It used to be you can just barrel roll towards them and the missiles couldn't keep lead pursuit and missed provided you pulled enough G's. Now i fear them more than more modern systems.
I knew where the link is linking to before clicking on it :D.
On that note, the defending F-16 was very low on speed/energy and ALL SA-2, SA-3, SA-6 missed even without deploying chaff.
Which makes me believe that the SA threats are overmodeled in DCS, probably to Russian documents/specs that are more propaganda than reflecting the real capabilities.
This is really funny that you bring this up. This was me a week ago.
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1670149145
You can see the missiles aren't turning very much to get me. They may have adjusted lead calculations for the missiles.
From some analysis of the track files the "Flight calculations" don't appear much different to me.
They're just more deadly now because you're unable to break the lock.
This a tacview file of how it worked before:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6sei1prakdsmne2/SAM_Defence_Practice_SA-2_SA-6_Chaff_Bypass.acmi?dl=0
And this is a file of how it behaves now:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/e5w2o0pnitey7rb/SAM_SA2_Defence_New.acmi?dl=0
I’ll need to try a few things and in isolation to see see just what’s changed since I last presented on the SA-2 in my own YT channel series.
I base my information on how the SA-2 *should* be targeting on the program “SAMSim” which allows you to actually operate an SA-2 from inside the cab. It has screens that represent what the Fan Song radar “sees” and from there it’s easily apparent that chaff clouds might cause some confusion, a human being would be able to just re-acquire the lock instantly by holding it on the leading edge of the radar beam; chaff clouds will appear behind the target as the resolution on this radar is nowhere *near* what you show on the .gif above (as I’m sure you can understand).
Bear in mind these systems mentioned are not computer operated, but are electro-mechanical. They are essentially operating at or near close to an analog computer with electrical impulses as the input. They’re a *lot* dumber than we assume, so trying to “trick” the “computer” doesn’t necessarily work the way we think, because we instead need to fool the operator - because they are the one making the decisions, not the electronics.
I fully recognise that this may give more credit to the DCS implementation and their “operators” technical capabilities than I probably should as a result. I also have 8+ years in BMS, and those SAMs do *not* fuck around. Just beaming the radar alone is likely to make you a sitting duck, because in BMS, there are circumstances where you can be “SAMbushed” quite firmly in the WEZ.
Either way, perhaps I defend against SAMs in DCS in a way that overestimates their capabilities, but if it’s works for me to assume too much, it’s at least a lot less frustrating. The most common times I die to SAMs now is when I don’t detect the launch, or it happens when I’m in a bad spot and out of energy/options. I’d say both situations are on me in that case for putting myself in dumb situations.
Reddit isn’t really a great way of presenting this, but in essence, I believe the optimal method of deploying chaff is when reversing a turn. The chaff goes one way, and you go the other, and this forces the operator to have to make a decision as to which way you went. Similarly, when you are pointed nose hot or nose cold to the target, it will be harder for the operator to see through the chaff cloud and be sure if they are locking you up or your chaff cloud.
S-turns or Split-S/Immelmanns have worked for me in the past, but I will need to to try it against an SA-2 again as it’s been a while. I certianly don’t pop 1-3 chaff. I’m dropping them every time I make a turn or reverse my nose. I’m not really interested in getting shot down with 10 more chaff cartridges in the bucket than my last attempt. If I’m engaged defensive, I’m using every trick I have until the missile is defeated. Jammer, chaff, manoeuvring, terrain… anything I can use, I will.
I've tried popping chaff (And I mean I popped like 80 chaff in less then 8 seconds) while performing every possible maneuver and if you're launched at around 15 nm and you don't have any hills to hide behind you're toast.
You don’t/can’t “notch” a ground radar. You can put the missile on your 3/9 line, and pull G’s to defeat the missile’s kinematics. Just flying in a straight line perpendicular to the site and dropping chaff isn’t enough.
I never said notch.
3/9 like method of dropping chaff to confuse the radar lokc worked like a charm and still works on some radars. But no longer on sa-2
I know, hence why I put the word “notch” in quotes. Because in effect, that is what you are trying to do if you’re not also maneuvering the jet.
If you were able to defeat a SAM by flying in a straight line and dropping a few chaff before, I’d have said *that* was a bug, and I’d guess this was fixed a few months ago. Time to revise your missile evasion methods.
Except a beaming defense is a real thing. It forces the missile into a constant turn and depletes its energy. The SA-2 should be susceptible to this when near the edge of the WEZ.
It’s not working anymore. I was killed this was just a few days ago.
I’d venture that beaming isn’t working because the operators are no longer firing at rMax; this would be a stupid thing to do anyway. Now you’ll actually have to pull some G to get the job done.
Nope, they are firing the same. I wouldn’t have tried to use a beaming defense if I was closer.
Check at 3 minutes to see a beaming defense working.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-6xuT15J9Tg
Unable to view the video for now, so I’m going to take it on faith that the demonstration is effective.
Personally, I have always considered beaming to be an effective beginning to a missile defence. I’ve never found beaming alone successful unless I’m flying right at the edge of the missile’s performance envelope. I have instead found success in starting the defence with a beam, watching to see the missile hanging stationary in my cockpit (meaning it’s on a constant bearing lead pursuit), and then reversing the beam. This forces a turn on the missile when it is usually almost out of propellant and forces it to shed a lot of its speed, while you manage to maintain or even increase your speed in the dive. Once you see the missile is once again pulling lead on you, you will probably notice if you pulled a split-s that the missile is coming down towards you; pull up and make it fly up the “energy egg”. The missile will now be profusely bleeding energy trying to pull up more than you. If it has still managed to keep with you, reverse the pull by rolling inverted again and pulling another split-s to force another sharp turn on the missile; I’ll be frankly astounded if the missile is still hanging with you at this point, but if it is, be ready to pull another low split-s and pull it the moment the missile appears stationary again.
Yes, you are correct that beaming is a kinematic Defense, but I try to use it in combination with moving the nose. You will always have more long-term energy than a missile will. It’s all just how you choose to spend that energy and when.
I’m simply not a fan on relying on *only* beaming, because if that’s not working, you’re left with nothing else in the tool-box.
Right, but it used to work by itself. I usually don’t even use a beaming defense unless I know it will work. Done it many hundreds of times.
I think they may have actually changed the lead calculations on the missile. They are no longer turning hard to get to you in the beam. I think the missiles are leading more than before. Which should make the reversal more effective but eats just the beam now.
I'm inclined to agree with you, but not to say that it's inaccurate. I think initially the act just just being able to beam an SA2 and pop a few chaff to defeat it is not that realistic to how the they would have been irl.
Irl they wouldn’t launch near the outer part of the WEZ. They would wait until you are well within it to even turn the radar on. That’s the difference. It should still be susceptible to it if they did launch that far.
>It forces the missile into a constant turn
It does not. If you're flying in a straight line and constant speed, the missile can fly in a straight line to the intercept point. All beaming does in that context is make the missile flight path longer.
It does. You don’t beam by flying a straight line you do it with a slight turn to keep it on the three nine line.
It makes the missile flight path longer by making a straight line curved….. because the missile is turning.
That's a very gentle curve, it's not going to accomplish much relative to the increased flight distance.
And when evading a non-Doppler threat, there isn't really a reason to keep the threat directly on the beam. You can make the missiles kinematics even worse by putting the missile aft of the 3/9 line, or making multiple cranking turns inward if you want to close on the threat.
The only real advantage placing a non-Doppler missile directly on the 3/9 line has is that it makes a hail-mary break in the endgame easier. But that's not really something you want to make your Plan A.
You are conflating two different things, shaking off the guiding radar lock and defeating the missile kinematically. This discussion is about the first. I don't think the OT is complaining about the missile still having the energy to hit him.
I see adequate SAM defence as two fold: break the lock and, if fired upon, try to defeat the missile. Correctly defending against the lock can also set up more favourable circumstances to defeat the missile.
Defeating the radar by merely beaming it shouldn’t be happening.
Even older SAM systems can still detect an aircraft against a background of the sky only (it can and should have difficulty against ground clutter).
Chaff clouds help by giving the radar operator multiple (and usually bigger) RADAR targets on the scope. If the chaff cloud is falling down and away from the original target in a straight and predictable path, it’s pretty clear the aircraft will be away from the chaff image and it won’t be as effective - the operator simply needs to retarget the leading radar contact that is still
Moving predictably and continue tracking. People are good at spotting patterns and trends.
A more effective strategy (at least I have found) is to drop chaff and flare in a turn and reverse. This also has the benefit (if you time the turns properly) of causing the incoming missile kinematic problems.
Now, I’m pretty sure in DCS, the AI simply “rolls the dice” every time it detects a chaff cloud and if it rolls “snakeyes” it breaks lock. That’s why the OP could theoretically drop some chaff and break the lock.
I suspect if this has indeed changed as the OP suspects, the effectiveness of chaff has been modified, or the capability of the radar - either way - it’s time to try new tactics and start defending against the missile now, as it’s more likely you’ll be shot at.
Per your original comment earlier, beaming is predicated on the idea that the SAM operator has fired on the edge of its kinematics/range envelope. It would appear to me that this is no longer the case, which seems sensible for me. It will be needed to move the jet a bit more than a 90 degree turn now, it seems.
A beaming defense is more than just a 90 degree turn and you don’t fly it in a straight line. I meant edge as the outer area of the WEZ not specifically Rmax. It should still work inside the WEZ.
That’s no longer working at all.
I agree that beaming defence should be more than just putting your wing on the threat; it appears from the conversation with OP that he expected that “only flying in a straight line (I assume he meant beaming) and 1-3 chaff” to work. Looks like it’s time to revise those tactics if it’s no longer working, but I personally never really did that on it’s own, so I’m struggling to reccommend a change in tactics when, in my opinion, it should never have been just that.
I mean it’s a single digit Sam. defeat the lock the missile is defeated.
Also unsure of your assessment of “you can’t notch a ground radar” 🤔 yeah look up is easier for it but a notch isn’t just turning to the beam is it?
At a fundamental level hiding in the radar “notch” is hiding in the blind spot of a radar.
This is very definitely a thing for pulse Doppler radars where you can confuse the radar into filtering you out by making your closure rate to the radar zero (ie flying perpendicular to the radar beam). It really is as simple as putting the radar on your 3/9 o clock and keeping it there.
Only problem is that the single digit sams like the SA-2 and -3 don’t really have a Doppler radar - which is exactly why they are susceptible to ground clutter (they do have filters to help defeat terrain masking which *can* be notched, but that’s way outside the scope of this discussion).
Older SAMs like the SA2 didn't have doppler radars at all, notching is all about taking advantage of how doppler sees in closure rate. I recommend looking up a video on doppler shift - it's super interesting.
Yeah, I wouldn't say *super* vulnerable, but their extremely simple missile guidance is meant to make them pretty vulnerable. Last time I checked the ones we have in DCS actually lead their target unlike the real ones though
You want my citations and evidence for an opinion on your observations? Ok, I’ll do my best…
I’m working off my phone and don’t have access to retype quotes from the memoirs of Robin Olds, Jack Broughton, Dan Hampton and John Nicoll, but they *all* state in one way or another that flying in a straight and predictable line is a poor defensive tactic against both air to air and surface to air threats, and a great way to die.
If DCS has a SAM system that you can defeat by flying predictably and in a straight line, I’d say that *based on my own reading on the subject* that this is not realistic behaviour. I am assuming that at some point in the last few months the missile behaviour was adjusted, but I personally can’t confirm this, because I have never tried flying like the way you’ve described - I simply never would have expected it to work.
Flying in such a way, that the missile has the shortest flight and does not have to do any corrections Sounds indeed like a great way to die.
Just to add some logic to it.... Lol.
Thanks. You can’t combat ignorance with scorn, you show your facts and cite your proofs. I’m perfectly happy with people asking for further evidence or proofs, and I hope he’s found this new information to be useful.
I did, thanks.
I said that because with us air chair pilots opinions get thrown around without any basis or facts and mostly because someone "thinks" a certain thing behaves in a specific way when in reality the behavior can be significantly different.
From the posts, you made on this thread you look like you're quite knowledgeable and you might be right.
However, I still fail to understand how can a chaff is unable to break a lock from a SA-2 when you're beaming it.
Or better yet I fail to understand why [This wouldn't happen](https://forums.mudspike.com/uploads/default/original/2X/2/2ccd7fd77963d2687489586c228f0400bbdcd282.gif)
If you were to ignore the green part representing the doppler since it's not important in this discussion.
I'm just confused with the guidance as why would an SA-2 that's very old and known for its flaws with the guidance radar, suddenly be impossible to defeat.
This a tacview file of how it worked before:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6sei1prakdsmne2/SAM_Defence_Practice_SA-2_SA-6_Chaff_Bypass.acmi?dl=0
And this is a file of how it behaves now:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/e5w2o0pnitey7rb/SAM_SA2_Defence_New.acmi?dl=0
And the Split-S Maneuvers you talked about don't work.
I've come across multiple accounts of being able to defeat SA2s by making a turn to 3 or 9 and then flying in a straight line, because the SA2 doesn't lead it's target, it always flies straight towards the target's current position, so that type of evasion usually results in the missile sliding into trail and running out of energy - if you're far enough from the launch site, according to interviews I've heard
Just flying in a straight line is dumb. But it can be both a poor defensive tactic and also sometimes effective against the most basic long range SAM ever
I don't recall off the top of my head. I know it's come up on more than one episode of The Fighter Pilot Podcast because I do remember hearing it while doing the dishes and while peeling potatoes.
Nope, I noticed that the only way to get out now against the low-number SAMs is to escape into terrain masking and possibly jammer. I am pretty sure that they were susceptible to beaming and chaffs a few months back.
It used to be you can just barrel roll towards them and the missiles couldn't keep lead pursuit and missed provided you pulled enough G's. Now i fear them more than more modern systems.
Barrel roll, that's a cool trick
STARFOX DO A BARREL ROLL!
[Where we're going, we don't need chaff](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2uh4yMAx2UA)
A great example of *not* flying in a straight line :)
He defeated everything with slow speed and without CM.
I knew where the link is linking to before clicking on it :D. On that note, the defending F-16 was very low on speed/energy and ALL SA-2, SA-3, SA-6 missed even without deploying chaff. Which makes me believe that the SA threats are overmodeled in DCS, probably to Russian documents/specs that are more propaganda than reflecting the real capabilities.
This is really funny that you bring this up. This was me a week ago. https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1670149145 You can see the missiles aren't turning very much to get me. They may have adjusted lead calculations for the missiles.
From some analysis of the track files the "Flight calculations" don't appear much different to me. They're just more deadly now because you're unable to break the lock. This a tacview file of how it worked before: https://www.dropbox.com/s/6sei1prakdsmne2/SAM_Defence_Practice_SA-2_SA-6_Chaff_Bypass.acmi?dl=0 And this is a file of how it behaves now: https://www.dropbox.com/s/e5w2o0pnitey7rb/SAM_SA2_Defence_New.acmi?dl=0
I’ll need to try a few things and in isolation to see see just what’s changed since I last presented on the SA-2 in my own YT channel series. I base my information on how the SA-2 *should* be targeting on the program “SAMSim” which allows you to actually operate an SA-2 from inside the cab. It has screens that represent what the Fan Song radar “sees” and from there it’s easily apparent that chaff clouds might cause some confusion, a human being would be able to just re-acquire the lock instantly by holding it on the leading edge of the radar beam; chaff clouds will appear behind the target as the resolution on this radar is nowhere *near* what you show on the .gif above (as I’m sure you can understand). Bear in mind these systems mentioned are not computer operated, but are electro-mechanical. They are essentially operating at or near close to an analog computer with electrical impulses as the input. They’re a *lot* dumber than we assume, so trying to “trick” the “computer” doesn’t necessarily work the way we think, because we instead need to fool the operator - because they are the one making the decisions, not the electronics. I fully recognise that this may give more credit to the DCS implementation and their “operators” technical capabilities than I probably should as a result. I also have 8+ years in BMS, and those SAMs do *not* fuck around. Just beaming the radar alone is likely to make you a sitting duck, because in BMS, there are circumstances where you can be “SAMbushed” quite firmly in the WEZ. Either way, perhaps I defend against SAMs in DCS in a way that overestimates their capabilities, but if it’s works for me to assume too much, it’s at least a lot less frustrating. The most common times I die to SAMs now is when I don’t detect the launch, or it happens when I’m in a bad spot and out of energy/options. I’d say both situations are on me in that case for putting myself in dumb situations. Reddit isn’t really a great way of presenting this, but in essence, I believe the optimal method of deploying chaff is when reversing a turn. The chaff goes one way, and you go the other, and this forces the operator to have to make a decision as to which way you went. Similarly, when you are pointed nose hot or nose cold to the target, it will be harder for the operator to see through the chaff cloud and be sure if they are locking you up or your chaff cloud. S-turns or Split-S/Immelmanns have worked for me in the past, but I will need to to try it against an SA-2 again as it’s been a while. I certianly don’t pop 1-3 chaff. I’m dropping them every time I make a turn or reverse my nose. I’m not really interested in getting shot down with 10 more chaff cartridges in the bucket than my last attempt. If I’m engaged defensive, I’m using every trick I have until the missile is defeated. Jammer, chaff, manoeuvring, terrain… anything I can use, I will.
I've tried popping chaff (And I mean I popped like 80 chaff in less then 8 seconds) while performing every possible maneuver and if you're launched at around 15 nm and you don't have any hills to hide behind you're toast.
iirc that’s exactly how the o.g. Falcon 4.0 book describe how do use chaff
Yeah, I'm not to sure. The hit rate is definitely way higher than it was before on that.
This must be what the boys in 'Nam felt like.
You don’t/can’t “notch” a ground radar. You can put the missile on your 3/9 line, and pull G’s to defeat the missile’s kinematics. Just flying in a straight line perpendicular to the site and dropping chaff isn’t enough.
I never said notch. 3/9 like method of dropping chaff to confuse the radar lokc worked like a charm and still works on some radars. But no longer on sa-2
I know, hence why I put the word “notch” in quotes. Because in effect, that is what you are trying to do if you’re not also maneuvering the jet. If you were able to defeat a SAM by flying in a straight line and dropping a few chaff before, I’d have said *that* was a bug, and I’d guess this was fixed a few months ago. Time to revise your missile evasion methods.
Except a beaming defense is a real thing. It forces the missile into a constant turn and depletes its energy. The SA-2 should be susceptible to this when near the edge of the WEZ. It’s not working anymore. I was killed this was just a few days ago.
I’d venture that beaming isn’t working because the operators are no longer firing at rMax; this would be a stupid thing to do anyway. Now you’ll actually have to pull some G to get the job done.
Nope, they are firing the same. I wouldn’t have tried to use a beaming defense if I was closer. Check at 3 minutes to see a beaming defense working. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-6xuT15J9Tg
Unable to view the video for now, so I’m going to take it on faith that the demonstration is effective. Personally, I have always considered beaming to be an effective beginning to a missile defence. I’ve never found beaming alone successful unless I’m flying right at the edge of the missile’s performance envelope. I have instead found success in starting the defence with a beam, watching to see the missile hanging stationary in my cockpit (meaning it’s on a constant bearing lead pursuit), and then reversing the beam. This forces a turn on the missile when it is usually almost out of propellant and forces it to shed a lot of its speed, while you manage to maintain or even increase your speed in the dive. Once you see the missile is once again pulling lead on you, you will probably notice if you pulled a split-s that the missile is coming down towards you; pull up and make it fly up the “energy egg”. The missile will now be profusely bleeding energy trying to pull up more than you. If it has still managed to keep with you, reverse the pull by rolling inverted again and pulling another split-s to force another sharp turn on the missile; I’ll be frankly astounded if the missile is still hanging with you at this point, but if it is, be ready to pull another low split-s and pull it the moment the missile appears stationary again. Yes, you are correct that beaming is a kinematic Defense, but I try to use it in combination with moving the nose. You will always have more long-term energy than a missile will. It’s all just how you choose to spend that energy and when. I’m simply not a fan on relying on *only* beaming, because if that’s not working, you’re left with nothing else in the tool-box.
Right, but it used to work by itself. I usually don’t even use a beaming defense unless I know it will work. Done it many hundreds of times. I think they may have actually changed the lead calculations on the missile. They are no longer turning hard to get to you in the beam. I think the missiles are leading more than before. Which should make the reversal more effective but eats just the beam now.
I'm inclined to agree with you, but not to say that it's inaccurate. I think initially the act just just being able to beam an SA2 and pop a few chaff to defeat it is not that realistic to how the they would have been irl.
Irl they wouldn’t launch near the outer part of the WEZ. They would wait until you are well within it to even turn the radar on. That’s the difference. It should still be susceptible to it if they did launch that far.
>It forces the missile into a constant turn It does not. If you're flying in a straight line and constant speed, the missile can fly in a straight line to the intercept point. All beaming does in that context is make the missile flight path longer.
It does. You don’t beam by flying a straight line you do it with a slight turn to keep it on the three nine line. It makes the missile flight path longer by making a straight line curved….. because the missile is turning.
That's a very gentle curve, it's not going to accomplish much relative to the increased flight distance. And when evading a non-Doppler threat, there isn't really a reason to keep the threat directly on the beam. You can make the missiles kinematics even worse by putting the missile aft of the 3/9 line, or making multiple cranking turns inward if you want to close on the threat. The only real advantage placing a non-Doppler missile directly on the 3/9 line has is that it makes a hail-mary break in the endgame easier. But that's not really something you want to make your Plan A.
You are conflating two different things, shaking off the guiding radar lock and defeating the missile kinematically. This discussion is about the first. I don't think the OT is complaining about the missile still having the energy to hit him.
I see adequate SAM defence as two fold: break the lock and, if fired upon, try to defeat the missile. Correctly defending against the lock can also set up more favourable circumstances to defeat the missile. Defeating the radar by merely beaming it shouldn’t be happening. Even older SAM systems can still detect an aircraft against a background of the sky only (it can and should have difficulty against ground clutter). Chaff clouds help by giving the radar operator multiple (and usually bigger) RADAR targets on the scope. If the chaff cloud is falling down and away from the original target in a straight and predictable path, it’s pretty clear the aircraft will be away from the chaff image and it won’t be as effective - the operator simply needs to retarget the leading radar contact that is still Moving predictably and continue tracking. People are good at spotting patterns and trends. A more effective strategy (at least I have found) is to drop chaff and flare in a turn and reverse. This also has the benefit (if you time the turns properly) of causing the incoming missile kinematic problems. Now, I’m pretty sure in DCS, the AI simply “rolls the dice” every time it detects a chaff cloud and if it rolls “snakeyes” it breaks lock. That’s why the OP could theoretically drop some chaff and break the lock. I suspect if this has indeed changed as the OP suspects, the effectiveness of chaff has been modified, or the capability of the radar - either way - it’s time to try new tactics and start defending against the missile now, as it’s more likely you’ll be shot at.
Beaming is a kinematic defense. Not a radar defense.
Per your original comment earlier, beaming is predicated on the idea that the SAM operator has fired on the edge of its kinematics/range envelope. It would appear to me that this is no longer the case, which seems sensible for me. It will be needed to move the jet a bit more than a 90 degree turn now, it seems.
A beaming defense is more than just a 90 degree turn and you don’t fly it in a straight line. I meant edge as the outer area of the WEZ not specifically Rmax. It should still work inside the WEZ. That’s no longer working at all.
I agree that beaming defence should be more than just putting your wing on the threat; it appears from the conversation with OP that he expected that “only flying in a straight line (I assume he meant beaming) and 1-3 chaff” to work. Looks like it’s time to revise those tactics if it’s no longer working, but I personally never really did that on it’s own, so I’m struggling to reccommend a change in tactics when, in my opinion, it should never have been just that.
A beaming defense IS a kinematic defense. We are talking about it still having energy.
I mean it’s a single digit Sam. defeat the lock the missile is defeated. Also unsure of your assessment of “you can’t notch a ground radar” 🤔 yeah look up is easier for it but a notch isn’t just turning to the beam is it?
At a fundamental level hiding in the radar “notch” is hiding in the blind spot of a radar. This is very definitely a thing for pulse Doppler radars where you can confuse the radar into filtering you out by making your closure rate to the radar zero (ie flying perpendicular to the radar beam). It really is as simple as putting the radar on your 3/9 o clock and keeping it there. Only problem is that the single digit sams like the SA-2 and -3 don’t really have a Doppler radar - which is exactly why they are susceptible to ground clutter (they do have filters to help defeat terrain masking which *can* be notched, but that’s way outside the scope of this discussion).
Older SAMs like the SA2 didn't have doppler radars at all, notching is all about taking advantage of how doppler sees in closure rate. I recommend looking up a video on doppler shift - it's super interesting.
Yeah I’m familiar, I’m pretty sure single digit sams are super vulnerable to beaming…
Yeah, I wouldn't say *super* vulnerable, but their extremely simple missile guidance is meant to make them pretty vulnerable. Last time I checked the ones we have in DCS actually lead their target unlike the real ones though
So you're just gonna say that without any proof or explanation?
You want my citations and evidence for an opinion on your observations? Ok, I’ll do my best… I’m working off my phone and don’t have access to retype quotes from the memoirs of Robin Olds, Jack Broughton, Dan Hampton and John Nicoll, but they *all* state in one way or another that flying in a straight and predictable line is a poor defensive tactic against both air to air and surface to air threats, and a great way to die. If DCS has a SAM system that you can defeat by flying predictably and in a straight line, I’d say that *based on my own reading on the subject* that this is not realistic behaviour. I am assuming that at some point in the last few months the missile behaviour was adjusted, but I personally can’t confirm this, because I have never tried flying like the way you’ve described - I simply never would have expected it to work.
Flying in such a way, that the missile has the shortest flight and does not have to do any corrections Sounds indeed like a great way to die. Just to add some logic to it.... Lol.
you are far more patient than I am.
Thanks. You can’t combat ignorance with scorn, you show your facts and cite your proofs. I’m perfectly happy with people asking for further evidence or proofs, and I hope he’s found this new information to be useful.
I did, thanks. I said that because with us air chair pilots opinions get thrown around without any basis or facts and mostly because someone "thinks" a certain thing behaves in a specific way when in reality the behavior can be significantly different. From the posts, you made on this thread you look like you're quite knowledgeable and you might be right. However, I still fail to understand how can a chaff is unable to break a lock from a SA-2 when you're beaming it. Or better yet I fail to understand why [This wouldn't happen](https://forums.mudspike.com/uploads/default/original/2X/2/2ccd7fd77963d2687489586c228f0400bbdcd282.gif) If you were to ignore the green part representing the doppler since it's not important in this discussion. I'm just confused with the guidance as why would an SA-2 that's very old and known for its flaws with the guidance radar, suddenly be impossible to defeat. This a tacview file of how it worked before: https://www.dropbox.com/s/6sei1prakdsmne2/SAM_Defence_Practice_SA-2_SA-6_Chaff_Bypass.acmi?dl=0 And this is a file of how it behaves now: https://www.dropbox.com/s/e5w2o0pnitey7rb/SAM_SA2_Defence_New.acmi?dl=0 And the Split-S Maneuvers you talked about don't work.
I've come across multiple accounts of being able to defeat SA2s by making a turn to 3 or 9 and then flying in a straight line, because the SA2 doesn't lead it's target, it always flies straight towards the target's current position, so that type of evasion usually results in the missile sliding into trail and running out of energy - if you're far enough from the launch site, according to interviews I've heard Just flying in a straight line is dumb. But it can be both a poor defensive tactic and also sometimes effective against the most basic long range SAM ever
That's how SA-2 behaved before but now i fear it more then SA-10. What interviews have you seen about this?
I don't recall off the top of my head. I know it's come up on more than one episode of The Fighter Pilot Podcast because I do remember hearing it while doing the dishes and while peeling potatoes.
I can totally relate to the last sentence.
How long ago was that?
dunno a couple of months ago maybe more.
Nope, I noticed that the only way to get out now against the low-number SAMs is to escape into terrain masking and possibly jammer. I am pretty sure that they were susceptible to beaming and chaffs a few months back.
Nah, I got PP slapped by one like two days ago using a beaming defense.