Warning! SEAD in tutorial 1.

[henri51]

I am no expert at this game and not a former Naval officer like (apparently) most participants on these forums. But I learned something from playing the 1st air war tutorial and watching Baloogan's video of it.

The text in the tutorial implies that the way to get rid of the enemy Sam radars is to use shrike ARMs, which are radar-homing missiles. Well a search on Google showed what I suspected: the Vietnam-era Shrike missiles were easily avoided by the target simply shutting off the radars for a while when the Shrikes are seen incoming (this changed with the later HARM homing missiles which homed in on the radar even if it shut down).

So what is the best way to get rid of the SAM radars? The solution is to bomb them (for example with laser-guided heavy bombs -SAM sites are spread out), which is what Baloogan did when like me, he somehow lost track of the Corsairs holding the Shrikes (bug?). I did somewhat the same, except that I put all the strike aircraft on automatic, and none of them hit the radars, but I lost only 3 planes. You can reduce the chance of getting shot down by jamming enemy radar or having the shrikes along with your bombers forcing the radars to shut down.

Note that this scenario is not very difficult; for example although you have many more, sending up 4 F14s can easily destroy all the enemy air at the start, but it is a learning fun scenario. I would guess that most of the old Harpoon enthusiasts on this forum can win this scenario without losing a single plane.

I have no idea if this is true or not, but I have read that in Vietnam early on, the US Navy ships learned to shut off their radars while ARM missiles were flying around, they had a tendancy to home in on nearby radar sites, which happened to be friendly ships.OTOH this may be in the same class as the urban legend about the infamous test to fire missiles from the rear of bombers (guess what happens to a missile that finds itself flying backwards at 400 knots?...).

[sandy61]

I am not a naval officer, however I was AF enlisted.

The trick to taking out SAM's, is getting them to come out and play. What you need to do, in the game, is to move the Corsairs (or any ARM equipped A/C) into the missiles range and hope your countermeasures (jamming pods and chaff) are working. Have your jammers (EA-6's and EF-111 "spark vark") in the effective range of the SAM before you move in though to degrade the targeting systems. Taking out the acquisition radars helps, but to really pull the teeth, it's the Fire Control Radar that you generally need to kill. It illuminates the target (your jets) for the missile to home in on. Once that's done, I'll target the SAM with a strike with either dumb bombs or a good guided weapon to finish the job.

That being said, the AGM-88 is a great weapon. Most SAM's can be targeted well outside their range. These missiles got a good workout in the First Gulf War and have been upgraded since. You need a little patience targeting some systems, however, since most of the newer systems (starting with the SA-6) aren't as easy to nail down due to the type of radar they use. I find the reality of this game a little frightening sometimes due to the ability of it to model some of systems so accurately.

[trap144]

is a SAM site still a threat without acquisition radar?

[trap144]

I don't think the AI will shut down a radar and displace, so right now all the dynamics of this are disfunctional. It's ducks in a barrel.

[Tomcat84]

If the scenario author builds a defense system that works with prosecution zones and makes sure SAMs are hidden, i would not say it's necessarily ducks in a barrel. But there are of course improvements possible to be able to create a more lethal IADS.

[Dimitris]

I think this is very interesting because it illustrates how you can represent both an 'Iraq 91' and a 'Serbia 99' IADS in Command, using identical hardware and just by changing AI behaviors and proficiency.

Kopp's important historical overview of Soviet-style IADS employment ( http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-SAM-Effectiveness.html ) readily comes to mind.

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

I think this is very interesting because it illustrates how you can represent both an 'Iraq 91' and a 'Serbia 99' IADS in Command, using identical hardware and just by changing AI behaviors and proficiency.

Kopp's important historical overview of Soviet-style IADS employment ( http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-SAM-Effectiveness.html ) readily comes to mind.

Yeah, that isn't a chilling read at all.

[sandy61]

ORIGINAL: trap144

is a SAM site still a threat without acquisition radar?

Yes, they could be. If they can be fired manually, without guidance though, you would indeed have to be very lucky to hit any aircraft.

[AFIntel]

ORIGINAL: T6Simtek

ORIGINAL: trap144

is a SAM site still a threat without acquisition radar?

Yes, they could be. If they can be fired manually, without guidance though, you would indeed have to be very lucky to hit any aircraft.

Are you referring to "acquisition radars" or "target tracking radars"? An acquisition radar performs by doing the "big sky" search and finding a target. It then "hands" the target to the target tracking (aka "threat") radar.

Think of your acquisition radar as your binoculars and the TTR as the soda straw. Sweep the sky with binoculars to locate the target, then tell someone with a soda straw where to point to see an object.

If you were referring to a threat radar, any SAM relying on guidance from a ground system is about useless without it.

In reference to Shrikes, HARMs, etc.: a threat radar shutting down to avoid destruction may be a tactic of a SAM operator to survive, but it's part of the objective of the HARM shooter to make that so. Don't think that a HARM that misses its target because the SAM operator shut the radar down is a failure. If none of your shooters gets whacked in the target area because the sites are silent, you've suceeded.

In my Operation ALLIED FORCE experience, we'd sweep in and pop HARMs off left and right. The fact that not many of them hit radars that shut down was not a failure. We would plow in, pop targets, and beat feet without much SAM engagement. No good guys lost = win! [:D]

Think of it as supression fire. If an infantry unit is laying down heavy machinegun fire while another unit is moving to another position, not many rounds are hitting targets. But if all those rounds are keeping bad guy heads down so they can't engage you, you're doing your job.

[Casinn]

Thanks AF, nicely explained

[sandy61]

It was my understanding during the Vietnam war, the NVA would launch SA-2's blindly (no radar guidance) at the B-52's when we were hammering Hanoi and the SEAD aircraft had done their job. I don't know if the missiles would attempt to turn on their own radars after several seconds of flight time, but the thought of something the size of a 60 foot phone pole coming in my direction would sure make me want to try to avoid it.

Also, if I remember correctly, I do believe several Russian type of missile systems did have a optional optical launch capability. Not sure which ones and I've slept a lot since I read that information.

[Schr75]

@T6Simtek

The SA-2 is a command guidance missile, meaning that it have no seeker, but relies completely on guidance commands sent from the launch site. With no ground radar lock it would not receive any commands and just fly straight ahead, only detonating if it actually hit the target by chance, or got within range of it´s proximity fuse.

It did have a manual optical guidance mode, but the missile command channel could still be jammed, and this system was completely useless at night anyway. You can´t use an optical system on something you can´t see[;)].

Søren

[sandy61]

Yep, that was what I was talking about. Even a large unguided missile fired in your direction will get your attention. It would be a 1 in a million chance that it would hit anything, but from one of the BUFF instructor pilots I knew, it was still something to worry about, and yes, the EWO's knew if it was tracking or not.

[Korvar]

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

I think this is very interesting because it illustrates how you can represent both an 'Iraq 91' and a 'Serbia 99' IADS in Command, using identical hardware and just by changing AI behaviors and proficiency.

Kopp's important historical overview of Soviet-style IADS employment ( *edit* - can't post link yet ) readily comes to mind.

That's a fantastic website; insightful and thorough commentary throughout. Plus, it references John Boyd several times - got to love that! Thanks for sharing!