F-35 vs triple-digit SAMs

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

F-35 vs triple-digit SAMs - weaponeering?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> F-35 vs triple-digit SAMs - weaponeering?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

F-35 vs triple-digit SAMs - weaponeering? - 4/3/2014 9:12:01 AM

LordFlashheart

Posts: 21
Joined: 4/3/2014
Status: offline

Hi all,

Long time lurker and got CMANO as soon as it was released. First off, just like to say kudos to the devs for a phenomenal piece of software. Used to enjoy Harpoon II on a Pentium 486? back in the old days and looked into what the latest build of Harpoon was - but I just gave up in the end - it wax just too confusing with the different versions. CMANO, however looks like it will stay on my hard drive for quite some time.

The feedback and interaction with users here too is absolulty incredible - ideas like profiency ratings, ESM horizon (latest build?) are taken on board and swiftly incorporated. Fantastic work guys!

My question is on weaponeering with the F-35.

As a Brit - I am interested in how the F-35B might perform flying from the new QE carrier (set to be launched in July) - so decided to do some testing in the Editor.

(Kudos agin for the easy to use editor. I'm hopeless at programming, have no knowledge of scripts or AI logic, but can whack up a quick test scenario on CMANO in about 5mins flat.)

I set up a nice juicy target bunker for my F-35Bs to hit and protect it with some S-300Ps SAMs. My strike force is F-35Bs with Storm Shadows, plus F-35Bs with JDAMs.

So far, so good. However using JDAMS (or Storm Shadow) I can't get a target lock/acquistion of the S-300s in the Manual targeting menu. The only option seems to be 'guns' which would seem to be instant suicide against a S-300.

I understand the SAM 'zone of uncertainity' is based on electronic emissions - and thus is no good for GPS-guided weapons, but as I work my aircraft and assets to triangulate the exact SAM location, should I be able to then target the S-300s with JDAM?

Or (I was flying radar off) do I need to paint the SAM site with radar to generate a GPS co-ordinate for a successful JDAM strike?

(NB: Also seen this with other aircraft playing the excellent 'Frisian Flag' scenario - where again you don't seem to be able to use a JDAM against a SAM site - even when you have narrowed its location down...)

Otherwise - lacking HARMS/ALARMS my super-duper stealth fighters have no actual way of taking out these nasty triple-digit SAMs...

Any ideas on this?

NB: One other thing you might consider for the database - is that for UK F-35B the first standard A-G weapon will not be JDAM but the dual mode (GPS/Laser) Paveway IV as used on the Tornado GR4.

Thanks agin for a great simulation!

Post #: 1

RE: F-35 vs triple-digit SAMs - weaponeering? - 4/3/2014 10:19:10 AM

dillonkbase

Posts: 177
Joined: 5/2/2009
Status: offline

the problem is that in game, gps weapons cannot attack mobile targets... the fact that they could be moving means the weapons are invalid...

I have no clue if gps weapons have to have coordinated loaded before launch these days... but this is the issue yyou are seeing.

(in reply to LordFlashheart)

Post #: 2

RE: F-35 vs triple-digit SAMs - weaponeering? - 4/3/2014 11:22:03 AM

LordFlashheart

Posts: 21
Joined: 4/3/2014
Status: offline

Ahh got you. So CMANO considers all mobile systems as essentially 'on the move' at all times? There's no such thing as a 'mobile' system that may be parked?

I guess I need the Paveway IV then with laser/GPS guidance - or possibly laser SDB II. Duelling a S-300 with F-35/Brimstone might be doable but a very high-risk solution.

The stated shoot & scoot time (5mins to deploy) for S-300 systems seems unbelievably fast - I wonder if this could be slowed down (or at least simulated) by taking the proficiency slider lower?

A look at open source material on semi-prepared SAM sites seems to indicate that these systems are mobile, but not too mobile - in that it would be a case of working out at which of these multiple sites the SAM battery was currently at.

Back to the mission editor!

(in reply to dillonkbase)

Post #: 3

RE: F-35 vs triple-digit SAMs - weaponeering? - 4/3/2014 1:23:24 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

I thought there was a way to make mobile SAMs permanent. I might have thinking of a request, not a feature.

(in reply to LordFlashheart)

Post #: 4

RE: F-35 vs triple-digit SAMs - weaponeering? - 4/3/2014 1:29:19 PM

ComDev

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

Hm guess we need to push this one up on the priority list, have added a new bug report linking to this post. Will have to discuss it with the other devs, guess the best solution would be to make certain aircraft capable of re-targeting GPS/INS weapons in-flight.

Thanks!

_____________________________

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 5

RE: F-35 vs triple-digit SAMs - weaponeering? - 4/3/2014 1:57:28 PM

LordFlashheart

Posts: 21
Joined: 4/3/2014
Status: offline

Thanks emsoy - once again amazing feedback from the devs...!

Just a thought on generating coordinates for GPS weapons inflight - would it be possible perhaps to link it to whether the a/c is carrying a targeting pod? Ie: in DCS A-10C you can essentially pick-off lower-tier (non-moving) SAM threats using JDAMS by targeting them using the pod, then acquiring the co-ordinates.

Targeting pod could be either external (GR4/Typhoon/A-10C etc) or internal (F-35). (Geolocation of SAMs systems using ESM seems to be a F-22 capability to drop SBDs - despite no EO/IR targeting pod)

(in reply to ComDev)

Post #: 6

RE: F-35 vs triple-digit SAMs - weaponeering? - 4/3/2014 7:13:12 PM

ComDev

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

Yes seems that seems to be the best solution from where we stand right now, Dimitris has already started looking at it so lets see if its still valid when the first-pass implementation & testing job has been completed

_____________________________

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

(in reply to LordFlashheart)

Post #: 7

RE: F-35 vs triple-digit SAMs - weaponeering? - 4/3/2014 9:18:17 PM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

There is a complication in this, in that by allowing weapons like JDAM to hit mobile-but-currently-static units like S-300, while at the same time not giving the latter class the "smarts" to pack up and leave, we are essentially dooming them to no better survivability than plain static units.

So need to think whether we'll do the JDAM change first and then later make mobiles smarter (thus creating the "gap"), or delay the JDAM modification in order to bundle it with the better mobile smarts and thus avoid having the gap altogether.

Decisions.

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to ComDev)

Post #: 8

RE: F-35 vs triple-digit SAMs - weaponeering? - 4/3/2014 10:51:04 PM

jdkbph

Posts: 339
Joined: 2/11/2007
From: CT, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

There is a complication in this, in that by allowing weapons like JDAM to hit mobile-but-currently-static units like S-300, while at the same time not giving the latter class the "smarts" to pack up and leave, we are essentially dooming them to no better survivability than plain static units.

So need to think whether we'll do the JDAM change first and then later make mobiles smarter (thus creating the "gap"), or delay the JDAM modification in order to bundle it with the better mobile smarts and thus avoid having the gap altogether.

Decisions.

Not sure about any of this but I'm going to throw this out there anyway.

The question in my mind is what kind of mobility are we talking about. Is it a strategic mobility where one can position assets based on an assessment of future air activity, or is it a tactical mobility where someone might shout "hey look... there's a bad guy about to drop a bomb on us!" resulting in the whole deal immediately packing up and heading for cover?

If the latter, then we should probably leave things alone. GPS JDAMs, etc, can't target a moving (or movable) SAM battery any more than they could target a moving ship.

If the former then a deployed and active SAM battery should be considered stationary for the purpose of weapons targeting.

Of course that might require a "state" toggle for certain weapons systems, with an appropriate delay while they transition from one state (fixed/stationary) to another (mobile). And I would also assume they would be non-functional "targets" only while in the "mobile" state, and most vulnerable while transitioning between states... both stationary and non-functional.

All assuming of course you hadn't already thought of this and built it into the game.

JD

< Message edited by jdkbph -- 4/3/2014 11:52:33 PM >

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 9

RE: F-35 vs triple-digit SAMs - weaponeering? - 4/3/2014 11:14:57 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

Doesn't it take hours to set up a major mobile SAM system?

(in reply to jdkbph)

Post #: 10

RE: F-35 vs triple-digit SAMs - weaponeering? - 4/4/2014 12:19:26 AM

Davekhps

Posts: 203
Joined: 12/10/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Doesn't it take hours to set up a major mobile SAM system?

This. We're not talking about SA-9's rolling down the road.

Perhaps one option would be to peg the mobile "survivability" to the last time the radar was activated? I.e., if the radar was activated within the "breakdown and move" window, it can be assumed that the radar is still in the location. But after that window closes, for game purposes the site is assumed to be mobile.

May result in gamey tactics, or may not...

< Message edited by Davekhps -- 4/4/2014 1:21:31 AM >

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 11

RE: F-35 vs triple-digit SAMs - weaponeering? - 4/4/2014 12:32:11 AM

jdkbph

Posts: 339
Joined: 2/11/2007
From: CT, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Doesn't it take hours to set up a major mobile SAM system?

That's my guess as well... and my suggestions were based on that assumption.

JD

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 12

RE: F-35 vs triple-digit SAMs - weaponeering? - 4/4/2014 12:41:46 AM

Gunner98

Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline

This is a tricky one.

Perhaps a mobility factor or something like that. E.g a tank platoon, a Geppard, SA-9 etc, would be near impossible to pin down. An ADATS, SA-9 or a Chaparral very difficult. A Patriot or an S-300 fairly easy. The corollary to this, as pointed out above, is that if its moving its not shooting.

An added survivability layer could be added for systems that are smart enough to slave off of others - an ADATS troop of 4 launcher systems would have one radiating, 2 passive and one moving all the time for instance, all except the mover can track and fire using the data from the one radiating (assuming that they didn't have a passive track).

Another point - how can you actually find the launcher if it is not radiating itself? I don't think that the Patriot launcher for instance, and I think the same is true for the S-300 - actually radiate anything - the active radar systems could be hundreds of meters away - so you would need to get a visual or IR plot of the launchers to get a GPS-able grid.

Just some very random thoughts...

B

(in reply to Davekhps)

Post #: 13

RE: F-35 vs triple-digit SAMs - weaponeering? - 4/4/2014 6:31:06 AM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
Doesn't it take hours to set up a major mobile SAM system?

Depends on the type. SA-10/20 and SA-12 have a demonstrated strikedown time of less than 5 mins. SA-8/9/13/15, Chaparral, Crotale NG and Roland effectively stop and fire immediately. Crotale, SA-4/6/11 take something like 10-15 mins. Patriot PAC-2 takes 30 mins IIRC. Older systems like HAWK take a significantly longer time.

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 14

RE: F-35 vs triple-digit SAMs - weaponeering? - 4/4/2014 6:37:56 AM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

Perhaps a mobility factor or something like that. E.g a tank platoon, a Geppard, SA-9 etc, would be near impossible to pin down. An ADATS, SA-9 or a Chaparral very difficult. A Patriot or an S-300 fairly easy. The corollary to this, as pointed out above, is that if its moving its not shooting.

Thanks. We're looking at something very much like this.

quote:

Another point - how can you actually find the launcher if it is not radiating itself? I don't think that the Patriot launcher for instance, and I think the same is true for the S-300 - actually radiate anything - the active radar systems could be hundreds of meters away - so you would need to get a visual or IR plot of the launchers to get a GPS-able grid.

Yes, which is why mobile-capable facilities in Command are by default non-autodetectable.

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to Gunner98)

Post #: 15

RE: F-35 vs triple-digit SAMs - weaponeering? - 4/4/2014 10:23:57 AM

Gunner98

Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

Depends on the type. SA-10/20 and SA-12 have a demonstrated strikedown time of less than 5 mins.

I might take this with a grain of salt - with a crack crew with the single purpose of achieving the strikedown - OK. Was it actually able to fire just prior to the demonstration or had shortcuts been taken? Was it actually able to move once down or were things missed to allow speed.

If that time is achievable routinely by normal crews - fine. But Soviets were masters at presenting fictional capabilities - almost as good as Western defence industry

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 16

RE: F-35 vs triple-digit SAMs - weaponeering? - 4/4/2014 10:26:24 AM

Gunner98

Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

Thanks. We're looking at something very much like this.

I'm looking forward to it, your response to this forum's many demands is highly commendable - Well done sir

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 17

RE: F-35 vs triple-digit SAMs - weaponeering? - 4/4/2014 10:36:16 AM

mrfeizhu

Posts: 131
Joined: 10/13/2013
Status: offline

The take down time is 5 minutes, the set up time is 5 minutes so that's 10 minutes it cant fire and is not mobile. What is the default action of the launcher? is it moving or stationary. If its stationary is it ready to fire or ready to move?

_____________________________

Old man sort of living in China for the last 10 years

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 18

RE: F-35 vs triple-digit SAMs - weaponeering? - 4/4/2014 10:58:02 AM

RoryAndersonCDT

Posts: 1830
Joined: 6/16/2009
Status: offline

I think it would depend on the standing orders to stay limbered. 5 minutes is a long time to wait before firing, I'd expect a strategic SAM to be prepared to fire.

5 minutes at 1000 kts is 83 nm (154 km).

_____________________________

Command Dev Team
Technical Lead

(in reply to mrfeizhu)

Post #: 19

RE: F-35 vs triple-digit SAMs - weaponeering? - 4/4/2014 11:13:02 AM

Gunner98

Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mrfeizhu

The take down time is 5 minutes, the set up time is 5 minutes so that's 10 minutes it cant fire and is not mobile. What is the default action of the launcher? is it moving or stationary. If its stationary is it ready to fire or ready to move?

I would presume that the standard configuration is in position and ready to fire. Otherwise the system may as well not be there. I know that in NATO armies, alternate positions are always sited but with very rudimentarily preparation (unless time allows for more), I suspect that its the same with East Bock AD units.

You need to add travel time of at least 5-10 min to get to that alternate position - so for all intents if you force an AD system to move you have achieved mission success, even if you don't kill it. The fixation with destroying all AD systems in a theatre is a relatively recent phenomenon, and decidedly post-Cold war. SEAD is successful if the AD systems are Supressed, thus enabling the main task to continue. Granted that the best way of suppressing something is to turn it into a smoking hole in the ground

, but that's not always possible.

B

(in reply to mrfeizhu)

Post #: 20

RE: F-35 vs triple-digit SAMs - weaponeering? - 4/10/2014 9:47:05 PM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

Added in Build 509; Weapons nominally suitable only against fixed targets can also attack stationary mobile targets.

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to Gunner98)

Post #: 21

RE: F-35 vs triple-digit SAMs - weaponeering? - 4/11/2014 3:21:08 AM

Grackle

Posts: 147
Joined: 9/2/2007
Status: offline

I am very impressed at how swiftly you respond to customer feedback and how it is such a refreshing change from the support for previous modern naval/air simulations. This is an important new capability that will make this simulation even more formidable.

Thanks for your ceaseless efforts,

Mark

_____________________________

System Specs: Intel(R) Core (TM) i7 CPU 960@3.20 GHZ; 12 GB RAM, AMD RADEON 6800 Series video card, Primary resolution 1920 X 1080, Direct X10

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 22

RE: F-35 vs triple-digit SAMs - weaponeering? - 4/11/2014 9:48:27 AM

LordFlashheart

Posts: 21
Joined: 4/3/2014
Status: offline

quote:

Added in Build 509; Weapons nominally suitable only against fixed targets can also attack stationary mobile targets.

Whoa! Talk about fast work! (I'm still not convinced there are humans behind this instead there is some Borg-type AI constantly updating things in real-time...)

Thanks so much for the outstanding customer support!

NB: If I understand correctly - the ability to target stationary mobile targets with some (non-preplanned) weapons still means that a devious scenario designer could set a mobile SAM/AAA system to trundle along waypoints to frustrate any SEAD attempts...?

(in reply to Grackle)

Post #: 23

RE: F-35 vs triple-digit SAMs - weaponeering? - 4/11/2014 9:52:15 AM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LordFlashheart
NB: If I understand correctly - the ability to target stationary mobile targets with some (non-preplanned) weapons still means that a devious scenario designer could set a mobile SAM/AAA system to trundle along waypoints to frustrate any SEAD attempts...?

Yes. It will not, however, take the proper (realistic) time to strike-down/deploy for operation and pack up and leave again. This is something we definitely want to improve but requires some significant data research.

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to LordFlashheart)

Post #: 24

RE: F-35 vs triple-digit SAMs - weaponeering? - 4/11/2014 11:45:56 AM

LordFlashheart

Posts: 21
Joined: 4/3/2014
Status: offline

Excellent. That means we could simulate 1991 Iraq AD-style takedowns as well as 1999 Serbian Op Allied Force - by using different mixes of mobile/static SAMs

CMANO just keeps getting better and better...!

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 25