Survival tips for Aircraft please?

[VladimirTarasov]

2 hours ago, Sublime said:

Idk man. I dont think theres an AAA platform short of several gatling guns mounted ON what would be the target literally creating a curtain of lead to stop a missile. I mean even the fastest turrets i dont think could track a missile going mach 2 for the split second its overhead or about to slam into sonethig. I just dont see it. Maybe if the tunguska was magically pointed at where the missile was coming from ajd it was over the course of a conflict of ww3 proportions perhaps thered be one case.

I agree that the Tunguska cannot even hope to shoot a missile let alone an aircraft that just gazes by over restricted terrain flying away from radar and limited LOS. But I was just saying it has a capability to engage incoming precision missiles. 

 

2 hours ago, Sublime said:

Frankly F15s wouldnt need nor desire to fly low.  Under 10k ft its not just AAA its every @$$hole with a rifle banging away at you.

Quite true, but again if there's S-300s or a super sniper XX F-22 out there, the CAS fighter must fly very low and avoid being targeted by aerial denial assets. So depends on the scenario at hand. If the US has totally rendered the Russian long range AA useless, then indeed F-15s should be able to totally avoid being hit by AAA or SHORADs. 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

In passing:

Re: Shooting down missiles

It's not strictly impossible, and might even be a capability, it's just something that is a lot more complex than it looks at first glance.  Looking at existing systems capable of shooting down missiles or very fast movers:

1. The protected bubble is very small given the speed of the projectile vs the effective engagement ranges of the defensive system.

2. The defensive system is prone to being overwhelmed, again given fairly short engagement windows, the defensive system might get the first missile, but the second let alone third one will likely still strike home.

3. It is risky in regards to sensor cuing.  Basically you need a fairly powerful sensor active constantly to acquire missile type targets.  In a theater with extensive radiation seeking missiles, this could be nearly suicidal.  

Ships get away with it because they have all this wide open space in pretty sensor friendly conditions, and have layers and layers and layers of defense.  The land situation is much harder.

Re: Game stuff.

Again, I'd like a system that lets us somewhat abstractly simulate who controls the skies.  Is this the last 2S6 in Eastern Ukraine, making it's final stand defending the Russian Army as it retreats in front of the HATO swarm, or is it part of a functional air defense network inclusive of friendly fighters?  It better captures the interdependence of each part of air defense if SHORAD is simply the last stop before a strike hits home vs the be all end all you just wasted points on CAS, you idiot system.  

[HerrTom]

3 hours ago, Sublime said:

Idk man. I dont think theres an AAA platform short of several gatling guns mounted ON what would be the target literally creating a curtain of lead to stop a missile. I mean even the fastest turrets i dont think could track a missile going mach 2 for the split second its overhead or about to slam into sonethig. I just dont see it. Maybe if the tunguska was magically pointed at where the missile was coming from ajd it was over the course of a conflict of ww3 proportions perhaps thered be one case.

Until someone can show me proof that mobile SPAA platforms such as the tunguska can even track with its guns let alone lead and hit a maverick or hellfire i find the idea laughable.

If Wikipedia is correct and the Maverick travels at around 320 m/s (1150 km/h), then it may not be so crazy after all.  I capped the turn rate on the plot at 50 degrees per second (since it turns to infinity the closer you get), but a dedicated SPAA platform may be able to exceed that rate.  It looks to me engaging past 450 meters in any direction may see success in interception, provided that the Tunguska can acquire and track the missile soon enough.

 

More on topic, I agree with Panzersauerkrautwerfer's suggestion on air threat levels.  It brings a bit of abstraction out, and allows us to have scenarios where air assets are in more danger without having an overblown MANPAADs problem.

[VladimirTarasov]

50 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Again, I'd like a system that lets us somewhat abstractly simulate who controls the skies.  Is this the last 2S6 in Eastern Ukraine, making it's final stand defending the Russian Army as it retreats in front of the HATO swarm, or is it part of a functional air defense network inclusive of friendly fighters?  It better captures the interdependence of each part of air defense if SHORAD is simply the last stop before a strike hits home vs the be all end all you just wasted points on CAS, you idiot system.

I agree then, it would definitely add more options but I'm wondering if that could be done somehow? 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

3 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

I agree then, it would definitely add more options but I'm wondering if that could be done somehow? 

Same deal as the EW settings, given that they're both strategic level impacts on your battlespace.  I've put this forward before, but you'd basically have four conditions (loosely based on how the US defines airspace conditions).  

Off: As is, unless there's an anti-aircraft system on the map, aircraft are totally safe

Air Parity: The airspace is dangerous to everyone's airplanes.  Both players face a small to moderate chance of losing air assets committed (either through an off map shoot down, or the air asset has had to go evasive to the degree it is not returning).  This well simulates an environment in which both sides have functional air defense networks, and access to fighter cover.

Air Superiority: The player with air superiority has a much reduced chance of losing his air assets, while the player without has a much higher chance of losing that asset.  This simulates an environment in which one side has started to suffer enough losses to air defense or fighter assets to grant the other side a distinct advantage.

Air Dominance: One player's air assets are virtually safe (still a very small chance of loss), while the other would be silly to commit air assets.  Think of this like if the NATO air campaign goes stunningly well, and Russian air defense is effectively out of commission outside of isolated pockets.  

[VladimirTarasov]

8 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Same deal as the EW settings, given that they're both strategic level impacts on your battlespace.  I've put this forward before, but you'd basically have four conditions (loosely based on how the US defines airspace conditions).  

Off: As is, unless there's an anti-aircraft system on the map, aircraft are totally safe

Air Parity: The airspace is dangerous to everyone's airplanes.  Both players face a small to moderate chance of losing air assets committed (either through an off map shoot down, or the air asset has had to go evasive to the degree it is not returning).  This well simulates an environment in which both sides have functional air defense networks, and access to fighter cover.

Air Superiority: The player with air superiority has a much reduced chance of losing his air assets, while the player without has a much higher chance of losing that asset.  This simulates an environment in which one side has started to suffer enough losses to air defense or fighter assets to grant the other side a distinct advantage.

Air Dominance: One player's air assets are virtually safe (still a very small chance of loss), while the other would be silly to commit air assets.  Think of this like if the NATO air campaign goes stunningly well, and Russian air defense is effectively out of commission outside of isolated pockets.  

Sounds good actually.

[Sublime]

Id really like that and especially for it to be able to go either way; or for all.

Like ew be changed with the air option added except now each layer or penalty of light medium heavy for ew and the air options have a -red or -blue option and then finally just have the optiom meaning its universal.

Also completely off topic but a way to give or take points from attacker and defender seperately would rock - instead of what we have now just for the attacker.

HerrTom Im terrible at math and Ill take your word for it. But still your envisioning a scenario where the tunguska would have to know that this insanely fast blip - if its even a blip on ita radar or image on its thermals from firing to impact, -is a missile that needs to be hit versus probably a lot of blips- and the fact that tunguskas would effectively have to know where the missile was going to or from or really if you think about any enviroment from where a tunguska would be firing besides some silly tunguska sitting alone atop a 3k foot tower waiting to spray bullets at missiles- any tunguska would have such an incredibly short window to shoot at said missiles that whilst I dont doubt that out of thousands of tunguskas zsu23s and zu23s firing rounds at a f.bomber or helicopter probably in hundreds and hundreds of occassions have a chance to hit a missile or even because those rounds are flying at the target flying at the tunguska in this case and happen to strike the missile on the way... and maybe on lie 1% of those occassions the crew will have nothing else to shoot at but a missile and be quick enough to slew to a MISSILE and start pumping cannon shells downrange a very small target and hope you either hit it or a small fragment does.

But I really dont think that this capability is mature or has ever probably been used in combat anywhere ever.

I know someone will imply its just bc im not well informed but really if this capability was common or a regular feature of any SPAA anywhere Im pretty sure Id have heard of it. I havent. From what I know trillions of dollars and decades after the desire to shoot down icbms existed we the US can maybe shoot down one or two at a whack. Sort of maybe. Hopefully. Yeah. Hm.

 

Also id like to add that any SPAA crew thatd have the testicular fortitude to sit in their vehicle to shoot at mavericks or even worse harms and hellfires would deserve medals. Not saying such Russian crews dont exist, but I think that even a lot of American crews -if they saw missiles flying around that are all fired from platforms that carry up to 8 or 16 of these missiles and the missiles are explicitly made to destroy military tanks and vehicles- would get a strong urge to run outside and lay down about 30 yards from their vehicle, instead of risking a flaming death within 1 or 2 seconds of someone pressing a button looking at a white hot pic of your vehicle. Especially remember too that SPAA is NOT a classic SA2 site setup with a radar van and missiles nearby. The whole package is right there with radar and therefore its crew knows all too well theyve got a giant bullseye on them, most especially from the worlds most powerful air power.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Sublime

[HerrTom]

True, the crew only has 12.5 seconds from the missile entering the 4,000 m engagement range of the cannons to impact. Not a whole lot of time, and a little over 30 seconds from being detectable on its RADAR (I think).  When part of an IADS, it may be less crazy though.  You've got S-300s, OSAs and Buks engaging the launch vehicle, leaving the point defence to the Tunguska vehicles closer to the front line, while flying things that get really close find themselves face-to-face with a Biryusa.

[Abdolmartin]

6 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Same deal as the EW settings, given that they're both strategic level impacts on your battlespace.  I've put this forward before, but you'd basically have four conditions (loosely based on how the US defines airspace conditions).  

Off: As is, unless there's an anti-aircraft system on the map, aircraft are totally safe

Air Parity: The airspace is dangerous to everyone's airplanes.  Both players face a small to moderate chance of losing air assets committed (either through an off map shoot down, or the air asset has had to go evasive to the degree it is not returning).  This well simulates an environment in which both sides have functional air defense networks, and access to fighter cover.

Air Superiority: The player with air superiority has a much reduced chance of losing his air assets, while the player without has a much higher chance of losing that asset.  This simulates an environment in which one side has started to suffer enough losses to air defense or fighter assets to grant the other side a distinct advantage.

Air Dominance: One player's air assets are virtually safe (still a very small chance of loss), while the other would be silly to commit air assets.  Think of this like if the NATO air campaign goes stunningly well, and Russian air defense is effectively out of commission outside of isolated pockets.  

This sounds exactly like stuff that can be added in a patch or something (devs should comment on how easy or difficult it would be to implement).

[Sublime]

@HerrTom  this is true about the integrated network...except its hard.for even US sensors to tell exactly what type of aircraft is flying at a long distance. Yes they can judge on speeds etc. But it takes a lot of integration with otjer forces and technology to be able to disseminate VERY quickly (i.e.) 15 min notice being generous for a strike package that made no effort to hide itself - the news has to be disseminated thru the whole air defense network that ok these planes are coming but we only want tunguskas and AAA to shoot missiles. ( everyone scrstching their heads wondering if theyre allowed to shoot if a helo or plane is right in front of them,  is this all day, is this just this strike package, oh amd can you pls label the strike package in question on my GLONASS because theres about 1k aircraft in the 100 mile area around us right now.

I dont think the US could do it- even if the US had Tunguskas and had trained with them since the 80s. Way too many ppl to tell and wayyy too specific. It entirely basically discounts Clausewitzs' idea of "friction" in war and has waaaaayy too many moving parts for it not to easily break down or fu*k up somewhere.(the IADs telling tunguskas to engage missiles. Not tunguskas. Again i think sure a few missiles would get shredded and Im sure the Russians will claim zu23s are anti missile capable too but Ill call it a chance hit out of millions of rounds expended.) I expect in any wartime scenario people would fire at any and everything they could that was a primary target for their weapon system and if it became apparent a massive SEAD attack was under way I wouldnt be surprised at a lot of sights turning radars off and crews hiding in ditches rather than pin their hopes on 12.5 seconds. After all is that missile coming for us? Certainly they cannot tell between a maverick hellfire or javelin. And 2 of those have top down attack profiles meaning the missile *could* appear heading beyond you. Then youre dead.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Sublime

[Kinophile]

Now that the gulf states etc are going to start arming Syrian rebels it'll be interesting to see just how effective modern MANPADS are against "modern" RUS aircraft. 

Rather, it's how effective are current Russian counter measures. 

Although I believe they've pulled out most of their newest frames?

[Sublime]

Reading a war is boring article earlier about US spec ops being spooked by manpads : https://warisboring.com/u-s-commandos-got-spooked-by-shoulder-fired-missiles-93dba96b2dc1#.88dl958zr

 

 

Pls note the retired USAF guy who notes that in the last 20 years manpads have downed a grand total of 4 Western aircraft. Or perhaps Im recallin wrong and they hit 4 but only downed 2. Also note that none of the 4 were American.

This speaks volumes about how US aircraft are used and how much they expose themselves to manpads.

Of course a near peer conflict would be a whole different ball game but it doesnt mean conclusions cannot be drawn from this info nevertheless.

Id also like to add that for one the impact of stingers in the Soviet war in Afghanistan was very important yet is still exagerrated imo and a lot of the impact was more psychological.

Second Afghanistans mountainous terrain and valleys make it unique in that its one of a few places in the world that manpads were probably fired DOWN at aircraft sometimes and also if you.re on a mountain 10k feet high obviously your reach with a manpad just went higher too. However US air doctrine is different than circa 80s Soviet doctrine for aerial combat and support and of course technology has advanced quite a bit. But i think manpads had a very outsized impact on the war and thus impression on popular conceptions of what manpads can really do. Manpads true value in real life isnt there p/k or use, its the threat of them to keep helos and aircraft at least at a distance.

Unfortunately for users of Soviet or Russian equipment and doctrine Western airpower whether intentionally or own its own moved in the direction of smart weapons that can be used just as well if not ideally at stand off ranges and altitude. The US also worked hard on making bombs that didnt even need something to be lased anymore (jdams) and on top of that instead of reinventing entire bombs and then selling them had the brilliance of making it a pack they could apply to any of the thousands of dumb bombs we already have.

 

The RuAF also is at a disadvantage because most of their A2A missiles are pretty old. Yes they have the Amraamski but in very small numbers. Another disadvantage is they have very few fire and forget weapons. Im not sure about ALL of the RuAFs missiles and bombs. Im pretty sure their HARM equivalent is fire and forget. But they dont have a jdam equivalent. And they dont have PGMs in numbers anywhere near what we do. And their main AT missiles for helos whether AT5 spirals or Vikrs are beam riders. Older hellfires are too but newer hellfires ( and im talking circa 1998 so almost 20 years ago imagine what I have zero clue about ) are fire and forget meaning an apache can fire 16 helllfires at 16 diff vehicles as fast as they can be targetted and launch all the missiles and be flying home before the last one hits and destroys a tank.

Add to that apaches are able to do so and have anothwr helo designate the targets for it so it can sit behind a hill and just spew hellfires from defilade that will then still track and hit targets... well manpads arent really a problem then. In fact then the problems are SAMs to a degree but the biggest threat would be someone trying to actually gain air superiority and frankly any nation tryin to win that fight against America will lose. Maybe not in 40 years but from 1943 until 2026 you cannot convince me otherwise,unless yourw talking about russia using EVERY nuke it has,having the US massively retaliate, and have NOONE flying airplanes because 90% of the world is dead or dying and the other 10 percent are living in a post apocalyptic nightmare.

 

Whenever anyone wants to go on and on about Russias IADS and it is impressive no doubt Id like to remind them that back when SAMs were new and the size of telephone poles and North Vietnam had the heaviest air defenses in the entire world concentrated in a very small area ( and also we didnt know but the spy Walker was sending the flight packages routes targets payloads everythung to the soviets and they gave it to the vietnamese so the vietnamese often knew our targets before our own pilots!!) The USAF invented SEAD in the form of what was called Iron Hand. And there werent anti radiation missiles at first. This took balls. Massive balls. You had to get shot at and someone else had to hit the site. You also wanted to get the radar van. All the while restricted by ridiculous ROEs etc. Still we near perfected it and the US has EXTENSIVE experience in dismantlng IADS. The problem with IADS is theyre like fortifications in a way. Theyre nowhere near as dangerous and as flexible as a fighter arm with good planes and well trained pilots not needing their hand held by a GCI center.

Planes can be moved. Attack follow do all sorts of stuff. Sams sit there. Or move. Slowly by airplane standards.  And IADS is largely in situ and therefore just has to be picked apart rather like a puzzle. Hit key parts (gulf war 1 - apaches on EW sites, then F117s on C2 and trying to kill Saddam, etc etc) and worse the most dangerous threat to the western planes are still enemy planes but theyre so used to having every move dictated by GCI  that it comes out in every dogfight - air forces that train on the Soviet model consistently do worse in aerial engagements versus those trained western style.

The Russians obviously are the best at their own system and even then theyre trying their hardest to get away from that and China too(good article on that in war is boring as well)

So whats that tell you? If the ppl who invented that system think its awful and are demandig their pilots start taking initiative etc then its clear to me whose strategem vis a vis air comvat is right.

Really IADS focussing on sams and AAA should be an objective of countries that even in 30 yrs could never match the USAF in any way shape or form. Then i see it as a wise choice. Russia and China? Sure id develop.sams. but id stop focussing on this gargantuan IADS and start intensively training pilots to fight and take the iniative and blatantly copy USAF tactics and principles. Id also start pumping out su27s, mig29s for home defense, and a crap ton of mig 21 bis to throw at strike packages in groups of 20 or 30. Obviously thsoe would be the poorer pilots still using GCI.

 Of course mig 29s and Su27s are getting old. But they can be upgraded and they exist. Instead of building new planes ground up how about improving the current ones, buying more of thw r77 and amraamskis, more pilot training, etc? How about instead of when you take the Russian air force on its bery firs expeditionary battle to show the world " hey we.re back and tougher than ever but we.re gonna use all dumb bombs because russia stronk and dont need fancy amerkanski pgms" you actually buy enough PGMs they can be used instead of carefully hoarded like gold. I mean really. The first time Russia does something not right on its border and the planes are using like 98 percent dumb bombs. Instead of the PAK FA which i dont think will ever comw into service dont you think thousands of laser guided smart munitions would be better and better yet be NOW? Russia is NEVER going to get the time lost from 91 to 2000 back. Instead of making the soviet mistake of an arms race except now youre further behind than ever, Russia should modernize what it has, get its men exceptionally well trained, and accept they wont be flyig arnd russian f22s and b2s but they can still be insanly dangerous regardless with lots of capable planes, pilots, and smart munitions.

Even if the su27 and mig29 isnt the equal of an f22 its still a serious threat to almost every other aircraft in the world. And russia and china have the capability if they tried to be able.to produce enough planes and train the pilots enough to pull that off and be a real threat to the US air arms. Instead of a static threat that can be analyzed and picked apart.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Sublime

[Codename Duchess]

Full disclosure, I'm not a Top Gun Instructor so I don't have the insane level of knowledge those guys do about all things foreign and domestic, weapons and tactics wise.  I will still offer what I can though.  Good job on not making me have to break out the bingo square yet.

Gameplay wise:
I never bring aircraft because they're too expensive and too vulnerable, unrealistically, to in game AA assets.  I'm a big fan of pzsrkrtwfr's suggested model.

Real Life things:

Afghanistan -
Mujaheddin claim 270 kills, Soviets claim 100 losses.  The truth is somewhere in between (not sure who is more notorious for exaggeration) but whether in actual destruction or merely the change in tactics, the Stinger was a game changer.

Shooting down precision/small munitions with bullets -
Absolutely possible.  You can see the impact around 11 seconds in.  Not as fast as a maverick (which goes fast but not that fast) or a HARM (which goes fast), but comparable to a ballistic bomb.  C-RAM is able to do it, and Pantsir is supposedly able to, and I have no reason to  doubt this capability.  Both are a little large for CMBS, being truck mounted (and outside the scope as they are used to defend bases/HQs/SAMs, rather than frontline units) but they are not multiple story units.  Tunguska doesn't list munitions other than cruise missiles (and presumably large Russian style ARMs) and is more of the front line SHORAD.  So I agree that PGMs shouldn't be interceptable in game, with the units we have.  But it's totally possible.  Both Tunguska and Pantsir are capable of remote targeting from either a central command unit or a "master" Pantsir, so not all units need to be emitting either.  Again, I have no reason to doubt this capability as it's far from outlandish, although I imagine EW makes this more suspect.  But yeah, don't expect to see either system on the front line.

Munitions in general -
Russia has laser and GLONASS capable bombs, they just don't have very many.  Same with the R-77.  They saw incredibly limited deployment in Syria, whereas JDAMs and AIM-120s are like everywhere.  We also have the GBU-54 LJDAM which is laser and GPS capable.  Those are pretty common now too.  There's a fire and forget version of the R-27 (IR) too, but the R-27 has like Sparrow level accuracy rates.  The fact of the matter is the US has a stupid crazy lead in both capability and more importantly numerical advantage of PGMs.  2017 also sees widespread use of the GBU-53/B SDB II, which has radar, IR, GPS/IRU, and laser guidance, and a standoff range of 45 miles against moving targets.  Mavericks, Hellfire, Brimstone, and GBU-12 also serve as effective standoff weapons that leave the launch aircraft out of range from any in game SHORAD and are capable of hitting and hard killing a moving target.  Laser guided munitions are all capable of buddy lasing from the ground or other aircraft, including drones, so the launch aircraft can be even safer.  Dealing with something like Pantsir?  Shoot more than one.  We can see what we are shooting at and know how to adjust.  I'll leave it at that.

Defense against SHORAD -
Hit on heavily with stand off above.  There's simply no reason for me to be that close to the ground where a Tunguska or MANPADS (despite whatever fancy targeting system the Russians claim to have to bring it into the IADS) can touch me.  If I AM that close, I have onboard EW and other defensive options, never mind my speed.  But we don't really train for that kind of low CAS because...

There's no reason for it.  I've said it before, but CAS from a fast mover will be insanely rare/non-existent in the first days (entirely possible to stretch ~2 weeks depending on how big of a conflict we are talking).  The days of flying my Hornet between tree tops, while ****ing awesome, are no more due to advances in munitions and sensors on both sides.  If I can bomb a tank from 45 miles away with a "cheap (~$100k)" bomb, why do I need to risk my $75 million aircraft (oh and myself) by trying to knock the hat off of a Russian conscript with my jetwash?  Even a "cheaper (~$20k)" GBU-12 lets me hit you comfortably from 40,000 feet and 10+ miles away with one hand.  But I can't do that with a non deconstructed Russian IADS available, so I'm not going to risk it and my commanders aren't going to order it to knock out a $3-5 million tank.  Sorry ground guys.  This is where attack helicopters come in because they're MUCH less vulnerable to an IADS.  The finest Russian SAM in the world can't guide a missile into something that can literally land wherever it wants to go defensive.  Plus Apache can shoot from behind a hilltop, so it's not even super vulnerable to SHORAD.  Russian helicopters are a little more vulnerable in this regard, but you would still expect to see attack helicopters performing 95%+ of any CAS until Air Superiority is achieved.

What about if there's some pressing attack that needs to get destroyed right now at whatever cost?  Well the US has munitions like JSOW and what not that could allow 4 Super Hornets to turn a tank division into scrap from 150 miles out, Smerch style.  And that's how we'd do it. 

Conclusion
So yeah, the CAS in this game is all sorts of messed up and definitely the least realistic part of the game.

[HerrTom]

Perhaps with panzersauerkrautwerfer's suggestion there could be more modifiers on how you call in an airstrike beyond light/medium/heavy that affect how vulnerable it is in a menu similar to how artillery is called:

Low level: Decreased vulnerability to the air superiority/IADS situation, increased vulnerability to on-map AA assets.  Lower accuracy of delivered weapons, especially PGMs
Medium level: Represents aircraft in their normal pattern
High level: Can't be hit with on-map AA assets, very vulnerable to air superiority/IADS, higher accuracy to PGMS, much lower accuracy for dumb munitions

Thanks Duchess for the enlightening information!

[VladimirTarasov]

3 hours ago, Codename Duchess said:

Real Life things

I agree with just about everything 

3 hours ago, Codename Duchess said:

Mujaheddin claim 270 kills, Soviets claim 100 losses. 

Mujos can't be trusted more than Soviet numbers, those guys throw a bunch of numbers out. The Soviet claim might be less but shouldn't be too far off give or take dozens more on it.

3 hours ago, Codename Duchess said:

and Pantsir is supposedly able to

The Pantsir's requirement is to engage PGMs, they make up part of the layer of defense of an HQ, Base, or air defense location. Other layers being ECM equipment, decoys, ect.

3 hours ago, Codename Duchess said:

Russia has laser and GLONASS capable bombs, they just don't have very many.

Definitely not as much as the US air fleet. We opt for cheaper solutions like the SVP-24 on aircraft that's used in Syria to guide dumb bombs with accuracy. But of course our PGM capabilities still exist.

 

 

[Codename Duchess]

4 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

I agree with just about everything 

Mujos can't be trusted more than Soviet numbers, those guys throw a bunch of numbers out. The Soviet claim might be less but shouldn't be too far off give or take dozens more on it.

The Pantsir's requirement is to engage PGMs, they make up part of the layer of defense of an HQ, Base, or air defense location. Other layers being ECM equipment, decoys, ect.

Definitely not as much as the US air fleet. We opt for cheaper solutions like the SVP-24 on aircraft that's used in Syria to guide dumb bombs with accuracy. But of course our PGM capabilities still exist.

 

 

Err, you pretty much agreed with everything I said. Muj and Soviets are both liars (and at the bare minimum 100 losses isn't something to ignore). And Pantsir does what I said and is deployed like I said.

As for SVP-24, I'm pretty sure we've discussed it before. It's an on board, user friendly ballistic computer, which is neat and accurate compared to like a Nordon bomb sight, but we've fielded similar tech since like the late 80s. That would be CCIP (continuously calculated impact point) and CCRP (continuously calculated release point) bomb modes for those familiar with flight sims.

Being intimately familiar with US systems, they're pretty neat for dumb bombs but you cannot possibly achieve the level of accuracy of a dedicated guided bomb. The US computers account for all of the same factors that the Russian one claims to, but for some reason the Russians claim like a sub 5m CEP. That's literally the public CEP for a laser guided bomb. No way in hell a dumb bomb from 20,000 feet has that accuracy and consistency. There is simply too much going on in the world of physics and weather. 50m at that altitude is a lot more reasonable, if a bit conservative. Good for hitting city blocks, not for individual houses. Sorry Vlad.

I'll look around for some cockpit footage.

Edit: found some

I don't speak Turkish, but you get to see what 3 CCIP runs look like on practice targets. When the reticule flashes means a weapon away. CCIP pretty much requires a dive so you can see the impact point, but can be very accurate (~25m depending on parameters). The downside being evident in that video, you have to dive at your target bringing you well within SHORAD range.

CCRP is less visually impressive, so I only found simulator tutorials which are pretty accurate. Basically you're given cues to a launch basket to fly into, from which the computer decides the best time to drop the bomb. You can choose just how tight of a parameter you want but that will increase your workload and still doesn't promise high precision. This is a common way to launch guided bombs though because those give you a very large launch basket.

Edited September 29, 2016 by Codename Duchess

[Sublime]

Well there you have it. Any opinions I expressed that differ Ill defer (lol) to Duchess on for obvious reasons

[VladimirTarasov]

14 hours ago, Codename Duchess said:

Muj and Soviets are both liars

Ehem....

14 hours ago, Codename Duchess said:

As for SVP-24, I'm pretty sure we've discussed it before. It's an on board, user friendly ballistic computer, which is neat and accurate compared to like a Nordon bomb sight, but we've fielded similar tech since like the late 80s. That would be CCIP (continuously calculated impact point) and CCRP (continuously calculated release point) bomb modes for those familiar with flight sims.

Yes I know about CCIP I'm just saying we have a system like that as well. 

14 hours ago, Codename Duchess said:

but for some reason the Russians claim like a sub 5m CEP

It's debatable but I don't want to argue about this on here, but the CEP on the SVP-24 is definitely not 50 meters in ideal conditions. I'll be generous and say 10-20 CEP depending on altitude and based on footage from Syria. 

14 hours ago, Codename Duchess said:

CCRP is less visually impressive, so I only found simulator tutorials which are pretty accurate. Basically you're given cues to a launch basket to fly into, from which the computer decides the best time to drop the bomb. You can choose just how tight of a parameter you want but that will increase your workload and still doesn't promise high precision. This is a common way to launch guided bombs though because those give you a very large launch basket.

Sounds hard to do, definitely the claimed 5 CEP of the SVP-24 was under trials with ideal conditions. In actual war time it may differ, anyways obviously SVP-24 is not comparable to smart munitions but they are still useful. My point was that Russia may not have PGMs in service like you guys do but atleast we have  guidance systems on our CAS fleet. I'm sure if we had the budget you guys had we'd also invest heavily in PGMs but that's not a reality.