures

And it also says in this Press Event:

http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=5694

that "- Aircraft now have chaff and flares by default"

[berowe 0]

The truth is that chopper warfare is freaking brutal. You're talking about flying tanks with crazy anti-tank and anti-everything capabilities here. Why do people rush to these things? Simple, because a good pilot can spam their air-to-grounds off and wipe out a heavy tank platoon. An unprepared armored BATTALION can just disappear with proper attack chopper use.

On the other hand, the simplest countermeasures- If deployed properly- are able to stop them. Everyone hears their rotors coming and your recons should be alerting you of their positions/vectors/etc from miles away.

Basically it's an extremely high stakes game of "who sees who first" and "who spams the trigger first" which, though not sexy or hollywood-esque, is very accurate. I know plenty of people whine when they lose their chopper, but I also hear those same guys crowing on about the 25 AVs they just whacked (as if they have a lick of talent...)

I'm not against CMs in any way, I just want people to realize that with great power comes great freaking risk. Choppa'z aren't just an IWIN button. We developed those strategies using the recon birds like Kiowas, and cooperation with ground units for a REASON. Too bad arma2 doesn't let you lase for a fellow pilot...

If you're interested, I enjoyed reading Clancy's Red Storm Rising for its brutal accounts of how long a sexy attack chopper regiment really would last on the "front."

[jump artist 0]

This is why I was also hoping for a more realistic depiction of how Hellfires are employed. Namely the AGM 114P. this is a Laser guided weapon. It needs a laser spot and someone to continuously lase for a missle to track. ACE had this dead on with its High, Low, and DIR, firing modes, I was bummed to see CM not take advantage of that. In its current mysitcly radar lock config. You are a super man in the Cobra or Hind. I would rank this feature right behind the need for aircraft counter measures. But you gotta pick your fight. Besides ACE did it so well, I will just wait for their release.

[ricnunes 0]

berowe,

You're forgetting a few things:

1- Advanced Gunship helicopters such as the Apache or the AH-1Z (modeled for the Marines in ArmA2) and even their Russian counterparts such as the Ka-50/52 or Mi-28 and even updated Mi-24 (like the Mi-35M variant) are considered the most lethal "weapons" that can keep up with ground units in a battlefield, so in a warfare game which is at least a bit realistic, helicopters should be better (in general terms) than almost everything else in such a game (again units that operate within or near the ground units - I'm excluding fighter aircraft for example).

This was proven by in real wars, specially the Desert Storm in 1991 or the most recent ones such as in Iraq or Afghanistan. Don't get me wrong but these wars are far more realistic than any Tom Clancy's books.

2- From my experience in ArmA what really "rules" again in ArmA is the Infantry with a AA missile and not the Helos. If those MANPAD SAMs were as nearly as effective as the ones in ArmA (and no countermeasures such as Flares were available in real life) no US helicopter would ever be flying over Iraq or in many other war scenarios!

3- The "super effectiveness" of helos in ArmA that you're talking about it's due to that ridiculous "vertical-situation radar" that gunship helicopters (and some other vehicles) have. I would be one of the happiest man on earth if for example BIS trades that stupid radar for Flare and Chaff countermesures.

This would be 1) more realistic; 2) Helicopters would be more survivable but less "super effective" in killing enemy units (specially vehicles) making a better balance against Anti-Aircraft vehicles (like the Tanguska) and therefore more realistic.

[frederf 0]

Ricunes, are you suggesting that BIS's lockable fire-and-forget mythical Hellfires are justified because "helicopters should be powerful?"

The reason helicopters were powerful in real life conflicts has everything to do with their stand off capabilities, excellent training, meticulous planning, and well-drilled coordination. Fly a real AH-1 like most people fly an AH-1 while in game and the combat effectiveness is going to be near zero. Right now we have helicopters dominating without them even have to try.

I do however agree 100% with "more survivability, less lethality."

Edited June 17, 2009 by Frederf

[Alex72 1]

We all know flares are coming to ARMA2 through addon or patch. One or the other. It will also be made well in terms of not being 100% deflection. Final point also - it will look DAMN GOOD with the new shiny/glowing light! I mean finally they will be bright with awesome smoke trails. woot woot - cant wait for that one. :)

Just a matter of time now.

Alex

[-Paladin- 10]

berowe,

You're forgetting a few things:

1- Advanced Gunship helicopters such as the Apache or the AH-1Z (modeled for the Marines in ArmA2) and even their Russian counterparts such as the Ka-50/52 or Mi-28 and even updated Mi-24 (like the Mi-35M variant) are considered the most lethal "weapons" that can keep up with ground units in a battlefield, so in a warfare game which is at least a bit realistic, helicopters should be better (in general terms) than almost everything else in such a game (again units that operate within or near the ground units - I'm excluding fighter aircraft for example).

This was proven by in real wars, specially the Desert Storm in 1991 or the most recent ones such as in Iraq or Afghanistan. Don't get me wrong but these wars are far more realistic than any Tom Clancy's books.

2- From my experience in ArmA what really "rules" again in ArmA is the Infantry with a AA missile and not the Helos. If those MANPAD SAMs were as nearly as effective as the ones in ArmA (and no countermeasures such as Flares were available in real life) no US helicopter would ever be flying over Iraq or in many other war scenarios!

3- The "super effectiveness" of helos in ArmA that you're talking about it's due to that ridiculous "vertical-situation radar" that gunship helicopters (and some other vehicles) have. I would be one of the happiest man on earth if for example BIS trades that stupid radar for Flare and Chaff countermesures.

This would be 1) more realistic; 2) Helicopters would be more survivable but less "super effective" in killing enemy units (specially vehicles) making a better balance against Anti-Aircraft vehicles (like the Tanguska) and therefore more realistic.

Dont compere 3´rd world country military to Russia, this sound very childish.

Your so mighty helicopters get faster shoot down than you can belive.This Clancy book is near realty than every conflict the west had with the east(what would happen if, like).To your look the real conflicts thing: "Its easy to steal from a baby a lollipop, but much harder to steal it from somebody your sice and skill".

And dont forget for every weapon is a counter weapon so you advanced gunships and ECM´s get shoot down by advance Sam´s and counter ECM´s.

berowe is right with what he was writing

[CuteQA 0]

From what i see from online play, many people is shot down by manpad or tonguska in an aircraft because they are making them self a easy target. People tends to pull their sticks very hard and bleed out all speed, and circling right over the danger zone. If you keep high speed and put the threat at 3/9 line, the SAM will have hard time to hit you in ARMA2, and it is that simple. I'm also a Falcon Series player, some SAM evasion tactics work super fine in ARMA2 even without the countermeasure.

I don't know much about heli tactic, but I always in and out fast and setup another attack run from a distance if i really have to fly overhead of target area.

For me, the best bet is not even giving the enemy a chance to fire missile. Always try to engage enemy from a safe distance.

A lot people get shot down due to their careless. IMO they should be shot down because SAM loves those careless dudes.

Implementation of flare would be nice, but it should only works on IR SAM.

[ricnunes 0]

Ricunes, are you suggesting that BIS's lockable fire-and-forget mythical Hellfires are justified because "helicopters should be powerful?"

Nope, I was suggesting exactly the opposite! What I'm sugesting is that gunship helicopters are "super units" or too powerfull units only because of those lockable fire-and-forget mythical Hellfires/Vikhrs coupled with that ridiculous vertical-situation radar located on top of the screen in some vehicles (such as in the helos).

The reason helicopters were powerful in real life conflicts has everything to do with their stand off capabilities, excellent training, meticulous planning, and well-drilled coordination. Fly a real AH-1 like most people fly an AH-1 while in game and the combat effectiveness is going to be near zero. Right now we have helicopters dominating without them even have to try.

I do however agree 100% with "more survivability, less lethality."

Completly agree with you in this one. If the helos in ArmA/ArmA2 didn't have the ridiculous vertical-situation radar plus lockable fire-and-forget Hellfires/Vikhrs the combat effectiveness wouldn't be even near to what we see now in those games and things would definitly be much more realistic.

[ricnunes 0]

Dont compere 3´rd world country military to Russia, this sound very childish.

Your so mighty helicopters get faster shoot down than you can belive.This Clancy book is near realty than every conflict the west had with the east(what would happen if, like).To your look the real conflicts thing: "Its easy to steal from a baby a lollipop, but much harder to steal it from somebody your sice and skill".

Paladin,

there's nothing more childish than argumenting about military affairs using a NOVEL or "ROMANCE" as a technical background! From your spelling I would say that English doesn't seem to be your "first" language (it isn'y mine either) so lets keep away the "childish" comments.

And now lets argument like grown up people:

Red Storm Rising book from Tom Clancy is a very thrilling novel inded but it has lots of inaccuracies such as the use of F/A-18s like they were F-16 Block 1 (fighting only in dogfights and never use their excelent standoff capabilities with Sparrow missiles) or not to mention the F-19 which never existed :j: and I could keep up, on and on.

Anyway, conflicts like Desert Storm were the real thing and not the Tom Clancy's book so argumentation against the facts of those conflicts with Tom Clancy's book is what should be considered "Childish".

Regarding the "3rd world country" compared with Russia you should get you facts straight. At the Desert Storm 1991 time Iraq had the 4th (yes, fourth) most powerfull armed forces on earth and it's Low-Altitude Anti-Air Defences were at least as well equiped as their Soviet Counterparts which was equiped with excelent low-level Air defence unis such as Shilkas, SA-13s, SA-8s and as opposed to Soviet Union it was also equiped with Roland SAMs which was at the late 80's early 90's one of the most advanced low-level air defence SAMs in the world at the time.

For what it's worth and giving Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising book some credit most of the Cobras (if not all) in that book were much older AH-1T SeaCobra variant which were equiped at best with TOW missiles (didn't have Hellfire capability) and it's optical targeting systems where much older and much more limited (both in image quality and range) which of course makes those older Cobra variants much more vulnerable to enemy air defence units such as Shilkas than the lastest AH-1W or AH-1Z (which is modeled in ArmA) variants.

Finally there was a study which the Soviets did either in the latest 70's or early 80's which shown that Gunship Helicopters had a great advantage against enemy armored formations with expected loss ratio of 18:1 (favoring the Gunship helicopters)

Edited June 19, 2009 by ricnunes

[jump artist 0]

So, now that Mykes F-16 has shown what the flares will look like. Its not the exact script that BIS is planning to use. He said that he used some of the F-18 scripts for missel spoofing. I wonder when, or if, BIS will actually release their own version of counter measures or just provide a PBO that the community can use to implement their own?

I hope that BIS releases something as to make it STANDARD among all players.

[[frl]myke 14]

@Jump Artist

The flare script is original in ArmA 2 included:

AddOns\Ca\Data\ParticleEffects\SCRIPTS\muzzle\flare.sqf

It is written by Maddmatt (as the header says) and i took it 1:1 from there. The spoof script just does alter the missiles flight path, nothing else.

:EDITH:

Odd, i can't remove the whitespace in flare in the above text.

[jump artist 0]

Right, So that means that the spoof (probably the most important part) is not from BIS correct? I just wonder what parameters BIS will incorperate stock.

[IncipitOmega 10]

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.

Thats the point...AIR superiority..today a military without an air force is a joke,of course they have the advantage.

And if it's real life,if a missile is fired on you,or perhaps even two,I would really like to meet the ace that evaded them without countermesaures.I don't think I ever will... ;)

This is not supposed to be world war 1 ! Countermesaures are a must !

---------- Post added at 04:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:59 PM ----------

Paladin,

there's nothing more childish than argumenting about military affairs using a NOVEL or "ROMANCE" as a technical background! From your spelling I would say that English doesn't seem to be your "first" language (it isn'y mine either) so lets keep away the "childish" comments.

And now lets argument like grown up people:

Red Storm Rising book from Tom Clancy is a very thrilling novel inded but it has lots of inaccuracies such as the use of F/A-18s like they were F-16 Block 1 (fighting only in dogfights and never use their excelent standoff capabilities with Sparrow missiles) or not to mention the F-19 which never existed :j: and I could keep up, on and on.

Anyway, conflicts like Desert Storm were the real thing and not the Tom Clancy's book so argumentation against the facts of those conflicts with Tom Clancy's book is what should be considered "Childish".

Regarding the "3rd world country" compared with Russia you should get you facts straight. At the Desert Storm 1991 time Iraq had the 4th (yes, fourth) most powerfull armed forces on earth and it's Low-Altitude Anti-Air Defences were at least as well equiped as their Soviet Counterparts which was equiped with excelent low-level Air defence unis such as Shilkas, SA-13s, SA-8s and as opposed to Soviet Union it was also equiped with Roland SAMs which was at the late 80's early 90's one of the most advanced low-level air defence SAMs in the world at the time.

For what it's worth and giving Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising book some credit most of the Cobras (if not all) in that book were much older AH-1T SeaCobra variant which were equiped at best with TOW missiles (didn't have Hellfire capability) and it's optical targeting systems where much older and much more limited (both in image quality and range) which of course makes those older Cobra variants much more vulnerable to enemy air defence units such as Shilkas than the lastest AH-1W or AH-1Z (which is modeled in ArmA) variants.

Finally there was a study which the Soviets did either in the latest 70's or early 80's which shown that Gunship Helicopters had a great advantage against enemy armored formations with expected loss ratio of 18:1 (favoring the Gunship helicopters)

Just btw,Tom clancy's F19 is in the future,that's why it "never existed" yet :)

And the guy is a military "doctor" and futurist.

---------- Post added at 04:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:04 PM ----------

Nope, I was suggesting exactly the opposite! What I'm sugesting is that gunship helicopters are "super units" or too powerfull units only because of those lockable fire-and-forget mythical Hellfires/Vikhrs coupled with that ridiculous vertical-situation radar located on top of the screen in some vehicles (such as in the helos).

Completly agree with you in this one. If the helos in ArmA/ArmA2 didn't have the ridiculous vertical-situation radar plus lockable fire-and-forget Hellfires/Vikhrs the combat effectiveness wouldn't be even near to what we see now in those games and things would definitly be much more realistic.

Are u forgetting that it's a simulation ?That's what gunships carry,lock and forget missiles..and yes it makes things easy,that's why they were invented in the first place.

[galzohar 31]

Depends on the hellfire type. Some are laser guided and need to keep designating until the hit, and some have their own radar seeker that guides them to their target. AFAIK we don't know which type is actually in game, so we can assume it's the radar fire&forget type.

[maniac86 0]

I already stated on the previous page that they are passive. Therefore, it is impossible to have automatic flare dispersal, because they will never show up on the RWR.

YES! I was waiting for a thread like this to start,to flex my military knowledge muscle (I worked as an analyst in an Aviation unit with the Army and B&E Systems in Iraq (They design our flare countermeasure systems)

Wrong, you are correct the seeker is passive, but once the missile launches it is detected and the aircraft automatically dispeneses the flare "cocktail" which for most aircraft is 2 sets (left and right side) of three flares (low, mid and high spectrum heat) The missile should then concienvablly track (not lock, heat seekers do not LOCK, that is radar) on the nearest or hottest (in the case of old SA7A or SA7B models) flare. The newer SA series MANPADS (18, 24) have CCIRCM (Counter Counter IRR Counter Measures) meaning that they are "smart" warheads that can use a microprocessor to record the actual heat signature of the target it initially launched at, and then it can detect the three flares, the specific heat signature, and it knows whether or not to ignore.

Essentially the modern aircrafts in the U.S. military have IR seekers that detect a certain heat range (this range is isolated to pick up the average heat of the sustained burn stage of a MANPADS) This has nothing to do with radar, and the launch itself isnt what is picked up (MANPADS which are always "plural" btw MANPortableAirDefenceSystems)

---------- Post added at 05:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:26 PM ----------

Actually this is only partially correct. Chaff requires a zig zag evasive patternt to essentialy put up a wall of chaff between the radar that is locking and the aircraft. With flare systems (at least on slower helicopters and low flying fixed wing) it is now recomended that the pilot take NO evasive manuevers. Think of it this way. While flying evasive, the pilot is no bigger or smaller a radar "blip" (to use laymans terms) But when flying evasive, especially with increased speed, now the aircraft gives off more heat from either engine exhaust (rotary) or the jet itself (fixed wing) Also the signature that IR missile may be tracking (again, not LOCKING) on may be very small, and manuevering may actually allow it to gain a more positive track signature.

As kind of a funny side note, I would like to point out that the old SA7 A and B MANPADS were so "simple" that glinting light could trick the missile into tracking on a non-existent heat source (this happened to two different civilian aircraft in Iraq, where it was determined that the missile was fooled by light glinting off the tail, also this happened to an Israeli commerical liner in Africa)

---------- Post added at 05:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:37 PM ----------

Most western helicopters do not have the sensors to detect manpad launches, the aircraft that do only have coverage across the rear. Western AC tho also have IR-Jammers like the mi-24 however these only have limited effectiveness vs newer generations of manpads.

Also incorrect, remember, a MANPADS launched at the front of an aircaft (front 90 degrees) will have almose zero heat signature to track on. Therfore will be a probable miss regardless. The heat sensors (simple terms) are placed below and the rear traditionally, but can generally detect the heat sources 360 degrees from the belly of the aircraft (or at least 180 if placed more to the sides)

Every American military aircraft in Iraq has an IR/Flare dispensing mechanism.

And yes the IR jammers will not be as effective against the newest series of MANPADS (SA-24's) but those are also in limited quanities, and as of yet, Russia has not exported them (i think they fear the irony of them falling back in sepratist hands like Cechnya, or even bought out by Georgia :-) )

Edited June 26, 2009 by maniac86

[Shinobi575 10]

Because you can still use it if you know how to use it smart. Here is a little outline to follow.

1. Don't fly into a hot zone like you own the place.

2. Use your gunner, human or AI to target AA soldier first.

3. Keep moving in a zig zag pattern and use rooftops and tree lines as cover.

4. When in doubt use lots of rockets in the most likely areas.

5. Don't be a superstar and let your ground units help secure the locations.

This was a outline from a guy who was one of the best aviators (pilot) that I played with in OFP his name was JAKE34 and i have been playing OFP since 2001.

regardless of how smart someone may be, i think the MANDO missle system needs to be implemented from ARMA 1, the chaff/flares + Air to air missle system was a pretty bad ass concept if they had flares on the air craft in this game i would think that would add more realism to the game, yes?.

[T.S.C.Plage 0]

Depends on the hellfire type. Some are laser guided and need to keep designating until the hit, and some have their own radar seeker that guides them to their target. AFAIK we don't know which type is actually in game, so we can assume it's the radar fire&forget type.

Only the AGM-114L with the MWR is a real "fire and forget" weapon and this type is only used with Longbow Apaches. Therefore the used Hellfires on the Cobra in ArmA shouldn't have this capability if you want to be 100%tly correct. I myself don't have a problem with how it's currently handled.

@ maniac86:

Thanks for the infos. I hope I'm allowed to ask you some questions?

At first did you maybe mean BAE Systems?

I guess you're talking about the integration of one of the ALQ systems into helicopters, right? Can you may be a little more precise which type(s) and on the used components?

With "IR/Flare dispensing mechanism" you mean a completly autonomous working system with a seperate control unit, missile approach warning system, IR-jammer etc., correct?

[jump artist 0]

Every American military aircraft in Iraq has an IR/Flare dispensing mechanism.

Not EVERY mil aircraft, Predators and smaller UAV drones are not equipped with any defensive counter measures. TOUCHE!!!!

But really guys all this Mumbo jumbo about flare systems, while very enjoybale to read, is pretty pointless. ITs not an Air craft sim so all we need is a simple defeat system to give the Helos and jets a chance at surviving more than 1 minute. (And dont post about haw to Mask yourself behind hills for crying out loud). We just need a "Rock" to the "paper" and "Scissors" BIS has provided.

Edited June 26, 2009 by Jump Artist

[maniac86 0]

Not EVERY mil aircraft, Predators and smaller UAV drones are not equipped with any defensive counter measures. TOUCHE!!!!

....

Every manned aircraft (ones worth saving) not to say that UAV's are cheap, but lets be realistic, its not worth the extra weight and money to put such a system on a UAV so small that it barely gives off a radar blip or heat signature

And yes, I did mean BAE lol, I always do that (like DynCorp and Dyna Corp international, all government contractors, but different companies with differnt purposes)

Anyway, the '144 "disco ball" systems (I believe the most effective varient is on the AH-64) does have a big downside, it has to be "programmed" with the most common threats in the area (Iraq for example would be SA7 and 14 most commonlly) Because if it isnt set for the exact threat, it will actually give a 'false' heat signature that other missiles can track on.

Most commonally for Army aircarft, and probably Marine Rotary wing as well (cant speak for fixed wing or VTOL) use the infared sensors and 3 flare cocktail mix (wheras c-130's fire off a rediculous amount)

The funny thing(but sometimes dangerous) about it all is that on the old systems (2003-2006ish) the system would get false indicators, for example, an acetylne torch burns at about the same temperature as a MANPADS booster engine, giving a false indication, making the aircraft shoot off flares, some areas with high radio interference used to do the same thing. The downside is that imagine flying at night over an urban area, suddenly a workshop wielding torch sets off your flares, now every insurgent for several miles knows an aircraft is in the area and starts popping off rounds in your general direction, its enough to endanger a craft and its crew.

[Thirdup 0]

I was surprised when ArmA1 released w/o aircraft countermeasures. There have been a number of mod solutions over the years (Mando Missiles being one of the slickest).

Given all the added goodies and animations that ArmA2 has (many similar to the mods that ACE contained), I was again surprised to see countermeasures not included in the core game.

[wildone_106 10]

Lazyness. With the general lack of attention to planes/aircraft in general it doesn't surprise me. There's not even a functioning working hud or proper aiming recticle