Planes Evading SAMs by Diving

[DWReese]

Hi,

I spoke with Sunburn about this. He suggested that I post this and kick this idea around with you all, taping into your opinions and expertise.

I have mentioned this before on the forum, but I would like to revisit the topic.

I have 24 Strike A/C entering an area to release some high-altitude (11K above the target) missiles on some ground targets.

SEAD A/C has already swepy through and eliminated all of the high-altitude shooting SAMs with the exception of one SA-6. From previous play, I know that this SAM has only a one percent chance of hitting my A/C at the distance that they away from the SAM. That's not too much of a risk.

The Strike A/C come in at 36000 feet. At this altitude the Strike A/C are well above the ceiling of the SA-15 and SA-22 SAMs, along with numerous AA units below. The Strike A/C should be able to fly within their target, and launch their missiles. As I said, the only remaining threat is the lone SA-6, with its 1 percent chance of hitting any of the strikers.

In playing this out, however, the SA-6 fires a missile or two in the general direction of the Strike A/C.

The Strike A/C all then dive toward the deck. Now, not only are they still vulnerable to SA-6 missiles, but they now have the SA-15 and SA-22 shooting at them as well. Additionally, during a recent scenario test, two AA guns units also managed to shoot down two of the Strike A/C, and they only had a 1 percent chance of hitting them, as well.

It would seem to me that at some point the Strike A/C would recognize that more dangerous conditions lie below, than above, and that they would choose to stay topside, away from possibly being hit by the SA-15 and SA-22.

As a solution, perhaps a minimum altitude (a floor) could be established for Strike A/C which would still allow them to dive, but only to a certain altitude which would still be above the floor? This way, they wouldn't be in any additional danger. I'm inclined to believe that this tactic would be a little more realistic. If it isn't, then I guess that this is how it will be. But, from a tactical standpoint, I can certainly see a benefit from remaining above the additional threats as best as possible.

Just some food for thought.

Doug

[KungPao]

A dumb solution is to disable the Auto Evade . It is the player (the commander)'s responsibility to recognize the biggest threats and setup a doctrine to the pilots.

A long term solution is to improve the AI.
If the incoming SAMs are identified as SA-15, the AI have the ability to make the right or wrong decision. There will be a possibility the AI chose to turn on the afterburner and go to higher altitude. Or it can keep diving towards to the death trap. It depends on the proficiency setting.


By they way, I hope in the future the AI could also been improved in this situation: they are at the edge of enemy's DLZ Zone. And again, AI can make the decision by itself. Either turning around and run away, or diving just like how the current evade mode handle.

[Cik]

long-term solution is to just implement a checkbox / setting for "do not descend/do not descend below X feet"

real pilots respect a hard deck; a altitude that they will not go below except in extreme circumstances, to avoid hard-to-detect MANPAD/SHORAD units. often enough, descending from 36,000 to 15,000~ or so gives you enough maneuverability; the only reason you would duck into IR/SHORAD range would be to terrain mask, and you would only do that against very high-level radar systems, where chaff/OECM/standoff would not be enough to effectively neutralize the LR radar threat.

[DWReese]

Thanks for responding.

I know that this question will sound stupid, but what exactly are the parameters of auto-evade? Is this something new? I have never checked the box in the first place. perhaps it became the default. By unchecking the box, will my planes match blindly straight ahead with no regard to any danger? In other words, how does auto evade really work?

Doug

[DWReese]

To me, this would be the correct way to go. I just lost five F-15s because they had descended to 1000 feet to avoid an ancient SA-6. A bunch of ZSU-23s shot down five of them because they were hiding from the SA-6's missiles. That doesn't seem correct.

Doug

[Cik]

ORIGINAL: DWReese

Thanks for responding.

I know that this question will sound stupid, but what exactly are the parameters of auto-evade? Is this something new? I have never checked the box in the first place. perhaps it became the default. By unchecking the box, will my planes match blindly straight ahead with no regard to any danger? In other words, how does auto evade really work?

Doug

auto evade is new in the latest patches. planes will dive when threatened, to increase their maneuverability and evasion chance and decrease the incoming missile's range & energy, in addition, sometimes to try to blend into clutter. this all existed before, but there was no behavior modelling the natural tendency for pilots to dive into lowalt to drag missiles. this diving maneuver is just part of standard evasion now, planes will descend when they "beam out" to defend missiles.

To me, this would be the correct way to go. I just lost five F-15s because they had descended to 1000 feet to avoid an ancient SA-6. A bunch of ZSU-23s shot down five of them because they were hiding from the SA-6's missiles. That doesn't seem correct.

Doug

yeah. that's rough. the problem is that while this is a natural behavior:
1. many older SAMs have a 1%~ hit chance, even assuming aircraft is at cruising altitude, in which case descending offers no real benefit
2. since systems always have 1% hit chance no matter what (pretty sure about this) the more systems shooting at you, the worse it is. meaning that braving an SA-6 repeatedly at 36,000 feet at 1% PK per missile is much safer than descending into a bunch of ZU-23 (which also have 1%) nearly unlimited ammo and are far more numerous.

anyway the fix is just to add hard deck behavior. that should be easy, right sunburn? :^)

[DWReese]

Thanks again for everyone's thoughts.

I found auto-evade and unchecked the box.

With the box unchecked, five of the SEAD units were destroyed. They made no effort to evade, but unlike previous versions where they did move laterally but not vertically, with the box unchecked they don't evade at all. In fact, they looked like sitting ducks at a shooting gallery. They made no effort at all and almost every SAM had over 50% chance of killing them. So, this version for planes is not as good with the box unchecked as the previous version.

Now, after the SEAD units did their thing, the strike units, of course, remained at high altitude and were not damaged at all. They dropped their munitions and headed back home.

A quick work around, I guess, would be to set the strikers on a mission but uncheck the box for that mission, while leaving the box checked for the SEAD units. That way, as long as the SEAD units were successful, the strike package would have no problems. Of course, if the SEAD units left some SAMs to be dealt with, then the strike package will be a sitting duck as well.

I really do think that creating a minimum altitude designation is necessary. That way, all of the planes could dive and climb, move and evade, but never go below a certain designated altitude to remain safe from the low-level SAMs and AAA. Hopefully, it will be done as I really think that it is necessary.

Doug

[DWReese]

I just tested it one more time. This time I put the strike package above the SAM ceiling, but did not allow it to evade. Since the SAMs couldn't reach them, they easily destroyed the targets.

Prior to that, however, I sent in 24 SEAD A/C and lost NINE of them to SA-15s. Normally, the SEADs were flying ABOVE the SA-15's ceiling, but when the I-Hawks started shooting at them from a distance, with a very poor kill percentage, they dove for the deck. By going to the deck the SA-15s were able to easily destroy about 40 percent of them. I don't believe that this would happen in real life. I believe that they would take their chances above with a poor percentage shooting SAM rather than go to the deck and face a deadly SA-15 SAM battery.

Again, if I could allow the planes to evade, but not go beneath a certain altitude, it would be great. But, this way is complete and utter suicide.

Doug

[Peter66]

Personally I haven't tested this but from the sounds of it there is no reason why a commander would not be able to set these dive ceilings for an operation.

Although I may well be wrong. Maybe we can see this in the future but for now we have a work around by turning auto evade off and just planning a little extra?

[DWReese]

My assessment is that the little evasion moves that planes made BEFORE this upgrade where they maintained the same altitude but still evaded, was much better than this one. The mere fact that there are so many planes being destroyed reflects this fact. This isn't to say that I don't like the new upgrade. I do, but as it stands right now, you have to decide to the evade button or not. Both can offer benefits, and both have their drawbacks. Obviously, it needs to be tweaked because it is a MAJOR problem. Many have you might not have fully experienced it yet, but when you have five of your super planes get shot down ZSU-23 gun units and some low-altitude SAM shooters, then you know that you have gone too low, and that something needs to be fixed. It would seem that the implementation of a hard deck would be a relatively easy solution.

Thanks for everyone's input.

Doug

[Tailhook]

Perhaps add an option, similar to the exclusion zones (? I think that's what they're called, I don't have my game in front of me. The areas where you can tell ships/subs/aircraft not to go). It could even be in the same window: options for "aircraft will not ascend above ##### / descend below #####. Or just be able to set an altitude for the block.

[mikmykWS]

Just doing some reading on Vietnam and N Vietnamese tactics were to use SAMs to kill aircraft but also to drive them lower into the envelopes of AAA etc. This proved highly effective.

I'm not convinced that pilots would place a hard deck limit over the immediate need to not get hit by a missile or salvo of them because the percent hit is so low. If that was the case why did so many US aircraft succumb to this tactic in Vietnam? My sense is you have more info and time to weigh the odds, make a decision etc. where as a real pilot in a fast engagement will pick getting out of the immediate pickle even if having to deal with the next. Its one thing at a time. Sometimes when playing war games you have to kind of accept that you have more info that the warfighters actually do which impacts your impression over what's a good model and what isn't.

Given you can turn evasive behaviors on and off there is no dumpster fire. If we get into turning different behaviors on and off would you guy accept the hit at the UI level to do that? We honestly have a very busy UI now.

Mike

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: Tailhook
Perhaps add an option, similar to the exclusion zones (? I think that's what they're called, I don't have my game in front of me. The areas where you can tell ships/subs/aircraft not to go). It could even be in the same window: options for "aircraft will not ascend above ##### / descend below #####. Or just be able to set an altitude for the block.

I'm not sure that adding one more switch and option is the solution to every problem.

There is something to be said for minimalism. Look at Apple hardware.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: mikmyk
Just doing some reading on Vietnam and N Vietnamese tactics were to use SAMs to kill aircraft but also to drive them lower into the envelopes of AAA etc. This proved highly effective.

Yom Kippur too. The SA-6 absolutely devastated the IAF, first by getting a few kills on its own and second by forcing everyone else on the deck, where they became easy pickings for ZSU-23-4s and MANPADS.

I'm not that pilots would place a hard deck limit over the immediate need to not get hit by a missile or salvo of them because the percent hit is so low. If that was the case why did so many US aircraft succumb to this tactic in Vietnam? My sense is you have more info and time to weigh the odds, make a decision etc. where as a real pilot in a fast engagement will pick getting out of the immediate pickle even if having to deal with the next. Its one thing at a time. Sometimes when playing war games you have to kind of accept that you have more info that the warfighters actually do which impacts your impression over what's a good model and what isn't.

Exactly.

You're in the cockpit, at med/high altitude. The missile alarm is blaring in your ears. You have no idea if the incoming(s) can get to your altitude or not. All you can think is "need to get down, gain speed and agility and maybe even break lock". Is there a beehive underneath, waiting you? Probably. But you deal with the immediate problem, and in your case that means a missile screaming in to get you right now.

During the helo-to-plane collision that tragically concluded Eagle Claw, one of the Delta folks was asleep inside the C-130 that burned to a crisp. The explosion and fire woke him up, and his immediate thought was "we're airborne and we've just been shot down". His instinct response was to jump out of the side door, without a parachute. When asked afterwards why he did this even though he believed the plane was airborne, his response (I may be paraphrasing) was "Well my problem right then and there was that the plane was burning and that if I stayed there I would die. For the no-chute problem I still had some time to think about it".

Warriors are humans too.

[Dimitris]

You also have to think if what you are proposing works for every situation. Is there a fair chance we may "fix" one setup but break 10 others?

[Dimitris]

Perhaps we should ask a few of our contacts if, while they're maneuvering to avoid a missile, they have the calm of mind to maintain a certain hard deck in order to avoid low-altitude threats.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: DWReese
It would seem that the implementation of a hard deck would be a relatively easy solution.

Would it? Thanks for the code review

[DWReese]

Hahaha.....well, it wouldn't be easy for me. <G> But, for you guys, as fast as you guys move, and the quality that you turn out, you'll probably have it done before I finish typing this. <G>

Seriously, you guys do great work. Whenever you get around to it will, of course, be just fine. I just wanted to let you know what I had experienced and save you some play-testing hours.

Take care, and thanks again for everything that you do for our gaming enjoyment.

Doug

[KungPao]

ORIGINAL: DWReese

My assessment is that the little evasion moves that planes made BEFORE this upgrade where they maintained the same altitude but still evaded, was much better than this one. The mere fact that there are so many planes being destroyed reflects this fact. This isn't to say that I don't like the new upgrade. I do, but as it stands right now, you have to decide to the evade button or not. Both can offer benefits, and both have their drawbacks. Obviously, it needs to be tweaked because it is a MAJOR problem. Many have you might not have fully experienced it yet, but when you have five of your super planes get shot down ZSU-23 gun units and some low-altitude SAM shooters, then you know that you have gone too low, and that something needs to be fixed. It would seem that the implementation of a hard deck would be a relatively easy solution.

Thanks for everyone's input.

Doug

I haven't got a chance to study the new auto evade mode. But if you say the hitting possibility changed from 1% to 50%, then the new mode is a great improvement


the old mode works this way, the A/C in Defensive movement will receive "High-deflection impact (no effect on agility). " instead of a "tail-on impact" or a "headon impact" which will reduce the agility. But in most of cases it will only reduce Final PH by 5~15%. for low agility bomber/transporter, the auto evade can only reduce PH by 1%.

[Peter66]

Good points made by Sunburn and Mike. This makes more sense now for me.

Just to add to the discussion though: What about if commanders had prior intelligence on SAM threats? Would this result in a hard ceiling being made? I'm unsure but it's a worthwhile question to ask. As it stands I think it's good as it is because we still have the option to turn it off right now if we want/need to. This could reflect the question I just asked perhaps?