Chaos in the Skies: The Devastating Impact of the Su-25SM3 in War Thunder

Machinery of War Discussion Aircraft
,
790

ALARM can only track the Pantsir search radar, so if its turned that off and just using the track radar or IRST ALARM will be blind to it.

List of systems correct up to 1 year ago of radars ALARM can track;

Spoiler

US

M163 Track: I band, 8-10 GHz

M247 Search: I band, 8-10 GHz

M247 Track(APG-66): J band, 10-20 GHz

SAG MPDR-16 Search radar (XM975, FlaRakPz, FlaRakRad, Roland 1): D band, 1-2 GHz

Thomson-CSF Domino 30 Track radar (XM975, FlaRakPz, FlaRakRad, Roland 1): J band, 10-20 GHz

ADATS Search: I band, 8-10 GHz

Germany

SAG MPDR-12 Search radar (Gepard, Gepard 1A2): E band, 2-3 GHz

SAZ purse doppler monopulse Track radar (Gepard, Gepard 1A2): J band, 10-20 GHz

SAG MPDR-16 Search radar (XM975, FlaRakPz, FlaRakRad, Roland 1): D band, 1-2 GHz

Thomson-CSF Domino 30 Track radar (XM975, FlaRakPz, FlaRakRad, Roland 1): J band, 10-20 GHz

USSR

1RL34(ZSU-37-2): I band, 8-10 GHz

1RL33(ZSU-23-4): J band, 10-20 GHz

9S86 Track(Strela-10M2): I band, 8-10 GHz

1RL144 Search(2S6): E band, 2-3 GHz

1RL144 Track(2S6): J band, 10-20 GHz

1RS1 Search(Pantsir-S1) F band, 3-4GHz

UK

Marconi S-400(Marksman system): I band, 8-10 GHz

Rooikat Search(ZA-35): E band, 2-3 GHz

ADATS Search: I band, 8-10 GHz

Japan

Type 87 Search: I band, 8-10 GHz

Type 87 Track: J band, 10-20 GHz

China

PGZ-09 Search: E band, 2-3 GHz

PGZ-09 Track: J band, 10-20 GHz

CLC-1 Search(PGZ04A): E band, 2-3 GHz

Tor-M1 Search: F band, 3-4 GHz

Italy

SMA VPS-A05 Search(OTOMATIC): E band, 2-3 GHz

France

DR-VC-1A Search(AMX-30DCA): E band, 2-3 GHz

Rodeo-2 Search(SANTAL): E band, 2-3 GHz

SAG MPDR-16 Search radar (XM975, FlaRakPz, FlaRakRad, Roland 1): D band, 1-2 GHz

Crotale Search: E band, 2-3 GHz

Crotale Track: J band, 10-20 GHz

Sweden

Marconi S-400(VEAK 40): I band, 8-10 GHz

Thomson CSF Harfang TRS 2620 H(Lvkv 9040C): I band, 8-10 GHz

ASRAD Search: I band, 8-10 GHz

Crotale Search: E band, 2-3 GHz

Crotale Track: J band, 10-20 GHz

Israel

M163 Track: I band, 8-10 GHz

1RL33(ZSU-23-4): J band, 10-20 GHz

791

Not only do I not see them adding Anti Radiation Missiles, I don’t think they would solve anything.
I would wager that Anti Radiation Missiles would only make it worse.

Literally just drop the Pantsirs range down to 11-12km to be in line with the rest of the world and nerf (or get rid of) the KH38s.

1 Like
792

That requires a Pantsir player to be intelligent enough to know to switch the search radar off. And then they have to sit with said radar off for 5-10 minutes.

6 Likes
793

True and as long as the search radar was on when the ALARM was fired it will hit the last known position after its loiter phase. If the radar is turned back on at any point during the launch or loiter the position is updated again. Its a scary missile.

Nice little anecdote;

image
image1038×594 187 KB

4 Likes
794

Yeah… I thought HARM would still hit last known position but I’m guessing with insufficient accuracy.

Either way, ALARM would force any SPAA to be significantly more cautious in switching on its radar

795

I might be remembering incorrectly but I think HARM targets main beam transmissions, where as ALARM can track side lobes, makes ALARM alot more flexible.

1 Like
796

Basic HARMs use an older much more sensitive kinematic estimation method for triangulation(Park’s Ranging Estimator), which can correlate a target at extreme range as long as it receives returns for long enough. The issue is that it can be very inaccurate if it isn’t provided with enough data. or if the returns are intermittent, since it uses angular and strength information from the seeker and INS info to establish target position and movement relative to the traveled path, and then refines the estimation over time to home in on the target.

The other thing is that the INS wasn’t that good until the later variants included a GPS bootstrapper to accurately initialize and maintain INS return accuracy(AGM-88D or earlier AUR’s that have undergone the Block VI aka. Block IIIB refit / remanufacture). which occurred in the early '00s

These days though the AGM-88E & -G have a MMW Seeker so terminal accuracy is less of an issue, assuming it ends up in the same postcode as a target.

8 Likes
797

Cheers, I figured it would have been improved but also I knew I’d summon you by mentioning it. ahaha

1 Like
798

That will be EDR 110(ZA-35): D band, 1-2 GHz if corrected

799

thanking you for the insight. now I understand why my HARM Cs still miss by a country mile in DCS when the emitter shuts down. lol

800

You can’t put the cat back in the bag.

801

Russia also has SEAD missiles btw. so this will go both ways, even on the SU25-T.
Can’t wait for the next outrage.

2 Likes
802

Not really, most of their (relevant early) systems are either aimed at targeting Strategic or Theater level Radar installations, and so don’t cover the right bands to be useful against the limited number of western tactical radar systems available.

Or tend to be very unwieldy and heavy in comparison to their counterpart Western system(s), on top of being carried by a limited number of specialist airframes in exchange for much greater range.

For example practically every single US built fighter airframe from the F-100 onwards (apart from the basic F-15) could carry at least a pair of Shrikes or better, at minimum.

7 Likes
803

Bold of you to assume that gaijin wont just hand wave that issue and allow them to target all radar bands.

8 Likes
804

That’s the thing if you read into the Dev Q&A it became obvious they weren’t talking about western Anti-Radar Missiles

Q. Do you plan to introduce anti-radar missiles for aircraft that have them? In 11.0+ mixed battles SAM SPAAGs dominate aircraft, anti-radar missiles might help.

Yes, we’re considering this type of missile. Unfortunately, there are lots of problems and actual data of their efficiency is controversial. Anyway, such missiles require a lot of effort in collecting data, and possibly specific simplification in their in game mechanics. For example, we know that none of the massively used ARM produced in the 1960s -1980s were not capable of properly detecting and effectively hitting the SAM SPAAG often used in War Thunder. Their targets were mainly such systems as S-75/S-300/Hawk/Patriot, with uncertain efficiency though. Nonetheless, we do consider ARM as a possible balancing media of close-support aircraft against missile SPAAGs.

Q. Do you plan a more functional environment for airfields, apart for AA guns? Destructible radars, jamming stations, drone control centers, ballistic and SAM missiles that, when destroyed, affect the enemy AA efficiency? Any plans for destructible runways, if there are more than one in the mission?

Probably yes.

It’s mostly due to the fact that 1960~1980 and 11.0 was stated, where western options would theoretically become available from 8.7 or so with the Shrike / SideARM.

4 Likes
805

I hope you didn’t assume I didn’t know that haha…
regardless, what matters is an aircraft’s ability to get to speed and altitude, in order to give an ARM standoff range. Su-25 does not perform well in that regard compared to say, a Tornado or F-16 and thus will probably be a less effective platform.

Not to mention how much more time and money has been spent on dedicated ARMs by NATO, specifically to counter Tactical level threats.

1 Like
806

And its still evolving at a fairly rapid pace, with more than a few potential upcoming formfactors.

SARA RF homing
SARA RF homing1104×337 19.9 KB

GBU-39 w SARA
GBU-39 w SARA1296×729 82.9 KB

A-10C_ BRU-61A w GBU-39_SDB

5 Likes
807

There’s always the Kh-25MPU which is designed to be used against systems like the Roland and Crotale, and supposedly the Kh-58 can also be somewhat flexible against shorter range systems.

808

I’m not saying that none would be capable of doing so, but a comparison between the Kh-28 and AGM-45 / AGM-78; for example should be fairly obvious to the conclusions that would be drawn as to their relative effectiveness.

Sure, but Its presence will be limited by the airframes that can carry it (practically only Strike or specialist SEAD airframes, no Self escorting multirole fighters), at least one ARM (Shrike / HARM / SideARM, etc.) could each be carried by most Fighter / Strike Airframe’s of their relevant era so access to the tech isn’t that much of an issue at least for Western tech trees, especially if Gaijin were to include limited developmental test configurations, which wouldn’t be the first time; the F-5A after all has access to a MER on the Center Line station based of a single photo of a configuration that we know was never flight tested.

75-752 AGM-45, AGM-78 & ALQ-188

1 Like
809

Nah, not as Tor M1, since it sometimes explodes too far away to damage the missile. Also the vertical launch system loses you about 3-5 seconds to adjust the pointing of missile, this means you can not intercept when the are within 2 km. The lock time, reaction time is about 5 seconds for a Tor, more if you are moving. that means you have to be aware right at the start to intercept it. I’ve faced 5-6 su25sm3s in the past 4 games (all against russia despite I’m china), and all of them got 3 kills at least, whilst I see F16s killed by spaa easily. It is unreliable a t more than 10km, but that is still hard for SPAA to intercept since MT is fire and forget.

1 Like