Soviet/Red side AI does not fire SAHM ?

[bobrock0111 0]

Hello!

Just tested flights of Mig-21bis and Mig-23MLD armed with SAHM only (R-3R and R-24R)...none fired by friendly AI in both instances. Gave the order to my guys to attack my target, wingman said "can not comply" and Flight 1 acknowledged but kept all missiles in mint condition. Mine went off rail just fine (naturally, missed with both R-3R's). So it does not look very good for a SF2 campaign I made for Soviet side to play, don't feel quite competitive out there.

 

Did anyone here experience the same issue and maybe found the solution for this?

Thanks.

[Fubar512 1,350]

Since you've ordered them to "attack your target", are you sure that they weren't inside of the minimum launch parameters for those weapons?

[Snailman 517]

It is important to know what type of plane addon or missile addon were used.

 

The stock MiG-21 and MiG-23 works fine with the stock missiles. The modded MiG-21 have faulty radar settings because of that it cannot guide the R-3R even it could lock on it. But it can't.  The R-3R you should use from Red Side standard. Keep in mind that it performs poorly at low altitude and prone to fail at chaff.

In case of MiG-23 it is most strange, because all the modded R-23 and 24 missiles and MiG-23 variants are fairly operational...

 

Try the RSS compatible test planes with the RSS missiles... Let me know if there are still problems.

[+Gepard 11,295]

A weapon load only with SAHM missiles was not used in WP service.

You had always a mix of IR seekers and SAHM missiles, or IR seekers only.

[bobrock0111 0]

Thanks for replying, the issue remains with AI flying Mig-21 not being able to fire R-3R's.

 

To Fubar512: I tested this multiple times with different ranges of engagement. Also, I tried multiple times with "Engage Air" command as well and the result is always the same, R-3R's are never fired by AI.

 

To Snailman: First of all, I managed to get 24R's to be used by AI flying Mig-23MLD; I changed the export date on weapon to one year earlier to match my campaign settings and it is working now, the AI is engaging and calling Fox 1 quite well. So Mig-23 is back to its full glory as it should be.

Next, I tried to check what you suggested but I am not sure if I understood you completely regarding RSS missiles and compatible planes. If you are referring to missile pack you posted to Downloads under name RED SIDE STANDARD WEAPONS PACK - FULL Beta 0.99, that is the missile pack that I use and only one that features R-3R as far as I can tell. I am not sure which "RSS compatible test planes" are you referring to exactly? Could you be more specific please? I am currently using Mig-21 bis and MF model from Mig-21 Complete pack for SF2 1.8 by ataribaby (http://combatace.com/topic/44584-mig-21-complete-pack-sf2-18/). Thanks for your help!

 

A weapon load only with SAHM missiles was not used in WP service.

You had always a mix of IR seekers and SAHM missiles, or IR seekers only.

Thanks Gepard, I appreciate the information. I only did this to test AI ability to fire R-3R in combat due to the issue I experienced. I was not going for historical accuracy on this particular setup.

Edited February 23, 2016 by bobrock0111

[Snailman 517]

A weapon load only with SAHM missiles was not used in WP service.

You had always a mix of IR seekers and SAHM missiles, or IR seekers only.

 

As far as I know, the MIG-23 was unable to load mixed R-23/24  either IR head OR SAHM...

[Snailman 517]

Thanks for replying, the issue remains with AI flying Mig-21 not being able to fire R-3R's.

 

To Snailman: First of all, I managed to get 24R's to be used by AI flying Mig-23MLD; I changed the export date on weapon to one year earlier to match my campaign settings and it is working now, the AI is engaging and calling Fox 1 quite well. So Mig-23 is back to its full glory as it should be.

Next, I tried to check what you suggested but I am not sure if I understood you completely regarding RSS missiles and compatible planes. If you are referring to missile pack you posted to Downloads under name RED SIDE STANDARD WEAPONS PACK - FULL Beta 0.99, that is the missile pack that I use and only one that features R-3R as far as I can tell. I am not sure which "RSS compatible test planes" are you referring to exactly? Could you be more specific please? I am currently using Mig-21 bis and MF model from Mig-21 Complete pack for SF2 1.8 by ataribaby (http://combatace.com/topic/44584-mig-21-complete-pack-sf2-18/). Thanks for your help!

 

What I understand of your testing, is that you have installed the MiG-21 addon and the AI was flying those planes armed with my R-3R... So yes they are likely to fail to use SAHM

 

Yes, the 0.99 is the latest published variant. Update will come together with the new Su-17 series.

 

http://combatace.com/files/file/15168-mig-21mf-mig-23mf-rssw-compatible-test-planes/

 

 

These are the planes.

 

 

I suggest the following: Remove the modded MiG-21 and try to use the stock planes (or those I made for RSS, because they are also stock, just flyable and provided with realistic loadout)  I will try it myself as soon as I get free of work.

Edited February 24, 2016 by Snailman

[Tzareff 6]

"Mig-21 Complete pack for SF2 1.8" is made for diferent patch level of the game, also instal combination SF2full + SFNA chnage the [DetectSystem] format in "plane name_DATA.INI " and Avionics.INI .

In atarybabys pack is stated:

 

RadarAzimuthLimit=17.66
RadarElevationLimit=17.66

 wich is corect(probably) but dont work in SF full megred instal.(atleast for me). Try to edit avionics.INI this dont afect AI behavior but will help you to use the radar and extract the original MiG-21xx_DATA.INI from TW CAT,archives.

In TW Mig-21 data.INI the above values are

RadarAzimuthLimit=30
RadarElevationLimit=15 /or even 30 for Mig-21 Bis

and for me these works fine with RSS weapons pack  and R-3R

[Snailman 517]

Note the difference between AI and Player craft. Keep in mind that data.ini detectsystem affects only AI planes, the player's plane and radar settings are controlled by avionics.ini. Modders should not forget to use the same values in both!

 

 

This is the problem here:

 

MiG-21MF (pack 1.8)    data.ini   (Which is responsible for AI planes)

[DetectSystem]
Name=RP-21
RadarType=AIR_INTERCEPT
RadarFamilyName=SpinScan
RangeUnit=KM
RadarAzimuthLimit=17.66
RadarElevationLimit=17.66
RadarSearchTime=2.0
RadarSearchRange=30               This means the AI plane's radar detect a target  of  10m2 RCS   at the range of 12Km
RadarSearchStrength=40
RadarTrackTime=5.0
RadarTrackRange=11                  This means the AI plane's radar can lock on a target  of  10m2 RCS   at the range of  2Km only!!!!!  So basically useless especially against small targets. R-3R has a minimum range of 1.25Km.
RadarTrackStrength=20
RadarSearchFreq=10.5
RadarTrackFreq=10.5
RadarSearchCW=FALSE
RadarTrackCW=FALSE
VisualBlindArc=5,6,7
VisualRestrictedArc=4L,8L,12L
MaxVisibleDistance=6000.0
HasRWR=TRUE
RWRMinFreq=5.5
RWRMaxFreq=10.4
RWRCanDetectCW=TRUE

 

 

MiG-21MF (pack 1.8)    avionics.ini   (Responsible for Player aircraft)

 

[AvionicsData]
AvailableModes=SEARCH,ACQUISITION,TRACK,BORESIGHT
RangeUnit=KM
RangeSetting[1]=20
RadarPosition=0.0,4.0,0.0
MaxElevationAngle=17.66
MinElevationAngle=-17.66
MaxAzimuthAngle=56
MinAltitude=1200.0
MinReturn=0.05
SearchRangeSetting=1
ScanPattern[1].BarElevation[1]=4.0
ScanPattern[1].BarElevation[2]=0.0
ScanPattern[1].BarElevation[3]=-4.0
ScanPattern[1].ScanRate=70
ScanPattern[1].ScanBeamAngle=6.0
ScanPattern[1].ScanArc=56
SearchRange=20                              Your plane detects a target  of  10m2 RCS   at the range of 5Km
SearchStrength=25
SearchTargetTime=0.50
AcquisitionSymbolSpeed=1.5
AcquisitionTime=1.0
LostAquisitionTime=1.0
TrackRangeSetting=1
TrackCapabilities=
TrackRange=11                             Your plane can lock on a target  of  10m2 RCS  at the range of 2Km               
TrackStrength=20
TrackMemroyTime=5.0
BoresightRangeSetting=1
BoresightElevation=1.5
BoresightAzimuth=0.0
BoresightBeamAngle=12

 

 

Also don't be surprised if these useless radars cannot guide you own missiles especially at low altitude.

 

According to technical data, the stock values for the RP-21 radars are quite acceptable.  Btw, the MiG-21MF used the RP-21M radar, with capability to guide the R-3R.

Edited February 24, 2016 by Snailman

[+Gepard 11,295]

Thanks Gepard, I appreciate the information. I only did this to test AI ability to fire R-3R in combat due to the issue I experienced. I was not going for historical accuracy on this particular setup.

 

The R-3R missile was used on MiG-21S, MiG-21SM, MiG-21SMT and MiG-21bis. It was carried on the outer pylons, while the inner pylons were used for R-60 missiles, either single or dual racks. Other MiG-21 versions were unable to use the R-3R. They used the RS-2U Alkali.

Only the MiG-23S used the R-3R missile, but no R-23, on the wing pylons. The fuselage pylons were armed with R-3S.

All other MiG-23 combatversions used the Apex missiles, but not the R-3R. The radar of the MiG-23 was unable to guide the R-3R.

 

As far as I know, the MIG-23 was unable to load mixed R-23/24  either IR head OR SAHM...

 

This is partly true, but only for the MiG-23M and MF. This plane was able to use only IR seeker R-23T or SAHM R-23R. To change the load it was neccessary to replace one part of the weaponcontrol system.

From MiG-23ML it was possible to load R-23 and R-24 (no R-24 on earlier MiG-23 versions). It was also possible to use mixed load of IR seekers and SAHM Apex. It was common to fly with one R-24R and one R-24T on the same plane.

On the fuselage pylons only R-60 were used. Either single or dual racks. East german MiG-23 used an unique combination of one dual rack and one single rack for the R-60, so they had 3 Aphid on board.

[bobrock0111 0]

The R-3R missile was used on MiG-21S, MiG-21SM, MiG-21SMT and MiG-21bis. It was carried on the outer pylons, while the inner pylons were used for R-60 missiles, either single or dual racks. Other MiG-21 versions were unable to use the R-3R. They used the RS-2U Alkali.

Only the MiG-23S used the R-3R missile, but no R-23, on the wing pylons. The fuselage pylons were armed with R-3S.

All other MiG-23 combatversions used the Apex missiles, but not the R-3R. The radar of the MiG-23 was unable to guide the R-3R.

 

 

This is partly true, but only for the MiG-23M and MF. This plane was able to use only IR seeker R-23T or SAHM R-23R. To change the load it was neccessary to replace one part of the weaponcontrol system.

From MiG-23ML it was possible to load R-23 and R-24 (no R-24 on earlier MiG-23 versions). It was also possible to use mixed load of IR seekers and SAHM Apex. It was common to fly with one R-24R and one R-24T on the same plane.

On the fuselage pylons only R-60 were used. Either single or dual racks. East german MiG-23 used an unique combination of one dual rack and one single rack for the R-60, so they had 3 Aphid on board.

 

This is really great info Gepard, thanks! Do you happen to know which Mig-21 variant and when exactly got countermeasures, like chaff and flare? Was it Mig-21bis?

[bobrock0111 0]

What I understand of your testing, is that you have installed the MiG-21 addon and the AI was flying those planes armed with my R-3R... So yes they are likely to fail to use SAHM

 

Yes, the 0.99 is the latest published variant. Update will come together with the new Su-17 series.

 

http://combatace.com/files/file/15168-mig-21mf-mig-23mf-rssw-compatible-test-planes/

 

 

These are the planes.

 

 

I suggest the following: Remove the modded MiG-21 and try to use the stock planes (or those I made for RSS, because they are also stock, just flyable and provided with realistic loadout)  I will try it myself as soon as I get free of work.

 

So I kinda made some progress on this; I tried the Mig-21MF from the pack you have suggested and got one AI to actually fire a single R-3R missile. It was only one, out of 8 ship flight, spending around 5-6 minutes in actual combat. The funny thing is that after that I tried same scenario with Mig-21bis from previous "Mig-21 Complete pack for SF2 1.8"  and got pretty much the same result: two R-3R were fired (and missed) by friendly AI for the whole intercept mission. So basically it kinda works, which is great, but AI will pretty much go for guns or do nothing (considering that I made them carry only R-3R's beside gun) most of the time instead using R-3R. Do you have any further suggestions as to making AI more fond of firing these?

I have noticed that the Mig-21MF from your pack does have settings you highlighted in your last post much higher (RadarSearchRange, etc) but I coould not tell that AI behaved different from one flying Mig-21bis from 1.8 collection. By the way, those numbers in [DetectSystem] RadarTrackRange: what are they exactly?

 

For my own plane, I also tried increasing some values for my plane in AvionicsData, like extending tracking range but again, felt I can get a lock only around 2 km away. Is that realistic for RP-22 radar in Mig-21bis? I realize they are two completely different sims and maybe its wrong to compare, but In DCS you get fire authorized lights at 5km from locked target and can lock from way further.

 

Sorry if I am annoying with all these questions, I just enjoy flying Migs and would like my AI to give a decent fight. thanks for sharing any info!

[Snailman 517]

I had to work early so I could not make tests(

 

Basically, the position in which you give the engage order matters. The RSS variant of the  R-3R  has a launch envelope of 1.5 -7.9 Km.  The radar of the given MiG-21 variant must see and be able to lock on the target. Also, the AI tries to engage SAHM in BVR situations, which in case of the short range, happens rarely.

 

But, I will make tests myself, and return to you.

[Do335 382]

Snailman.. just an idea, in aircraftaidata.ini defines gun ranges for AI. As default most AI skill levels' maxgunrange is 2000m+, so it will probably shoot guns instead of missiles around that distance. Just an idea tho.

[Snailman 517]

Yes, that's what I thought, it is probably "more convenient" for them to use cannon at close range rather than a SAHM with min. range of 1.25.

 

This problem is mostly about radar lock, and partly close range. But I do some tests to be sure it's not the missile.

 

 

So I kinda made some progress on this; I tried the Mig-21MF from the pack you have suggested and got one AI to actually fire a single R-3R missile. It was only one, out of 8 ship flight, spending around 5-6 minutes in actual combat. The funny thing is that after that I tried same scenario with Mig-21bis from previous "Mig-21 Complete pack for SF2 1.8"  and got pretty much the same result: two R-3R were fired (and missed) by friendly AI for the whole intercept mission. So basically it kinda works, which is great, but AI will pretty much go for guns or do nothing (considering that I made them carry only R-3R's beside gun) most of the time instead using R-3R. Do you have any further suggestions as to making AI more fond of firing these?

I have noticed that the Mig-21MF from your pack does have settings you highlighted in your last post much higher (RadarSearchRange, etc) but I coould not tell that AI behaved different from one flying Mig-21bis from 1.8 collection. By the way, those numbers in [DetectSystem] RadarTrackRange: what are they exactly?

 

For my own plane, I also tried increasing some values for my plane in AvionicsData, like extending tracking range but again, felt I can get a lock only around 2 km away. Is that realistic for RP-22 radar in Mig-21bis? I realize they are two completely different sims and maybe its wrong to compare, but In DCS you get fire authorized lights at 5km from locked target and can lock from way further.

 

Sorry if I am annoying with all these questions, I just enjoy flying Migs and would like my AI to give a decent fight. thanks for sharing any info!

 

Forget the MiG-21 from the pack for now, try stock enemy AI and RSS friendly AI. They both use the better radar setting. Order your wingmen to engage air, well outside range, at about 10Kms. Also better to engage from 6 oclock rather than head on. At closing range, time is limited. Altitude counts, because these are not look down radars, it the target is lower than you, or starts to dive into ground clutter-  the lock breaks. Low altitude also creates noise, and having low noise resistance the radar guidance can fail. Same for low noise resistance IRM can lock on the sun.

 

 

 

Generally ranges work like this:

 

Search range:  Max detection range (simple)

Search strength:  100 means the radar can detect a target of 10m2 at it's Search range. NOT a fixed value, it depends on range!!   Example:  Range 30   Strength 100 means  the radar can detect a 10m2 target at 30Km,  so it can detect a 5m2 at 15Km - an so on.

                                 A radar with range 200 and strength 80 detects  a target of 12.5m2 at max,  and 10m2 at 160Km.

 

Noise jamming seems to decrease the Search range in a way like this:  30 Search range - 30 jamming strength means this jammer takes out the radar completely. Not sure but to me it seemed so.

 

Tracking range: Max range of ability to lock the target. Outside this you can see but cannot lock.  Not sure if noise jamming affects this the same way - probably.

Tracking strength: Same of Search strength. 100 means 10m2 at max range.  Presumably deceptive jamming decreases this the same way, but does not prevent the lock but cause the missile to go dumb later (or cannot home on target at all)

 

 

Generally, it is very important for any SAHM (and beam rider for SAM, etc) to have a good radar as well - not only the missile parameters count.

[+Gepard 11,295]

This is really great info Gepard, thanks! Do you happen to know which Mig-21 variant and when exactly got countermeasures, like chaff and flare? Was it Mig-21bis?

 

Countermeasure was not avaiable for the most MiG-21 versions.

 

The MiG-21bis was able to carry the SPS-141 jammer pod (or was it SPS-142?). In this pod also flares were included.

The MIG-21/93 alias MiG-21BISON had chaff flare dipnensers and internal jammer.

Egypt had updated some MiG-21 with chaff/flare in the 80ths.

But all other MiG-21 versions had had no CM, AFIIK.

[Snailman 517]

Countermeasure was not avaiable for the most MiG-21 versions.

 

The MiG-21bis was able to carry the SPS-141 jammer pod (or was it SPS-142?). In this pod also flares were included.

The MIG-21/93 alias MiG-21BISON had chaff flare dipnensers and internal jammer.

Egypt had updated some MiG-21 with chaff/flare in the 80ths.

But all other MiG-21 versions had had no CM, AFIIK.

 

It is a subject of my research as well...  generally, those MiG-21 variants which could use the SPRD (Take off booster) could be equipped with CM pods. Yes, the SPS-141-100 (MiG-21 variant) could hold CM charges, also the MiG-21R has extra RWR, and CM/Illum flash launchers in the Recon pod.

Usually - like all soviet equipment - was retrofitted, so no surprise if older M/MF S/SM/SMT etc were also given updates. Not to mention post-production upgrade packs like 93, 98 and 2000

[+Gepard 11,295]

In the LSK (east german Air Force), the only CM capable MiG-21 version was the bis. Maybe this was different from Air Force to Air Force. But even the bis, only rarly carried the pod. I remember, that one former pilot told me, that the SPS pod generated so many drag, that if two planes made a common take off run and only one plane carried the pod, the plane without pod was able to hold the position in formation on full military thrust, while the other plane was already on afterburner.

[bobrock0111 0]

Yes, that's what I thought, it is probably "more convenient" for them to use cannon at close range rather than a SAHM with min. range of 1.25.

 

This problem is mostly about radar lock, and partly close range. But I do some tests to be sure it's not the missile.

 

 

 

Forget the MiG-21 from the pack for now, try stock enemy AI and RSS friendly AI. They both use the better radar setting. Order your wingmen to engage air, well outside range, at about 10Kms. Also better to engage from 6 oclock rather than head on. At closing range, time is limited. Altitude counts, because these are not look down radars, it the target is lower than you, or starts to dive into ground clutter-  the lock breaks. Low altitude also creates noise, and having low noise resistance the radar guidance can fail. Same for low noise resistance IRM can lock on the sun.

 

 

 

Generally ranges work like this:

 

Search range:  Max detection range (simple)

Search strength:  100 means the radar can detect a target of 10m2 at it's Search range. NOT a fixed value, it depends on range!!   Example:  Range 30   Strength 100 means  the radar can detect a 10m2 target at 30Km,  so it can detect a 5m2 at 15Km - an so on.

                                 A radar with range 200 and strength 80 detects  a target of 12.5m2 at max,  and 10m2 at 160Km.

 

Noise jamming seems to decrease the Search range in a way like this:  30 Search range - 30 jamming strength means this jammer takes out the radar completely. Not sure but to me it seemed so.

 

Tracking range: Max range of ability to lock the target. Outside this you can see but cannot lock.  Not sure if noise jamming affects this the same way - probably.

Tracking strength: Same of Search strength. 100 means 10m2 at max range.  Presumably deceptive jamming decreases this the same way, but does not prevent the lock but cause the missile to go dumb later (or cannot home on target at all)

 

 

Generally, it is very important for any SAHM (and beam rider for SAM, etc) to have a good radar as well - not only the missile parameters count.

 

Thanks for clearing that for me; I will continue to test your Mig-21MF from RSS pack and maybe look into range settings for AI myself. Currently, with MF, I am getting around 1-2 R-3R's fired by friendly AI per mission, so not bad, it is a step in right direction. I will wait for your feedback once you had a chance to test it. One thing I did notice is that when I am in boresight mode and locked on enemy, the lock tends to break from enemy and jump to nearby friendly, like a lot. I am not sure if this is intended or normal behavior of boresight mode lock but maybe it is worth mentioning. I am keeping my aiming piper at enemy closely, but it still jumps to friendly very often.

In the LSK (east german Air Force), the only CM capable MiG-21 version was the bis. Maybe this was different from Air Force to Air Force. But even the bis, only rarly carried the pod. I remember, that one former pilot told me, that the SPS pod generated so many drag, that if two planes made a common take off run and only one plane carried the pod, the plane without pod was able to hold the position in formation on full military thrust, while the other plane was already on afterburner.

 

Thanks for getting back to me on this Gepard, I appreciate it. I wonder why did the Soviets/WP and importing Arab nations wait so long to include CM module? Do you think they simply did not have technology for it or was it a design decision/omission? It is strange that they would allow themselves to be at such disadvantage for so long (a decade???). What do you think?

[+Gepard 11,295]

Thanks for getting back to me on this Gepard, I appreciate it. I wonder why did the Soviets/WP and importing Arab nations wait so long to include CM module? Do you think they simply did not have technology for it or was it a design decision/omission? It is strange that they would allow themselves to be at such disadvantage for so long (a decade???). What do you think?

 

I think, that the soviets relied more on standoff jammers. In early 1973 they tested a SPS-141 jammer, which was placed on the truck, in Syria, near the Mount Hermon, which was in israeli hand and was defended by a HAWK SAM battery. They were able to neutralize the HAWK completly, so that no missile hit a MiG.

After the unification of Germany the Bundesluftwaffe tested the soviet jammers and found out, that they were capable to jam nearly all western systems. During the tests, they put the SPS jammers on a F-4F Phantom and flew it against all available systems.

Some tests were done in Decci (Italy), where they simulated figtherbomber attacks on NATO warships. In all simulated attacks, the ships were not able to lock on the plane when it was in direct approach. Under the hand, the soviet jammer technology was praised by the german Luftwaffe testers.

 

The soviets were very reluctant to sell sensitive technology. They had 3 levels of weapon technology. The highest was for soviet use only. The second for close allies in WP. The third for unreliable allies like Romania and Hungary and the rest of the world. So the really important systems came not in danger to fall in western hand. Captured planes and systems would always have a weaker performance than original soviet ones.

One example. The first soviet T-72 for third world had a front turret armour of 280 mm. In the same time, the WP T-72 had 355 mm armour and the soviet T-72 had had around 400 mm. Whith the result, that the NATO standard gun L7 (M68) caliber 105 mm could at a distance of 1.000 m easily destroy the 3rd world T-72, had some problems with WP T-72 and was unable to penetrate the soviet T-72.

The same structure you see with planes, missiles, sensors, jammers etc.

 

If really neccessary, the soviets adapted very fast protective systems, as you see in Afghanistan war when the Manpads appeared in Maddjehedin hands. In few weeks the soviets installed flare dispenser and later IR jammers etc. Only one year after the israelis used  reactive armour plates (ERA) on their tanks in Lebanon war, the soviets installed ERA armour on their tanks. The rest of the world got no ERA.

Edited February 27, 2016 by Gepard

[Nicholas Bell 117]

I think, that the soviets relied more on standoff jammers. In early 1973 they tested a SPS-141 jammer, which was placed on the truck, in Syria, near the Mount Hermon, which was in israeli hand and was defended by a HAWK SAM battery. They were able to neutralize the HAWK completly, so that no missile hit a MiG.

 

This caught my eye as I was an US Army Air Defense officer in IHAWK in the 1980s (and spent several years in Wuerzburg).  The Soviets didn't have the technology to miniaturize ECCM equipment and relied on "brute force" jamming requiring large power sources - thus the reliance on stand-off jammers.   IHAWK was upgraded with electro-optical control used in conjunction with data-links to remote acquisition sources in the mid-80's as a counter to this.  Any aircraft that was self-jamming was of course susceptible to HOJ - another good reason to use standoff jamming.   There was this large red button labeled "HOJ" on the console controlling the HPIR radar which use was usually proceeded by the comment "F***k you" by the radar operator when we were training (imagine SAM Simulator using actual equipment )  HOJ made engagements simple.

[bobrock0111 0]

I think, that the soviets relied more on standoff jammers. In early 1973 they tested a SPS-141 jammer, which was placed on the truck, in Syria, near the Mount Hermon, which was in israeli hand and was defended by a HAWK SAM battery. They were able to neutralize the HAWK completly, so that no missile hit a MiG.

After the unification of Germany the Bundesluftwaffe tested the soviet jammers and found out, that they were capable to jam nearly all western systems. During the tests, they put the SPS jammers on a F-4F Phantom and flew it against all available systems.

Some tests were done in Decci (Italy), where they simulated figtherbomber attacks on NATO warships. In all simulated attacks, the ships were not able to lock on the plane when it was in direct approach. Under the hand, the soviet jammer technology was praised by the german Luftwaffe testers.

 

The soviets were very reluctant to sell sensitive technology. They had 3 levels of weapon technology. The highest was for soviet use only. The second for close allies in WP. The third for unreliable allies like Romania and Hungary and the rest of the world. So the really important systems came not in danger to fall in western hand. Captured planes and systems would always have a weaker performance than original soviet ones.

One example. The first soviet T-72 for third world had a front turret armour of 280 mm. In the same time, the WP T-72 had 355 mm armour and the soviet T-72 had had around 400 mm. Whith the result, that the NATO standard gun L7 (M68) caliber 105 mm could at a distance of 1.000 m easily destroy the 3rd world T-72, had some problems with WP T-72 and was unable to penetrate the soviet T-72.

The same structure you see with planes, missiles, sensors, jammers etc.

 

If really neccessary, the soviets adapted very fast protective systems, as you see in Afghanistan war when the Manpads appeared in Maddjehedin hands. In few weeks the soviets installed flare dispenser and later IR jammers etc. Only one year after the israelis used  reactive armour plates (ERA) on their tanks in Lebanon war, the soviets installed ERA armour on their tanks. The rest of the world got no ERA.

 

Interesting... as usual, thanks for sharing.

This caught my eye as I was an US Army Air Defense officer in IHAWK in the 1980s (and spent several years in Wuerzburg).  The Soviets didn't have the technology to miniaturize ECCM equipment and relied on "brute force" jamming requiring large power sources - thus the reliance on stand-off jammers.   IHAWK was upgraded with electro-optical control used in conjunction with data-links to remote acquisition sources in the mid-80's as a counter to this.  Any aircraft that was self-jamming was of course susceptible to HOJ - another good reason to use standoff jamming.   There was this large red button labeled "HOJ" on the console controlling the HPIR radar which use was usually proceeded by the comment "F***k you" by the radar operator when we were training (imagine SAM Simulator using actual equipment )  HOJ made engagements simple.

 

I think that the FU audio cue should have been mandatory part of many weapon systems, in users language as well...:) It is so '80's :)

 

So are you saying that HOJ was that reliable on Hawk, highly dependable? thanks.

[Nicholas Bell 117]

So are you saying that HOJ was that reliable on Hawk, highly dependable? thanks.

 

From what I was told, yes.  Capable of handling frequency jumping, although most Soviet jammers were broadband (we did train on a type of "frequency hook" (I don't recall the exact nomenclature anymore) which took your emitted frequency and then modulated the return to fool the radar).  The beauty of HOJ is that it is passive and tracks the strongest emitter.  Sure the pilot could shut off his ECM if he knew he was being tracked HOJ by a missile, but then risks being reacquired.  The missile also had memory, and the ability to coast - it wouldn't immediately self-destruct which in theory negated short pulsing.  Of course nothing is perfect.  And there's a lot to contend with, especially when you've got Wild Weasels breathing down your neck.  Those were the most difficult training scenarios (and yes, it was really like playing a coop computer game with others in the van with you and others over radio directing you).  My wartime plan was to dig a deep trench right outside the control van (I was close to the door!).

[+Gepard 11,295]

This caught my eye as I was an US Army Air Defense officer in IHAWK in the 1980s (and spent several years in Wuerzburg).  The Soviets didn't have the technology to miniaturize ECCM equipment and relied on "brute force" jamming requiring large power sources - thus the reliance on stand-off jammers.   IHAWK was upgraded with electro-optical control used in conjunction with data-links to remote acquisition sources in the mid-80's as a counter to this.  Any aircraft that was self-jamming was of course susceptible to HOJ - another good reason to use standoff jamming.   There was this large red button labeled "HOJ" on the console controlling the HPIR radar which use was usually proceeded by the comment "F***k you" by the radar operator when we were training (imagine SAM Simulator using actual equipment )  HOJ made engagements simple.

 

The Luftwaffe tests in early 90th showed an other picture. Improved HAWK was out of work, when jammed with SPS-141 or SPS-142. Perhaps the german HAWK system was different from american HAWK.

On the other hand the soviets had a line of excellent Anti Radar Missiles in the 80th. So a SAM operator should have been aware, that under cover of a jammer an ANTI-RADAR Missile could be on the way.

During one military show program on a "day of open door", i have seen in the Military Technical School Bad Düben (in the mid 80th) a simulation of SAM operator training which included the attack on enemy aircraft with HARM on the own SAM battery. It started with passive jamming on the radar screen, which became suddenly dotted with a lot of small dots, then a part of the radar screen became white (active jamming) and then appeared a small fast moving dot toward the centre of the radar screen. The operator handed over the guidance of a started SAM missile toward an other SAM Radar station and then switched of the radar.

Edited March 1, 2016 by Gepard

[Snailman 517]

Exactly because of Siren jammers they introduced the Improved Hawk. Which also fell to the MVG variant of the Siren. No aircraft using that jammer was ever shot down, not even Iraqi ones. Note that SPS-14x series were the only ones in the cold war soviet arsenal which they could equip fighter sized planes.

 

Iraqi vs Iranian war reports in this case of course contradict about destroyed Hawk batteries - similary to NVA SAM sites destroyed by US air power - but planes covered with SPS-141MVG were never ever shot down.

 

Of course the SPS-141 series jammers have nothing to do with stand off noise jamming - they were combined multi-mode deceptive jammers.  Stand off jamming was done by heavy ECM planes using entire arsenals of combined "cumulative" packs of equipment - usually named after flowers.

 

Regarding HOJ, even the most primitive SA-2B  Dvina system in Vietnam could be used in passive mode, and later ones have had specialized modes to handle jamming. It that case also not the noise jamming was effective but the complete blocking of the Fan Song uplink channel until the factory update arrived to filter it out. I need to note here that contrary to what we see in the stock SF games, Vietnam was never supplied with Dyesna or Volkhov (SA-2C/E) systems during the war, only Dvina (SA-2B/F) with 11D (hi altitude only) and 11DM (Low altitude, improved turn G) missiles and mid life updates to the Fan Song B and daylight optics equipped Fan Song F.

 

From what I was told, yes.  Capable of handling frequency jumping, although most Soviet jammers were broadband (we did train on a type of "frequency hook" (I don't recall the exact nomenclature anymore) which took your emitted frequency and then modulated the return to fool the radar).  The beauty of HOJ is that it is passive and tracks the strongest emitter.  Sure the pilot could shut off his ECM if he knew he was being tracked HOJ by a missile, but then risks being reacquired.  The missile also had memory, and the ability to coast - it wouldn't immediately self-destruct which in theory negated short pulsing.  Of course nothing is perfect.  And there's a lot to contend with, especially when you've got Wild Weasels breathing down your neck.  Those were the most difficult training scenarios (and yes, it was really like playing a coop computer game with others in the van with you and others over radio directing you).  My wartime plan was to dig a deep trench right outside the control van (I was close to the door!).

 

This sound like the same stuff I was told by our retired Volkhov battery commanders )))  One of them has participated in live fire exercise against simulated stealth threat. And there's the story of Zoltan Dani whose battery scored two F-117A hits, bringing down one of them.

 

 

The operator handed over the guidance of a started SAM missile toward an other SAM Radar station and then switched of the radar.

 

Even though the soviet systems were much larger in size compared with a similarly capable western system - but this was the biggest advantage to use the network fire control system. Batteries pass on data up on the automatic data transfer and provide target data to rest of the batteries and EW stations. That is how it is possible to fire in passive mode on jamming targets without height or distance data. The only drawback is direct homing, no lead computing it this mode (Dvina, Volkhov and Neva systems)

 

Btw, SF in-game mechanics were programmed to give no lead computing to "Beam Rider" type SAMs leaving them with only the faulty "tail chasing" logic like Rear60 type IRMs. Same result.