Coutermeasures Chaff/Flares for Aircraft

[zolop0 10]

After playing OFP, Arma 1 then Arma 2 and still no countermeasures for aircraft in these games, to make them more complete, it is baffling not 1 game in the series has them in the game (without mods).

For the people that love to pilot in this game its like they are always flying with a handicap. Would it be tough to make a module that can go along with aircraft so that they have countermeasures Chaff/Flares made by the developers (BI)? If possible further down the road added through patches please put this as a priority, of course after fixing bugs and errors.

Edited July 29, 2009 by zolop0

[aurien 10]

Don't forget to add a missile and radar warning. So we know when to use the flares and chaff.

It sucks. You'll be flying along and then suddenly boom dead. Didn't even know the AA gun was tracking you.

[Binkowski 26]

This is true. It's been that way for awhile...it goes something like this.

1. MANPAD Launch

2. You MIGHT hear a SWOOSH

3. <Insert Name Here> was killed.

ACE implemented very good flares in ArmA1.

[Inkompetent 0]

Don't forget to add a missile and radar warning. So we know when to use the flares and chaff.

It sucks. You'll be flying along and then suddenly boom dead. Didn't even know the AA gun was tracking you.

If someone targets you with a MANPAD or an optically targeted launch platform using IR missiles (like all SAMs in the game) you wouldn't have a clue if you were shot at or not in a modern aircraft. That's why one uses flares preemptively to be on the safe side, since it's hard to spot lauches in time.

Not entirely sure, but I think I've only seen IR missiles in the game, which means not a single missile would give a missile launch warning.

But, I do agree we should have flares!

[Bravo0246 0]

I'm not sure if this is in the mission or plane, but try this mission out has some awesome flares, automatic though.

http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=6589

Actually checked it comes with the F16 addon.http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=5900

Edited July 30, 2009 by Bravo0246

[l mandrake 9]

+1 for flares!!!!!

[Vylker 10]

+1 for flares and missile alerts

[Inkompetent 0]

+1 for flares and missile alerts

Just curious. What would give a missile alert, unless having it in for purely gamey purposes?

Only aircraft in the game that has been (for just a few aircraft) field-equipped with launch-flash detectors is the C-130. This is the only system in the world to detect a missile launch by IR-guided missiles.

[Vylker 10]

Hmm, well ok, we could use then some lazer shield :yay: :j:

[Thirdup 0]

I'm one who believes that countermeasures really should have been implemented into the core game.

The debate against having a warning system is legitimate from a realism standpoint, but.....

Our in-game operational altitudes are scaled far lower than real life. In game, you'll rarely see a CAP aircraft operating above 1-2k feet. You rarely see fighter cover much above that. Look at the altitudes that the AI operate at by default.

Given this low alt and the close range, SAMs in-game are far too instant and deadly accurate. You can prove this by taking a flight of default aircraft and sending them over a target zone with ten AA batteries. The loses will be staggering (far greater than anything in real life).

Now take a flight of modded Falcons (with warnings and auto countermeasures) over the same target. The losses will more closely resemble that of a real life sortie.

So which is truly more "gamy"? Having a non-realistic countermeasure system that produces realistic outcomes? Or a more true-to-life system....where all aircraft are hit or destroyed on every pass.

Certainly game balance comes into play at some point. But an aircraft that is defensive is not attacking. I'd personally find it more exciting to have to break off an attack pass and be forced into defensive maneuvers (ie: warning, dump flares, break off)

What we have now is simply: make a pass, drop ordinance, roll the dice to see how much damage you instantly took in return, rtb for repairs, rinse, repeat.

just kicking it all around.....

ymmv

[ashikar 0]

Theres a newer mod on armaholic for countermeasures. Maybe you guys should check it out. Havent personally tried it yet, so not sure how it works.

http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=6643

[Alienfreak 0]

1. The flares of ACE sucked. They were just a free ticket.

Shooting a Heli in his rear was just stupid to do. That sucked big time.

2. Chaffs in ArmA2? What for? Do you know any radar guided missiles in ArmA 2? I don't.

All are IR guided exept the Tunguska ones, which are Sightbased, AFAIK.

3. Air to ground combat is TAB, 2, TAB, 2, 1, First mousebutton, TAB, 2, TAB, 2, 1, First mousebutton, TAB, First mousebutton. 2 Tanks and 1 Fighter aircraft killed with your KA52 in roughly 5 secs.

As long as it is that easy to kill a tank/aircraft with an aircraft, why should it be hard to kill an aircraft with AA?

Because they cost you more in Warfare? O_o

[novafluxx 10]

If someone targets you with a MANPAD or an optically targeted launch platform using IR missiles (like all SAMs in the game) you wouldn't have a clue if you were shot at or not in a modern aircraft. That's why one uses flares preemptively to be on the safe side, since it's hard to spot lauches in time.

Not entirely sure, but I think I've only seen IR missiles in the game, which means not a single missile would give a missile launch warning.

But, I do agree we should have flares!

I'd like to disagree. If a small super fast object is detected on radar (if the aircraft is using active radar), and the computer calculates it on an intercept course, it may give a warning to the pilot.

I'm pretty sure something like this is implemented in gen 4 and 5 aircraft. Though, I may be very wrong.

[Eagle911 10]

I'm one who believes that countermeasures really should have been implemented into the core game.

The debate against having a warning system is legitimate from a realism standpoint, but.....

Our in-game operational altitudes are scaled far lower than real life. In game, you'll rarely see a CAP aircraft operating above 1-2k feet. You rarely see fighter cover much above that. Look at the altitudes that the AI operate at by default.

Given this low alt and the close range, SAMs in-game are far too instant and deadly accurate. You can prove this by taking a flight of default aircraft and sending them over a target zone with ten AA batteries. The loses will be staggering (far greater than anything in real life).

Now take a flight of modded Falcons (with warnings and auto countermeasures) over the same target. The losses will more closely resemble that of a real life sortie.

So which is truly more "gamy"? Having a non-realistic countermeasure system that produces realistic outcomes? Or a more true-to-life system....where all aircraft are hit or destroyed on every pass.

Certainly game balance comes into play at some point. But an aircraft that is defensive is not attacking. I'd personally find it more exciting to have to break off an attack pass and be forced into defensive maneuvers (ie: warning, dump flares, break off)

What we have now is simply: make a pass, drop ordinance, roll the dice to see how much damage you instantly took in return, rtb for repairs, rinse, repeat.

just kicking it all around.....

ymmv

Ok heres what you have suggested

A) Have a somewhat (depending on the aircraft, and its technology) unrealistic countermeasure system so we can have more realistic flying

B) Realistic countermeasures (which would be worthless as just about everything in this game would not set off an aircraft countermeasures) so we can have an unrealistic defense system

It's obvious, A should be the answer. I don't know what the arguement is about

And i think planes should be visible as it is like in real life. Im sick of being in an AA and an aircraft coming 800m away and i can't see it. Aircraft should be an exception even if they are far away you see a little dot moving around in the air

And the targeting system is utter CRAP

[Thirdup 0]

Actually, I didn't suggest either A or B. I was merely commenting on the differences between what we have now (no countermeasures) and what one particular (F-16) mod offers.

The only suggestion I hinted at was that there could have been some form of countermeasures built into the core game.

As far as there being no launch detection or effective counter measures against IR or MANPADS, there are some interesting articles out there:

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

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/a-10.htm

http://www.deagel.com/Aircraft-Warners-and-Sensors/ANAAR-57-CMWS_a001337001.aspx

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Infrared_countermeasures

etc, etc, google, google

;)

[CrazyAviator 10]

I cant believe countermeasures are not in this game :confused:

[nomdeplume 0]

I think the main problem is that anti-air combat is so simplistic at the moment as to not be fun. Basically, the missile will hit you unless you're traveling perpendicular-ish to it and a reasonably high speed. In which case it will always miss. The AI doesn't know what to do about missiles, so it will normally be shot down unless it just happens to be flying a favourable path.

Players who know about the AA threat can fly accordingly and not be shot down. AI will fire at targets they have no chance of hitting - at the very least the player should have to 'goad' the AI into taking a shot. As it is now, you can just fly in a circle around the AA threat until it's out of missiles, or reloading. An advanced feature which would be good (but I'm sure we'll never see) would be groups of AA taking turns firing, instead of all firing (and hence reloading) at the same time.

Flares would be a good addition, I think. They should be used realistically: most helicopters don't have warnings for IR missiles, so flares are used preemptively as the aircraft enters a zone it considers to be hostile. They run a pattern of flares which provides them with some measure of protection for a fairly short period of time - long enough to make the attack run and get out of the threat area.

This would mean aircraft would need to exercise caution - they'd still be vulnerable to unexpected IR launches (as they should be), but could still make attack runs against AA emplacements without having to resort to long-range missiles (which are cool in a geeky way, but not very exciting).

All well and good for players, but what about the AI? I guess it's not unreasonable that if it 'knowsAbout' an AA threat it can decide whether or not it's in the threat area, and start popping flares if it is. Actually, that sounds pretty doable.

The main problem I have with it now is that AI aircraft are risky to use in areas that may have AA. The likelihood of it being shot down is extremely high which means if your mission depends on the aircraft (or will be significantly harder without it) you can't really have any air defence. If the AI aircraft had more reasonable odds of surviving (and prioritised known AA threats) it would improve the gameplay.

[Inkompetent 0]

I'd like to disagree. If a small super fast object is detected on radar (if the aircraft is using active radar), and the computer calculates it on an intercept course, it may give a warning to the pilot.

I'm pretty sure something like this is implemented in gen 4 and 5 aircraft. Though, I may be very wrong.

From a realism point of view it is impossible to get a readable radar return from a missile, even if it is coming onto you from the front. Their radar cross section is simply too low, and their closure rate towards the aircraft so high, that one can't get a reliable radar image, if any at all.

On top of that all jets smaller than an AWACS only have a forward facing radar in their nose, which means any object outside the front 120 degrees (roughly) can't be detected by the plane's on-board sensors, but only visually by the pilot himself.

Generally the only missiles that are detectable by a jet are missiles with their own on-board targeting radar, since the launch flash detectors aren't being put into any widespread use and is only experimental this far, and only USA use them at all afaik.

From a gamey perspective I can agree that launch warnings can be nice. If nothing else have Bitching Betty nag about "Missile. Missile. Missile." ^^

[TechnoTerrorist303 10]

Flares would be very nice indeed. Chaff completely unnecessary with the weapons in game at the moment... Unless you wanted to give OPFOR nice tinfoil hats as you flew over

[Alienfreak 0]

On top of that all jets smaller than an AWACS only have a forward facing radar in their nose, which means any object outside the front 120 degrees (roughly) can't be detected by the plane's on-board sensors, but only visually by the pilot himself.

Just like the SU34? ;)

And I'm unsure whether or whether not the FLIRs of an Aircraft can detect missiles. They should be able to.

Also modern Helis feature IR warners. Like the KA52. The AH1Z should have them, too.

But for as long as electronic warfare isn't introduced at all I don't see a reason why the Aircrafts should get the candy. They already have it.

Actually, I didn't suggest either A or B. I was merely commenting on the differences between what we have now (no countermeasures) and what one particular (F-16) mod offers.

The only suggestion I hinted at was that there could have been some form of countermeasures built into the core game.

As far as there being no launch detection or effective counter measures against IR or MANPADS, there are some interesting articles out there:

The AV8 and the F35 will idd have IR warners.

The same AV8 and F35 whichs engines can't really fail in ArmA 2. You can be hit by 3 AA missiles and land your AV8 with working vector thrust at 5% structural integrity.

The same AV8 and F35 which wont be hit by 70% of the missiles anyway even if flying low when flown by a good pilot.

The only real danger for them is the Tunguska. And you wont counter that one with those systems.

The interesting part about Flares would be still an automated launch cycle. So you can dispense them over time when flying over hot territory. Like near the enemy base in CTI.

Edited August 4, 2009 by Alienfreak

[Inkompetent 0]

Just like the SU34? ;)

Hmm... Good point. I haven't read up much on any Russian jets past the MiG-29 and Su-27 (Falcon 4.0 desktop pilot! :D ). Seems the enormous beast has both IR launch flash detectors and a rear aspect radar. Was wondering what the huge cone between the engines was, since I couldn't see why that size would benefit aerodynamics ^^

Edit: And it seems like the F-35 has launch flash detectors as well. So I suppose we say 'Yay!' for how absurdely modern stuff we have in ArmA2? (I.e. so modern it's barely used at all :P )

Edited August 4, 2009 by Inkompetent

[Thirdup 0]

I cant believe countermeasures are not in this game :confused:

What I'm not clear on are the claims that countermeasures (and effects like wingtip vortices) are in the core game already but simply disabled.

There was a fellow who even posted some screen shots (that were taken down as some sort of NDA breech). Yet, no word as to why these effects are disabled.

[Inkompetent 0]

What I'm not clear on are the claims that countermeasures (and effects like wingtip vortices) are in the core game already but simply disabled.

There was a fellow who even posted some screen shots (that were taken down as some sort of NDA breech). Yet, no word as to why these effects are disabled.

I think that the case is that they have made the graphics for flares, but they decided to not put them in the game.

There was textures for the XM8 in ArmA1, but there wasn't an XM8 in the game. It's simply remains of stuff that they've never decided to include.