Jump to content

nsKb

Members
  • Posts

    43
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by nsKb

  1. Has anyone confirmed that Arena is actually useful against TOW-2B? I'm pretty skeptical.
  2. Your post touches on some important things. As nice as CMBS is for ground combat the current way CAS is done is very unrealistic, there was a big discussion on this a while ago. Apaches in CMBS tend to operate as if it were a COIN environment, they circle and shoot. As far as I can tell what they should be doing is flying on the friendly side of the FLOT while terrain masking and firing Hellfires from behind terrain or using popup attacks, this makes much more sense to me. The mast mounted Ka band radar would be used to find targets (moving targets would be very obvious using such a system). The AGM-114L is fire and forget since it has a MMW radar and can be fired in either LOBL or LOAL modes which means that it can either be fired behind terrain using the mast mounted radar or in a popup attack using the IR sight. Since the AGM-114L has an 8 km range it would outrange MANPADS. The Tunguska has almost no capability to search for air targets while it's radar is off. The mast mounted radars on Apaches are equipped with radar frequency interferometers which would mean that in almost all cases the Apache would detect and locate the Tunguska before the Tunguska located the Apache. Apaches equipped with the Ground Fire Acquisition system would detect missiles launches and ground fire and alert the crew to which direction the fire came from allowing them to bring their sensors onto the area. Apaches also have DIRCM and flares which spoof and seduce MANPADS. Pretty much the same stuff applies to fixed wing aircraft, except they can fly at an altitude that makes them immune to short range air defenses and in pretty much every case the fixed wing would attack from a stand off distance outside the range of MANPANDS and SHORADS. I know that the story handwaves this away by saying a strong S-300 presence prevents high altitude flight but that isn't really realistic either since you wouldn't have much CAS available when SEAD still has to be done and after a few weeks most of the S-300 batteries would be destroyed.
  3. IR laser can be used to blind the seekers of IR missiles, the intensity at the seeker doesn't even have to be particualrly high. When you combine a DIRCM laser with the F-35's RCS reductions you get an aircraft that is very difficult to target. Fighter mounted lasers that can actually destroy things at a useful range are still a while off.
  4. There might be a bug with this but I haven't tested enough to confirm. For example on a hull down T-90AM one of my M1s kept shooting right over the top or hitting the remote weapons system (I'm talking like 12+ shots here). What I'm thinking was happening is that the top bound of the tank was assumed to be the top of the T-90S remote weapon system while the bottom was assumed to be the turret ring (hull down so thats the lowest part that could be seen). The M1 was aiming vertically in between these to points which means air ball.
  5. Weird, I got the impression it was reasonably liked as an aircraft, maybe not as a program.
  6. I won't give a physics lecture but "all-weather" does not mean immune to the effects of atmospheric conditions.
  7. Maybe I'm wrong but the US soldiers in CMBS seem more likely to cower and less likely to return fire than they did CMSF. I don't know which behavior is more realistic.
  8. Since modern radars makes good use of Doppler shift to reject clutter what makes you think the A-10 has a good chance of staying undetected. I could be wrong but the proliferation of high off bore sights/missiles has made maneuverability less important.
  9. For an EMP weapon to successfully destroy military electronics it must have a fast rise time, create a large E field at a significant range, and be the correct frequency to couple through the front or back end of a device. Not even nuclear EMP satisfies all these conditions well. This explains why EMP weapons are not in widespread use and I don't see them as an emerging threat either (at least to US military electronics).
  10. You can instruct your units to position them themselves in areas that have good sight lines or you can instruct them to use more cover/concealment. Of course this level of micromanagement isn't entirely realistic but we have to realize that there are limits to the AI and the player must be able to control some things.
  11. I think SOPs would go a long way in solving this problem (and others).
  12. Must....... Not...... Post...... On...... Topic...... aarrrggghhhhhhh. Pantsir and Tunguska cost 15 million USD+ and are only available in limited numbers, if wikipedia is to be believed Russian less than 300 Pantsirs and Tunguskas total. The systems have very small radars which means the engagement distance vs PGMs and HARM is small (~10 km or so, maybe even less against weapons like JSOW and JASSM), they can only engage something like 2 targets simultaneously. These two facts mean they can be saturated pretty easily. Lets be real, Carlo lost his mind sometime in 2002. His work was pretty good before that (go read his original AIM-120 article), now he descends into incoherent rants where Su-35s somehow detect F-35s at 100 km and shoot them with R-77s. But since this is Carlo they are probably fantasy ramjet R-77s that have finally made the small and insignificant leap from being a scribble on a napkin to being a fully operational weapon. Seriously did anyone see those simulations they had up on youtube, it's too bad they took them down because that was some funny stuff, the Su-35s had like a 10:1 exchange rate against F-35s. Pretty sure they even presented that stuff to the Australian government. Riddle me this, how many sorties did the F-117 fly before one was shot down? Every time the F-117 shootdown is brought up I think of the internet stories I have read about the brilliant Serbian captain who modified his X-band SA-3 FCR to work in the L-band or something. It inspired my to modify my CBR 600 to be a submarine. Really hard seems like a bit of an exaggeration, at least when it comes to fighters and AEW&C vs NOE aircraft. The numbers seem to be on the side of popular opinion. panzersaurkrautwerfer already posted the numbers but lets recap, USAF has 32 E-3s and the USN has 52 E-2Cs plus some number of E-2Ds. This is without counting the AEW&C aircraft of other nations. How long do you expect those jammers to survive, Russian airspace will be significantly more porous in 2017 than in 1987 due to US's use of stealth technology which means those expensive jammers are going to be shot down or blown up. No doubt an E-3 can be jammed, but anything can be jammed, the tactical usefulness of this depends on the details. Speaking of Russian AEW&C, how will the Russians protect their AEW&C from super cruising F-22s? By the time they realize what is happening the AIM-120s would have hit and F-22s will be hauling ass in the opposite direction. What are the MCRs for the Russian birds under high sortie conditions? I would be very surprised if they were higher than NATO's. Don't turn this into an F-35 thread, we don't need any backseat engineers coming on here to show us how much smarter they are than the boys at Lockmart. It's pretty clear that NATO has massive advantage in training, equipment, and numbers. How many modern aircraft are in the VVS? Original MiG-29s and Su-27s with their 1970s at best electronics don't count as modern. That Kopp article is a nice mix of extremely basic statistics, super sketchy assumptions, and fanboy fantasy numbers. If the statistics on the R-27's combat performance in the Ethiopian Eritrean war are true than its a pretty crap missile. From what I understand India is unhappy with the R-77. Is the R-77 deployed in any sort of significant numbers by the VVS? Back off topic Did anyone here play on the United Operations ARMA2 ACE server, had some good times there. It is too bad they switched to ARMA3 since there is no ACE mod for that. Red vs Red scenarios were so much fun.
  13. Correct, had a brainfart and totally forgot the GPS coordinates were not know ahead of time (like a strike against a fixed target).
  14. One has to wonder why excals can't be used in ECM environments in CMBS then?
  15. I think this is something Battlefront needs to address. ADA vs Helicopter needs a defiant "re balancing" in order to be realistic, AH-64s specifically are way way too vulnerable. Adding the option to make fast jets immune to ADA during scenario creation is also sorely needed.
  16. I have real knowledge of how tech stuff is made and I'm telling that the US is better than good in this department, I would say the level of self sufficiency in the US is higher than in any other nation. Quantity over quality does not make any sense for the US military, wages are much too high. The US has far and away the largest R&D budget in the world and the greatest ability to produce new tech. The US should (and does) focus on have the best training and cutting edge equipment to maximize it's advantages. Probably would't be able to slip by, some of those sensors are good at detecting low flying targets and there are a lot of them.
  17. I agree that Russian infantry should probably have more optics on their weapons. How common are suppressors in the Russian armed forces?
  18. I get about 20 FPS on the low end but the game is not even close to fully utilizing my CPU or GPU, guessing that it's a multiprocessing thing? SweetFX on and off only changes my FPS by 1 even with HDR and Bloom.
  19. I'm not saying it would use a AARGM on it but something like an AGM-65. These SHORADS are very dangerous to rotary wing and would be high on the hit list. Once your ESM detects a search radar (nessiary to find targets quickly, IR search is much too slow and often too short ranged) you can use your radar or IR pod (or both) to scan the area. SHORADS would be high on the hit list due to the danger the pose rotary wing. The S-300/400 are limited in number, each time one goes active it would be detected by various ESM assets, geolocated (with any combination of ESM, radar, and IR/Vis), then attacked. The US has a number of options to attack these from stand off ranges. F-22's or F-35's with SDB II will make short work of any SA-10/20/21 site, even ones with terminal defense can be saturated by the small and cheap SDB II. Pretty much any missile that is TVM or SARH is going to be useless attacking aircraft at standoff ranges anyways since they will just dive below the radar horizon. The "High/Low" idea is perfect. Don't get me started on their hilarious missile modeling, and who does't love a good argument about air combat. Pretty much Russia's only advantage here, even then a tenuous one. The FLOT is something like 160 km from the closest Russian soil, this is longer than the effective range of any of their missiles except the 40N6 which I'm not convinced even exists (no photos or video). Even if the 40N6 exists there are a number of problems with a 400 km ranged SAM, it might not be particularly effective against fighter aircraft, it is blood huge (probably a bit smaller than Iskander) and expensive, it would fly a ballistic trajectory for much if it's flight and look like an SRBM. If any SAM site in Russia proper gets particularly annoying I'm sure an exception could be made and the USAF could send some ordinance "on vacation".
  20. Max projectile assembly length for modified autoloader is somewhere in the 750mm region (The tank is something like 2.2m at its widest point between the roadwheels and you need room for autoloader parts), the projectile itself is generally a bit smaller at 720mm, due to the aerodynamic cap and tracer the penetrating rod itself is even smaller likely no longer than 640mm if other rounds are anything to go by. There are no pictures of Svinets-2 but the autoloader limitation is very much a problem for Russian ammo designers. Compare to the M829A3 projectile which is around 930mm with a penetrating rod of around 800-830mm. Given the autoloader limitations the chance of Svinets-2 perforating 900+mm of RHAe is very small if you ask me.
  21. NATO would be able to defeat the VVS but at the cost of having less strike missions while the air battle is raging. Pretty much every single advantage is with the NATO forces, superior training, superior weapons, superior aircraft, larger numbers. Russian pilots fly much less than NATO pilots and don't conduct realistic air combat training exercises on the scale NATO does. Russian SAMs and fighters would require NATO to dedicate large amount of aircraft to counter them and would mean less aircraft available for other missions, eventually NATO would secure the skies though. This doesn't mean that NATO pilots would collectively lose their minds and start making sub 10k feet attacks against areas where Tunguskas are know to be operating/emitting. A Tunguska would probably be the first thing that gets hit by a Paveway, Maverick, or SDB II. The PAK-FA will likely never be deployed in large numbers, last I checked the Russians were shooting for 60 aircraft by 2021. Not that it matters really, in it's current iteration the PAK-FA is still a 4.5th gen aircraft and no match for the F-22 or F-35. Anyone who thinks Russia has a chance of coming close to the US or NATO technologically needs to go look at their respective military and civilian R&D expenditures. CMBS is by and large a great game and lots of fun but the vulnerability of some air assets is unrealistic and seems a bit like"balancing" to me. The effectiveness of AAA is hard coded so its all or nothing, so it is either shoot down everything or no AAA at all. Limits scenario design. I know that air power is significantly abstracted but right now the survivability of NATO fixed and rotary wing assets is pretty nerfed.
  22. What sort of ammo are the Russian tanks supposed to be using in Black Sea? I'm not sure an M1A2 could perforate it's own front turret (excluding weak points) with an M829A3 which is be superior to anything the Russians could field (due to ammo size limitations). The front left and right turret slabs in addition to the front left and right lower and upper hull (on both sides of the driver's compartment between the tracks) would likely be impervious to any Russian APFSDS save for a lucky shot or an odd angle. Range should play a minor role in perforation calcs, the M829A3 would still be doing 1500m/s at 1000 m (1555 m/s at 0m), probably more. These have spectacular BC and lose velocity very slowly.
  23. I don't like the game balance excuses, it has no place in a game like CMSF. Currently the way Apaches operate in CMBS is extremely ineffective if SHORADS are present and the Tunguska is too good at shooting them down. From what I understand the best way for Apaches to operate in this type of environment is to hang around the FLOT (to avoid SHORADS ambush) and do popup attacks using their mast mounted radars and the AGM-114L or a buddy lase from a OH-58 with a MMS. Currently the Apaches do none of this and operate like it is COIN. I'm sure someone here knows more about how to use Apaches in high intesnity warfare and can correct me if I'm wrong. The way fast jets operate makes even less sense. How exactly does the GSR discriminate between targets and non-targets, it's easy if the target has a high radial velocity or the GSR is on an airborne platform. How does the radar solve the clutter problem especially for stationary targets, I imagine that image recognition techniques are quite difficult if targets are stationary, in a complex environment, and the radar is not airborne. For example an IR imager has a much easier time staying "locked" onto a target designated by a human operator than automatically finding targets. A AGM-114L might have LOAL capability but that does not mean it can execute a wide area search. M1A2 SEP should have a much greater then 1200 mm CE protection on much of it's front turret if various sources are to be believed. Gave you a -rep by accident but I +rep one of your other posts to balance it out. Sorry man.
  24. This is odd because the IR footage in the 9P157-2 marketing videos is of very low quality, you can tell the IR sensor is simple no where near western standards and has a lot of bloom, very "washed out", poor contrast, low resolution, a part of this may be attributed to the conditions during the test. I also see no evidence the radar has any sort of search functionality, it seems only capable of track and missile guidance. Even if the 9P157-2 is using an upgraded IR sensor in CMBS it would probably still be worse than whatever the Western standard is in 2017.
  25. I don't think the US is complying with these international accords, they don't make much sense anyways. The UXO requirements are becoming more strict and the old bomblets don't meet those requirements, the game takes place in 2017 and the new requirement is set to take effect in 2018 so there is also that. DPICM would be highly effective in CMBS and it's a pity that it is not included, maybe M898 as well.
×
×
  • Create New...