SELECTIVE targets for HARMs used by SEAD units (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series



Message

DWReese -> SELECTIVE targets for HARMs used by SEAD units (12/30/2019 12:31:24 AM)

I don't know if this is real or not, so if it doesn't really happen, then please let me know:

In the game, SEAD a/c are given the task of looking for SAMs, we all know that. The game doesn't give you any SPECIFIC radar options to look for. It just allows to to designate how many HARMs that you would like to fire and that's it. There is no specific designation of WHICH ONES you are going to be shooting at.

So, the question, do real life SEAD jockeys know WHAT TYPE of SAMs they are shooting at? If so, are they ever told to shoot at this one (like a SA-10) and not at that one (like a SA-2)? It would seem as though they should be able to do that. If so, could the WRA be expanded to designate WHICH TYPE of SAM the HARMs should shoot out, and which ones they should leave alone?

In a scenario where HARMs re limited, and only a handful of legitimate threat SAMs exist, it would be quite easy for the SEAD a/c to fire off all of its HARMs at an old SAM (like a SA-2), then run out of HARMs, while a real threat (such as a SA-10) is still operating.

So, can they designate which types they can shoot at in real life, and can that be modeled in the game if it is possible?




Technopiper -> RE: SELECTIVE targets for HARMs used by SEAD units (12/30/2019 1:24:20 AM)

I'll leave someone more qualified to answer your questions. For me, the greatest strength of Command is the integration of all modern weapon systems. No other game does that. But if we were to scrutinize each elements of Command, none of them are super realistic, not even close. Aircraft in real life don't fly like they do in Command. Real tanks don't have health bars. I still think it is a fair compromise between simulation and realism. We keep forgetting that "simulation" is not "realism". In fact they are exact opposites.



DWReese -> RE: SELECTIVE targets for HARMs used by SEAD units (12/30/2019 4:15:37 AM)

You make excellent points, and I do agree (generally) with your response.

That being said, we are playing a game/simulation here, and in game/simulation terms, your response doesn't answer on the question: Can SEAD a/c target ANY radars that pop up, or are they stuck with what was pre-programmed before launch. If they can pick anything available during flight, then they should be able to select which SAM represents the most danger, and ignore others where multiple ones are present.

As you suggest, I'm not saying that WE are fighting anything that comes close to a real war while sitting in front of our monitors. But, the game is based on a certain amount of facts, which are based on a certain amount of speculation, as to what a hypothetical outcome might be. It shouldn't be that difficult to find the real life answer as to how SEAD a/c operate, and if they can target an array of different radars, or if they are restricted to just what they are looking for. If they can, then IN GAME/SIMULATION TERMS, it would seem that an extra line could be added to WRA which is a little more defined than merely "radar."

Finally, and this kind of refutes your point even further, Matrix sells this game (albeit more detailed) to defense contractors and military people all over the world. Certainly, this issue has been brought up by them, or someone in the know. If it hasn't, then the game company doesn't really have many real defense customers (I think that they do), or this issue is addressed in their version not ours. Certainly, though, they would have posed this same question before.

CMANO/CMO may be a game, but to the military folks that I just mentioned, it's not a game, it's a simulation. Therefore, I believe that my original questions about SEAD capabilities validates the post.




AKar -> RE: SELECTIVE targets for HARMs used by SEAD units (12/30/2019 6:22:40 AM)

In reality, HARM does allow for targeting specific emitters. Identified emitters are classified accordingly, and can be targeted individually.



DWReese -> RE: SELECTIVE targets for HARMs used by SEAD units (12/30/2019 9:22:25 AM)

If that is the case, then when creating a SEAD mission, you should be able to direct your HARMs to target the SA-10 battery and disregard the SA-2, since the SA-2 battery probably wouldn't hit anything anyway. That's good to know.

So, I believe that it would be nice to expand that drop down menu to include specific SAM radar units, instead of the generic "RADAR" heading that exists now. It could help SEAD missions be more productive.



Rory Noonan -> RE: SELECTIVE targets for HARMs used by SEAD units (12/30/2019 9:54:06 AM)

This can be done with strike missions.

HARMs are just one variety of ARM, but they are the example we're using so I'll base my answer on them. HARMs have three broad modes of employment: Pre programmed, self defense and target of opportunity. Pre-programmed means that the higher ups have designated a specific target for each aircraft based on available intel and the weapons are programmed for use accordingly. Self defense is basically a snapshot against an RWR contact, primarily in the hope of breaking radar lock--not necessarily by destroying the emitter. Target of opportunity is similar to pre-programmed but the missile is programmed by the pilot while the aircraft is airborne, using information avaIlable to them at the time (be it through their own sensors or via link).

Thesse behaviours are represented in Command by strike missions, escorts on strike missions, and SEAD patrols respectively. The tools to represent real life employment of these weapons are present and well documented, however it is easy to see how this can be overlooked given the complexity of the sim overall. With that point in mind, I don't think the solution is to add additional layers of complexity with additional doctrine and WRA settings.



Gunner98 -> RE: SELECTIVE targets for HARMs used by SEAD units (12/30/2019 10:14:19 AM)

Can be done manually as well.

Set the doctrine up so that the HARM shooters don't pickle their missiles at the first radar they see, then use the Shift+F1 selective attack, drag select your targets and chose which ones get the missiles.

Using a general SEAD patrol or strike mission removes the micro aspect but simplifies the players job.

B



DWReese -> RE: SELECTIVE targets for HARMs used by SEAD units (12/30/2019 10:36:47 AM)

Apache,

So, how would you handle this situation?

The SEAD unit is assigned as an ESCORT to strikers. The scenario (just as a point of reference) is variation of Operation Opera with lots of SA-2, SA-3, and SA-6 SAMs. In my opinion, the SA-2 and SA-3 have little chance to score any hits, but the SA-6 is a real threat. So, I would like my SEAD ESCORTS to only use their HARMs (BTW....I know that there no HARMs in the actual scenario, I am just using it as an example of a situation where there are lots of SAMs) against the SA-6s ONLY, withholding fire against the SA-2 and SA-3 SAMs.

What seems to happen to me is the SEAD a/c start firing at the first SAMs that they see, and have essentially depleted their HARMs before they ever even see the SA-6s. Is there a way to program this without being able to add another element to the WRA?




DWReese -> RE: SELECTIVE targets for HARMs used by SEAD units (12/30/2019 10:39:38 AM)

Gunner,

Thanks for your response.

I am aware that I am able to perform these attacks manually, but I was hoping to use the the Mission Editor to perform these functions so that the opposition can perform these tasks in the actual scenario.

Thanks again.



Rory Noonan -> RE: SELECTIVE targets for HARMs used by SEAD units (12/30/2019 10:42:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DWReese

Apache,

So, how would you handle this situation?

The SEAD unit is assigned as an ESCORT to strikers. The scenario (just as a point of reference) is variation of Operation Opera with lots of SA-2, SA-3, and SA-6 SAMs. In my opinion, the SA-2 and SA-3 have little chance to score any hits, but the SA-6 is a real threat. So, I would like my SEAD ESCORTS to only use their HARMs (BTW....I know that there no HARMs in the actual scenario, I am just using it as an example of a situation where there are lots of SAMs) against the SA-6s ONLY, withholding fire against the SA-2 and SA-3 SAMs.

What seems to happen to me is the SEAD a/c start firing at the first SAMs that they see, and have essentially depleted their HARMs before they ever even see the SA-6s. Is there a way to program this without being able to add another element to the WRA?




Being that you are the commander and you assess the SA-2s and SA-3s as low risk, and want your limited munitions used against the SA-6, a strike mission is the way to go. I'd set up a strike mission that launched just ahead of the aircraft they're 'escorting' (quotes since in game terms they aren't escorts).



DWReese -> RE: SELECTIVE targets for HARMs used by SEAD units (12/30/2019 10:53:47 AM)

Obviously, I forgot to mention that the SA-6s were MOBILE UNITS, and their location isn't known until they light up their radars. So, as my strikers target the reactors, a STRIKE mission against the SA-6 MOBILE unit isn't necessarily something that could be pre-planned ahead of time. Any suggestions?



Rory Noonan -> RE: SELECTIVE targets for HARMs used by SEAD units (12/30/2019 11:04:49 AM)

Pop up threats shooting at you are a threat no matter what generation they are. Given that they already have you locked, or evan a missle in flight, it's not the time to be cavalier about not taking action to dodge or counter that threat.

It's a common video game fallacy that old weapons aren't dangerous, in much the same way that low calibre weapons don't have 'stopping power'. An SA-2 is less of a threat than a SA-10 or whatever else, in much the same way as a .22 pistol is less of a threat than a .223 rifle. In realistic terms getting hit with either is a potentially life ending event and if someone is shooting at you with a .22 or an SA-2, you would be well advised to take it just as seriously as the SA-10 or .223.

In game terms this is covered by the escort behaviour. If something is shooting at you or threatening to, eliminate the threat.



honanhal -> RE: SELECTIVE targets for HARMs used by SEAD units (12/30/2019 12:31:35 PM)

I'm probably doing something wrong, but I've had no success with strike missions targeting specific SAM sites -- this is running the Russian Civil War phase I scenario based on the Janes' F/A-18 Kola campaign. The mission flights take off, form up, then declare "mission over" and get into the carrier landing pattern, even though I've checked that the pre-assigned targets are still marked on the map as current. If I assign the same planes, with the same loadout, to a SEAD patrol they have no problem dropping their bombs on those same SAMs, so it doesn't seem like it's an inappropriate loadout issue...

Using SEAD patrol instead does make going after the IADS much more arbitrary and less systematic than I'd like. Instead of strategically hitting the high-altitude, long-range stuff first and then working my way down, it just ends up being the closest stuff to the least far away, which is much less efficient.

James



Rory Noonan -> RE: SELECTIVE targets for HARMs used by SEAD units (12/30/2019 12:36:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: honanhal

I'm probably doing something wrong, but I've had no success with strike missions targeting specific SAM sites -- this is running the Russian Civil War phase I scenario based on the Janes' F/A-18 Kola campaign. The mission flights take off, form up, then declare "mission over" and get into the carrier landing pattern, even though I've checked that the pre-assigned targets are still marked on the map as current. If I assign the same planes, with the same loadout, to a SEAD patrol they have no problem dropping their bombs on those same SAMs, so it doesn't seem like it's an inappropriate loadout issue...

Can you post this along with a save file in the tech support forum?

quote:

ORIGINAL: honanhal
Using SEAD patrol instead does make going after the IADS much more arbitrary and less systematic than I'd like. Instead of strategically hitting the high-altitude, long-range stuff first and then working my way down, it just ends up being the closest stuff to the least far away, which is much less efficient.

James

This is WAD, see my posts above.



DWReese -> RE: SELECTIVE targets for HARMs used by SEAD units (12/30/2019 1:51:29 PM)

For "pop up threats" (as you call them), I believe that it is nice to have a dedicated SEAD unit (using their stand-off ability) trailing the strikers and assigned to "OVERWATCH" duties. These units can literally attack the SAM unit when the SAM initially fires at the strikers, without being placed in danger themselves.

In any case, thank you so much for your responses to my observations. Perhaps at some later time you (as a dev) might be able to look further into this, if the time and interest is ever available.

Happy New Year!



KungPao -> RE: SELECTIVE targets for HARMs used by SEAD units (12/30/2019 3:51:31 PM)

I remember IRL, some Soviets ARM require a specific frequency dial before loaded on the A/C, and they would only be able to look for those specific frequency.



DWReese -> RE: SELECTIVE targets for HARMs used by SEAD units (12/30/2019 3:55:38 PM)

quote:

some Soviets ARM require a specific frequency dial before loaded on the A/C, and they would only be able to look for those specific frequency.


That's exactly what I remember reading, as well. But, that was a ways back, and my memory may have faded as it wasn't important to me at that time. I can't cite any sources, I just seem to remember that being the case. I'm not sure that it is even the truth, but that is what I always believed.



honanhal -> RE: SELECTIVE targets for HARMs used by SEAD units (12/30/2019 6:04:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: apache85
Can you post this along with a save file in the tech support forum?


Done, thanks.



AndrewJ -> RE: SELECTIVE targets for HARMs used by SEAD units (12/31/2019 1:43:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: KungPao

I remember IRL, some Soviets ARM require a specific frequency dial before loaded on the A/C, and they would only be able to look for those specific frequency.



This is also true of the original American Shrike, which had different variants tuned to different radar bands.

There were eight different marks and several mods of guidance sections:

Mk 22 Mod 0/1/2
Mk 23
Mk 24 Mod 0/1/2/3/4/5
Mk 25 Mod 0/1
Mk 36
Mk 37
Mk 49 Mod 0/1
Mk 50

If you happened to launch with missiles intended for an SA-2's Fan Song radar, then you couldn't shoot at an SA-3s Flat Face, and so on.

Wikipedia has a nice chart of this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-45_Shrike



DWReese -> RE: SELECTIVE targets for HARMs used by SEAD units (12/31/2019 2:16:58 PM)

That's a great, and very informative, article. Thanks for sharing it.




SeaQueen -> RE: SELECTIVE targets for HARMs used by SEAD units (12/31/2019 4:19:07 PM)

quote:


So, the question, do real life SEAD jockeys know WHAT TYPE of SAMs they are shooting at?


Yes. Emissions are quite distinct and aircraft have onboard databases which automatically classify threats according to their emission and provide that information to the pilot.

quote:


If so, are they ever told to shoot at this one (like a SA-10) and not at that one (like a SA-2)?


Sometimes. It depends. In a scenario where they might be attempting to control escalation, then perhaps they might only allow pilots to attack SAM sites which have fired at them. It might also depend on the mission. Very long ranged "strategic" SAMs that cover large portions of an important area might be targeted early on in a campaign while shorter ranged "point defense" or "area defense" SAMs might be bypassed in order to open up corridors through which aircraft can flow unmolested SAMs. Of course, they always have the right of self defense, which means that even if something isn't necessarily a target of the mission, if they get shot at they're allowed to shoot back. Another consideration is standoff. Truth be told, nobody wants to tangle with SAMs unless they have to. You could get killed doing that! The SEAD/DEAD mission exists because it's necessary to suppress or destroy the SAMs in order to attack other centers of gravity (we're getting into a little bit of air power theory now). That's what the bomb trucks are all about. That might be things like chemical weapons plants, C3 nodes, political targets, important bridges (if we strike this then the whole army has to go 100 miles out of its way!), nuclear sites, ballistic missile sites, basically anything that the enemy considers to be important.

quote:


If so, could the WRA be expanded to designate WHICH TYPE of SAM the HARMs should shoot out, and which ones they should leave alone?


Ooooo that's a complicated statement. There are ways to shape that decision without using WRA. You could, for example, put SEAD Patrol boxes only over the SAMs you want to target and thus narrowly control them. Typically, I use ARMs in conjuction with lots of other assets (e.g. Rivet Joint, EA-6 Prowler) to find, fix, track and targets (it's called F2T2) SAM sites so that when one pops up it doesn't stay unidentified and vaguely located for long. That lets me direct things appropriately without touching WRA that much.



DWReese -> RE: SELECTIVE targets for HARMs used by SEAD units (12/31/2019 6:40:37 PM)

SeaQueen,

Thanks for responding.

My "vision" of this was to have a SEAD unit, riding as an ESCORT, along with strike air units that are attempting to destroy a HVT. Obviously, the SEAD unit(s) have a very limited amount of HARMs, etc. The situation is that the ground is covered with SAM units. Many are SA-2s and SA-3s. They aren't as big of a threat as the few SA-6s that are also present.

So, what I was hoping for was the ability to tell the SEAD units to give priority to the SA-6, instead of the SA-2 and SA-3. Those two have about a 1 percent chance of scoring a hit on my strikers, whereas the SA-6 (which fires lots of missiles) has about a 17 percent chance. Hence, the SA-6 is the bigger danger.

Is there any way to address that situation with our game?



guanotwozero -> RE: SELECTIVE targets for HARMs used by SEAD units (12/31/2019 8:49:46 PM)

I guess what is wanted is a way to prioritise targets, but if they're pop-up, there's nothing to stop the SEAD planes using their missiles on lower priority targets before the higher one is detected.

If the attackers have a reasonable idea of what the enemy has, then perhaps we need a mechanic to limit ARM shots to certain types of target or prohibit them from others. That can always be overridden by a deliberate attack instruction if desired.

I'm not sure where such a mechanic could be enacted - in the SEAD/Strike mission settings? Or some sort of loadout-based editable listbox?

Edit:
I'm starting to think that some sort of loadout usage qualifier might be a good idea in general. That would allow for ARMs pre-programmed for specific targets or prioritised for a hierarchy of targets.

It would also allow for other uses such as tankers pre-filled with non-standard fuel types or autonomous drones pre-programmed to behave in specific ways.

However That would mean the loadout database would have to change shape to allow for such flexible extra options, as well as extra game & interface logic to manage it, so it's not a trivial change.



DWReese -> RE: SELECTIVE targets for HARMs used by SEAD units (1/1/2020 2:09:07 AM)

One last issue on this topic. It would be nice if the SEAD unit could be told to go after SAMs instead of SEARCH RADAR (or vice versa). In situations where there are tons of search radars present, knocking out a couple won't really help to much. So, it would obviously be more advantageous to go after the SAMs instead.

If the game won't allow the player to single out individual SAM radar units, at least it would be nice if it let the player designate whether he wanted to search specifically for SAMs, or vice versa.

It's just a thought.



LargeDiameterBomb -> RE: SELECTIVE targets for HARMs used by SEAD units (1/3/2020 12:07:58 AM)

First, even though I absolutely agree with apache85 that there's a "gamification" aspect to this and SeaQueens comment about SEAD crew always suppressing any SAM system that fires on an friendly aircraft, one can certainly come up with realistic, but unusual, situations where SEAD escorts would be ordered to not engage older SAM systems even if they fire on a friendly aircraft in a strike force.

To illustrate this, let's say we have a the following situation:
A Greek strike force pulled from a squadron of 10 operational aircraft - F-16CM Blk 52+s with conformal fuel tanks that can carry four main air-to-ground weapons each (Consisting of two sections of bomb trucks ie F-16CMs with 4x GBU-10 Paveway IIs per aircraft, a SEAD section with 4x HARM Bs per aircraft and two counter-air sections with 4x AIM-120C-7/2x IRIS-T per aircraft) are being prepared for a interdiction mission against a large resupply convoy when a time critical very High Value Target is identified with the help of HUMINT sources and this squadron is the only one that will have any chance of striking the HVT due to time constraints, range and considering the loadouts on or being loaded on available aircraft within range.

An ATO is prepared that designates the squadron as the whole strike force. The weapons were just started to be loaded on the aircraft when the ATO was completed. The time critical target is the Chief of the Army of the adversary, a commander regarded as extremely competent and who has a background as a "soldier's commander" and thus his leadership is considered to be crucial for the morale of the adversaries ground forces. This chief of the Army is assessed to be visiting a known, easily identifiable building for 45-60 minutes for a short meeting with local higher army commanders starting in 1 hour in a city with a population of about 50.000 people.

Time will be very short and earliest possible take-off will be in little more than an hour and unfortunately, by necessity the strike force will have to fly through the firing envelope of one standard (Not modernized in any way) SA-3b system for about a minute on the way to the target to reach it in time. Furthermore they will have to spend at least some of the time attacking the HVT in the absolute outer envelope of another SA-3b system.
An electronic OoB from the night before also had a SA-11 Buk-M1 battery radiating in the area around the target building but it has not been observed since - but because the Buk battery has been observed as being in the area for the last week they are expected to just have gone silent, repositioned to new firing positions while remaining in the area. Five days ago a Buk-M1 TELAR was assessed as destroyed in this area by a AARGM fired by a USN Super Hornet so the battery probably is not up to full strength and lack at least one TELAR. Still, three functioning Buk-M1s in the area will make up a formidable foe.
Also, earlier low-level attacks in this area has always observed or been attacked by MANPAD teams and some aircraft have been hit and/or lost by SAMs assessed as SA-24s, a very dangerous weapon system for any fighter jet flying at low altitude. A nap-of-the earth approach and a lofting release is therefore out of the question.

Higher command has assessed the situation as this being the only realistic chance of taking out this HVT and the only way to do it is by flattening the quite large compound the HVT will be visiting with at least 6x of the 16x GBU-10s carried by the strike force and the dropping aircraft will therefore have to do a total of 4 to 6 passes over the target.
The squadron commander concurs with this assessment and quickly a mission briefing is performed where everybody agrees the correct way to complete the mission is to enter the area at 15 k ft AGL, do a total of 4-6 passes from the same altitude to drop and lase for the the LGBs on the large compound and most crucially, every available HARM must be spared for destroying or suppressing the Buk-M1 battery that is expected to be in the area, unless a SA-3b system manages to shoot down a bomb truck, to have a chance of success even though this absolutely sucks for the aircrews. But the orders from higher up are that the HVT is to be destroyed at all costs.

As the aircraft are all equipped with the very modern AN/ALQ-187 I-DIAS self-protection ECM suite and the path of the strike force will only cross the projected envelope of the first SA-3b battery for about a minute on the way to the target area the battery are not to be fired upon and HARMs are to be conserved for use in the HVT area unless one GBU-10 carrying aircraft is shot down by the SA-3b battery. The strike force will simply have to take their chances while crossing this bit of the path and trust in their ECM systems and dropped countermeasures since the HARMs will as assessed desperately be needed to suppress the SA-11 Buk-M1 battery, which will certainly reveal itself during the attack phase, to have a chance of striking the HVT successfully.

This of course in reality is a very unusual, but not unrealistic mission (Meaning it could never happen). However, it might very well be something that more advanced scenario designers would want to include in a scenario as a special event for increased tension and suddenly increasing complexity with a hard to solve problem but with a big reward in scoring with some luck.

Besides, in reality, many or most self-protection ECM suites do not only affect the chance of the missile hitting the aircraft in the endgame as modeled in CMANO/CMO but also has the ability of stopping semi-active missile illuminating radars locking on the aircraft and might also be able to break lock from the radar in case the missile will quickly veer off course.
In CMANO/CMO terms, they are a combination between OECM/DECM suites where the OECM suite have very low jamming power and an ability to only jam one emitter, so the risk of spending some time at the outer edges of the firing envelope of a SA-3c with low RCS platforms such as the F-16, equipped with a very effective self-protection ECM suite will mean a very low risk of a 1960s SAM system locking on and keeping lock-on until missile impact, so commanders might very well be willing to take their chances in a scenario as described above, even though the aircrew will probably not be so happy.

So I agree with DWReese on this one. This abovementioned mission will have to be micromanaged constantly in the attack phase which will last several minutes to have any chance of success as AI and mission mechanics currently is and that is sub-optimal when one probably has a lot of other forces to simultaneously control in the scenario. What exactly to do about it, I have no idea, but most of DWReese's suggestions sounds reasonable from a player's standpoint.



DWReese -> RE: SELECTIVE targets for HARMs used by SEAD units (1/3/2020 6:50:42 PM)

One other aspect of SEAD attacks is this: If you are manually directing the attack, then you can see what you are shooting at, such as how many vehicles, etc., are present, and then adjust your attack accordingly.

But, if you are allowing the AI to handle them for the opposition, then the most that you can do is assign a default amount of HARMs, etc., to attack a a generically mentioned SAM. So, you may, for example, assign the default at two HARM missiles per target. Well, two missiles is probably too many, for a HQ-2; just about right for a Hawk; way too few for a S-300 or a SA-22. So, shooting only two missiles only at these is probably a waste of time, but you are limited to what the default number will be.

I really do believe, for the sake of the scenario designers, that something could be added that would grant the designers more flexibility to more accurately assign missiles based on the expected threat.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.609375