Improvement of SPAA in ASB

Dev Server "Tusk Force" General Discussion - Dev Server
1

In the current server development, the air defense systems have been modified beyond Br 10.7. However, these changes bring numerous problems, and other solutions must be found. In addition, the anti-aircraft systems in convoys and combat zones could also be updated to represent real threats.

NOTE: This topic only discusses SIMULATION mode; this mode does not have the same problems as battles in Realistic mode. In order to be able to respond to the problems of these two modes, it would be necessary for the anti-aircraft systems not to be the same in the two modes.

The current problem with anti-aircraft systems in simulation mode:

Background :

The current anti-aircraft systems in the game for jets are Rolands and VEAK 40s (or equivalent), the change that brings new systems above 10.7 means that these systems are replaced by Strelas and Shilkas (ZSU-23-4).

Currently, anti-aircraft systems in simulation mode have the problem of not being able to defend players on the ground, nor to protect the airfield itself. Indeed, above 10.0, some nations are able to reach the runway and therefore the players on it using air-to-air weapons (yes, it is entirely possible to fire an AIM-9 at an aircraft on the runway without being destroyed by anti-aircraft systems) or air-to-ground weapons. Starting at 11.7, almost all nations have weapons and aircraft that allow them to do so. Regarding airfield defense, this is a real problem during events where aircraft are unlockable, as it leads players to deliberately crash into the airfields vertically, dropping rockets or bombs as they pass.

Below I will explain the various current problems as well as the solutions provided by this update.

  • Current problems with Rolands and guns systems:

    • Lack of range: The missiles fired by the Roland have a range of 8 km. While this is useful for defending airfields, beyond a certain Br, this is no longer sufficient.
    • Lack of elevation: The Roland’s maximum elevation is 40°, making this system incapable of firing missiles at targets with altitude.
    • Lack of firepower: The defense systems using cannons are rather old systems that lack both range and firepower for higher Brs.

  • Improvement brought by the update

    • Elevation: The Strela has an elevation of 50°, and its missile is not guided by SACLOS but rather by IR/optical, making it capable of climbing beyond this elevation.
    • Firepower: The Shilka having a greater number of barrels and a higher rate of fire will be able to correct the existing problem of lack of burst mass

  • Remaining problem

    • The remaining problem is range, and unfortunately, this is the main problem. Although the Strela has a longer total missile range (11km against 8km), its all-aspect lock range is only 3.2 km in IR mode and 5 km in TV mode (whereas the Roland had 8 km), which means that the Strela will engage its targets even though they are much closer to the airfield.

First improvement suggestion:

A first improvement suggestion would be to replace the Strela with a system with similar characteristics but capable of firing a missile with a significantly greater lock-on range. To this end, I would suggest replacing the Strela with the Osa-AKM.

The 9M33M3 missile used by the OSA has characteristics quite similar to those of the Strela, with a slightly lower speed and range but better maneuverability and a larger explosive charge. The main difference between these two missiles is their guidance type (SACLOS for the Osa), which allows the Osa to lock on and fire on a target up to 10 km away, making it more useful for airfield defense (given that it is not limited in elevation like the Roland).

My first suggestion would therefore be to replace the Strela with Osa in order to have a more effective anti-aircraft defense system at the top of Br. Additionally it would be good to diversify the systems, so it would be interesting to have for each airfield 2 or 3 OSA systems able to engage targets from afar as well as 2 or 3 Strela, more effective at short distance (obviously accompanied by Shilka for close defense with the guns).

Second improvement suggestion:

My second improvement suggestion would be to add more anti-aircraft system upgrades as the Brs increase. After the update is released, jets below 10.7 would face Rolands and those above would face Strelas, but this still doesn’t solve the problems at higher Brs. Therefore, I would suggest the following changes:

The vehicle choices made below are made in order to offer vehicles strong enough to defend airfields and represent a real threat but which can be destroyed without resorting to weapons which are not yet present in the game (anti-radiation missiles for example), each vehicle proposed by bracket can therefore be destroyed by some of the weapons that the planes in this bracket have.

  • Below 11.0:
    Below 11.0, the situation would remain the same as it is now, with the Rolands and existing cannon systems being fully capable of defending players and airfields (the Rolands could ideally be replaced by Rapiers between 10.0 and 11.0, as these systems offer slightly better performance and, above all, much greater elevation).

  • Between 11.0 and 12.0:

    • For missile launcher systems: missile launchers with a range of 10-12 km (Strela, Osa, Ozelot), but with a preference for guidance other than IR to be able to reach targets before they arrive.
    • For gun systems: Vehicles with a high mass burst capable of eliminating aircraft maneuvering near the airfield. Ideally, these systems should also be equipped with short-range IR missiles, enabling them to support dedicated missile launcher systems (Zsu 23-4M4, LAV-AD, Guepard 1A2, Stormer AD).

  • Between 12.0 and 13.0:

    • For missile launcher systems: Missile launchers with a range of between 10 and 20 kilometers but with greater maneuvering capabilities (ITO-90M, Tor-M1/M2, Tan SAM Kai).
    • For gun systems: Vehicles with a gun system but also short-range missiles capable of engaging closer targets (ADATS, 2S6).

  • Above 13.0:

    • For missile launcher systems: Missile launchers with a range of between 20 and 25 km. and maneuverable enough to hit all types of targets (Pantsir, CLAWS, Spyder AIO)
    • For cannon systems: vehicles with a cannon system but also short-range missiles allowing them to take on closer targets (ADATS, 2S6)

Ideally, for BRs beyond 14.0, even more modern systems would be interesting, such as the Buk M3, the Sky Sabre, or the SAMP/T, but the maps are currently too small for such additions. These systems could indeed engage targets from the middle of the map or even reach them as far as their airfields.

What changes to anti-aircraft systems would you say would be most appropriate?

  • 1st suggestion
  • 2nd suggestion
  • Other
0 voters

Furthermore I would like to suggest an improvement that could already be implemented, currently the anti-aircraft systems of the airfields only target the players’ vehicles, it would be very interesting if these systems could also target the weapons of those, allowing to destroy the bombs and/or missiles in the air before they can reach their target (as far as possible obviously). This would allow the DCA to eliminate the biggest threats arriving on them (GROM 2, JDAM of 2000lb, …)

In your opinion, should anti-aircraft systems in ASB be able to destroy munitions in flight (as far as possible)?

  • Yes
  • No
0 voters

Regarding combat zones and convoys

For several years now, combat zones and convoys have been defended by anti-aircraft gun systems, generally Guepars or Zsu-37s. However, with the advent of new aircraft technology (and the targeting of these systems, which were once far too powerful), these anti-aircraft systems have become useless, to say the least, and do not allow for proper defense of their targets. This is why I propose the following change:

The change I propose is that beyond approximately 11.0 (Br at which all aircraft have flares), some of the existing vehicles be upgraded to acquire short-range missile firing capabilities (ideally, infrared missiles). For example, the placement of a classic Guepard, whether the vehicle is a Guepard 1A2 with the ability to fire stingers, or Zsu-23-4M4s, be added to the opposing teams. This addition would bring a bit more challenge for players and force them to pay more attention to their surroundings to avoid being shot down by a short-range IR missile. This change would also bring a bit of realism, as MANPAD systems are widely used in current conflicts to defend positions or convoys.

In your opinion, should such systems be integrated into convoys and combat zones?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Other
0 voters

Please feel free to give your opinion and suggest other ideas.

1 Like
2

Pretty sure suggestions are supposed to be in the suggestion section of the forum?

3

I mean he’s talking about something that’s being added this patch in the dev server

4

With how capable jets and munitions are at top tier, the long range GBAD for the airfield above 13.0 should be something more along the lines of the IRIS-T SLM or Sky Sabre. I’d personally prefer the SLM be used due to it limiting the possibility of cheezing the airfield AA by just abusing multipath, but I do understand that on some maps, the lack of adequate cover across the entire map may lead to the systems having too great an impact on objective gameplay.

This could be limited by setting some ROE’s for the AI, something like only being cleared to engage aircraft at a range of 25km and munitions at max range, to allow for a missile which would actually be a genuine threat at said ranges (CLAWS, and Spyder AIO simply are not), while limiting the effect of the system on players that are not trying to ruin the match for others by airfield camping. Would need some testing though, but the currently suggested systems (CLAWS and Spyder AIO) just wont cut it with their effective range being more along the lines of like 10km.

For the gun based AA, I’d just switch to the pantsir at this point. Dont see much reason to play wioth the ADATS/Tunguska, as both are anemic against top tier air (particularly the ADATS)

In general though, it would need some testing to make sure airfield GBAD doesnt impact the match too much, but is not literally worthless as it is right now.

1 Like
5

That’s one way of interpreting it, but the entire thing reads as a suggestion post

6

All of this is a giant no until actual SEAD is added.

7

Cool ideas, but having them destroy munitions is a bit dodgy.

If we had cluster munitions, maybe, but as it stands it would screw the air to ground muppets more than it would be engaging.

1 Like
8

Indeed it looks like a suggestion but in the idea it is rather a request to Gaijin to correct the DCA changes that will be made for this update. If I make a suggestion it will not be accepted for several weeks and by the time it is implemented several updates will have already passed. In any case I will write a suggestion for if nothing is done

9

Hi, thanks for your very constructive feedback. Indeed, the SLM and the Sky Sabre would be more suitable due to their range, but I hadn’t chosen them for several reasons:

For the SLM, the range is ideal; the missile allows for really wide coverage but doesn’t go too far. However, what bothers me is the type of guidance. With the weather we sometimes experience in simulations, the SLM would simply be unable to lock on to a missile, or could only do so at very short range (the famous 30-foot cloud ceiling over Afghanistan, for example). That’s why I preferred systems firing radar-based missiles to be able to fire in all conditions.

For the Sky Sabre, I honestly hadn’t thought about imposing a limit on its engagement distance, and that’s probably the best solution. It would represent a real threat that would force players to be really careful.

Otherwise, regarding cannon systems, you’re absolutely right; the Pantsir would be a great fit in the top tier as a close-range defense

1 Like
10

None of the proposed systems require a SEAD missile to destroy them, currently the aiming range in game is 30km and a large part of the precision munitions from 10.0-11.0 have a range of 20 to 30km which allows them to be fired outside the engagement zone of a Pantsir or similar systems. If I had suggested the Buk M3 or the SAMP/T indeed in this case there would have been a need for anti-radiation missile but in this situation there is really no need.

11

Regarding the destruction of munitions, airfield defense systems are currently coded to target only one threat at a time, on a missile volley they could only intercept a part of it. But indeed it is a capacity that will require a little thought to do it without ruining the gameplay

12

There is only two nations with effective standoff munitions at top tier currently, France and Russia, every other nations requires you to get within 20km to engage targets with anything other than GPS bomb spam which is not SEAD.

Reminder as well that the BUK and such being added to SIM or any air mode for that matter would just end the game, the BUK alone covers 70% or more of most maps and the Aster 30 can engage at ranges further than most maps are large, SEAD does not matter at that point if you are always in range of enemy SAMs.

13

Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses consists of destroying anti aircrafts systems, you do this with the weapons you like, of course there are specialized weapons, but firing a GPS bomb is the same thing

Indeed the Russians and the French have ammunition that is more effective for shooting at targets over 20km, however to say that they are the only two nations to have ammunition that has this range is completely false, here is a list of ammunition that you can shoot accurately beyond 20km

List of weapons with a range of approximately 20 km

Obviously the list below is true depending on how you fire the ammunition, if you fire all your ammunition at ground level obviously it will never hit

USA :

Which can be shot at 20km or more

  • GBU-24, 24B , 31, 32, 38, 39, 54, 54B, 62, 64
  • AGM-65(E, E2, L)

Witch can be shot at maximum 20km

  • GBU-8, 15 (when the conditions are really good)
  • AGM-62A ER (when the conditions are really good)
  • AGM-65(D, G, F), 123A, 130A-12

Germany :

Which can be shot at 20km or more

  • GBU-24, 24B, 31, 32, 38, 48, 54B, 62, 64
  • Paveway IV
  • AGM-65E

Witch can be shot at maximum 20km

  • AGM-65(D, G)

Great Britain :

Which can be shot at 20km or more

  • GBU-24, 24B, 31, 38, 39, 54, 62, 64
  • Paveway IV
  • PGM 500, 2000
  • AGM-65E

Witch can be shot at maximum 20km

  • AGM-65(D, G)
  • AJ168 (when the conditions are really good)

Japan :

Which can be shot at 20km or more

  • GBU-24, 31, 38, 39, 54B, 62, 64

Witch can be shot at maximum 20km

  • AGM-65 (D, G, H)
    AGM-62A ER (when the conditions are really good)

China :

Which can be shot at 20km or more

  • LS6 250, 500
  • GB 250, 1000

Witch can be shot at maximum 20km

  • KH-29TE (when the conditions are really good)
  • GB 500

Italia :

Which can be shot at 20km or more

  • GBU-24, 31, 32, 38, 39, 48, 54B, 62, 64

Witch can be shot at maximum 20km

  • AGM-65 (D, G, H)

Sweden :

Which can be shot at 20km or more

  • GBU-24, 31, 38, 39, 62, 64

Witch can be shot at maximum 20km

  • AGM-65G
  • RB-75T (when the conditions are really good)

Israel :

Which can be shot at 20km or more

  • GBU-31, 38, 39, 62, 64
  • SPICE 250(soon), 1000, 2000

Witch can be shot at maximum 20km

  • AGM-65D
  • GBU-15 (when the conditions are really good)

I did not include some guided bombs in this list because the conditions for making them travel 20km are really technical, this is the case in particular for the GBU-10, 12, 16 as well as the Mk-13 for example.

So no, I refuse to say that only the Russians and the French are the only ones (knowing that the IR locking of the AASM is only feasible at 20km so you have to use the laser-guided version for shots from further away, which is like shooting a GBU which goes faster). Yes, their weapons are better at the moment but no, they are not the only ones.

Moreover, the 20km mark is spoken of as a symbolic limit because of the maximum range of the Pantsir, but in reality, beyond 17-18km the missile hardly hits anything.

This is why I have not suggested either one or the other, all the systems suggested are possible to be destroyed without problems.

14

if the map layouts were changed to have only two primary airfields, one per team, on the opposite edges of the map, I would support them having longer range systems like the Buk

airfields closer to the battlefield could have more mobile defense systems like strelas/ozelots or shilkas/gepards

15

SEAD is done with weapons that fit the use case, GPS bombs do not due to their ease of interception and lack of terminal guidance.

All the standard laser bombs you listed cannot be released at slant ranges above 20km as they will arrive at the target after their battery runs out, to that same end they are ballistic until around 3km which defeats their use case.

The GPS bombs, as already stated are irrelevant and not usable for normal SEAD in game due to the virtue of their guidance not providing any terminal guidance and their ease of interception.

The laser Mavericks cannot be launched above 10 km, that is their hardcoded max coded seeker range (as with every other SALH missile in game), I have 0 clue where you are pulling 20km from.

GBU-8, 15 and ER, all of the above are terrain track at this range, they are not usable for SEAD.

IR Mavs - only ones even remotely relevant so far, they can in theory be used out to 20km but are only capable of terrain track like the above TV bombs and you can only get that range when at extreme altitude and speed, they are usable for SEAD but far from effective and at 20km.

Skipper - I have 0 clue why you added this, the skipper is a joke currently and fundamentally useless in SIM, do not load it.

IR 130, only usable piece of ord here as it has cruise range, however, is still inferior in fundamentally every other respect to the KH-38 and hammers.

I’d go on to respond to the other weapons present but they are all functionally identical in use case / issues as what I have already described above so I will not repeat myself.

They very much so are, bar the IR AGM-130 which is still vastly inferior in almost every aspect, to that same end, your statements that laser guided munitions are the only ones can reach out to 20km is fundamentally flawed given only the KH-38ML and hammer can be used via SALH beyond 10km as they have GPS launch capabilities.

And? Its still a range that only KH-38s and Hammers can reliably engage out to, only the IR AGM-130 comes close and as already stated, it is vastly inferior in almost every other metric.

Cool then why bring them up in the first place?

16

Yes, IRL it is, but in-game at the moment, in ASB, anti-aircraft systems do not move and do not intercept munitions. So GPS munitions are usable, and their lack of accuracy is generally not a problem, because the deviation is rarely significant enough that the bomb does no damage.

Indeed I just retested, the GBU 24 and 24B do not have the necessary battery and the basic JDAMs do not reach the target unless fired from very high, however the Paveway IV and GBU-48 have enough battery to reach 20 to 22 kilometers and the LJDAM-ER largely exceed 20 kilometers

As above, guidance in the final phase is not necessary if the shot is fired at less than 30km, even with the deviation the bomb falls close enough to destroy the vehicles in a good part of the cases. And the problem of interception does not arise for the moment

Even if they only lock the terrain, their range gives them some advantages, as anti-aircraft vehicles generally explode rather easily.

Did I ever say that they should be added? In my original post, I even stated that it would not be wise to add them. You are the one who came to repeat exactly the same arguments that I had already mentioned previously.

For the moment I’m trying to propose and group together solutions that are more viable than what will be in game after the next update, saying that improving the SPAA in play as long as there is no SEAD does not bring much since we do not even know if SEAD will be added one day or not (it will probably be added one day but if we have to wait until that moment to have something other than Strela as top tier airfield defense the mode will be damn complicated)

There are so many possible solutions to improve anti-aircraft defenses without making them too overpowering, we just have to find a solution so that things evolve, mine may not be the right one but saying that we have to wait for the arrival of SEAD missiles to do something is in my opinion not the right one either

17

The guidance issue really isnt as big a deal as you might think. The SLM will guide via datalink until the missile can acquire an IR lock. Any munitions inbound directly towards the airfield would by definition need to be in LOS of the TRML-4D radar unless lobbed from low altitude at close range using terrain masking. In fact, the IRIS-T SLM has been shown to have issue with locking munitions in-game, being bug reported quite often, with evidence pointing to it only being able to reliably intercept munitions when being guided by datalink to the point of intercept.

If you still arent convinced though, the use of a mix of SLM and SkySabre could be done, though I think a mix of SLM for long range, and Pantsir for SHORAD would still be preferable.

As someone who loves to multirole, id say having airfield GBADs target munitions would actually be beneficial for the game. This would limit the ability to destroy airfield modules with long range GPS glide bombs, which is quite frankly an unfun mechanic in sim, as all it really does is take aircrafts landing oon those airfields out for disproportionately large amounts of time.

One could argue that this is a way to win a match, which is true, increasing enemy turn around time does limit their ability to win a match, but it also means less actual air to air combat for everyone, so in terms of actual enjoyement, im personally of the opinion that the mechanic in the current state of the game (where striking an airfield is INCREDIBLY easy, and player counts are already very low in SB) is just deeply negative for everyone except for zombers and people trying to grief others.

As for intercepting munitions heading towards convoys or bombing targets that are within the airfield GBADs coverage area, this is also kind of a boon for gameplay, as it would not be able to intercept munitions launched from lower altitudes utilizing terrain masking, which would reintroduce some skill to objective gameplay by penalizing long range high alt GPS bombing via interception of the munitions, and require players to get closer to the objectives to strike them (though not as close as dumb bombs require). As it currently stands, standoff munitions like GBU-64 and Grom-2 make bombing targets much too easy, and stopping the enemy team from doing so nearly impossible.

1 Like
19

And in game, reminder that we are not just talking about dealing with the airfield AA, as per your post, you cannot hit convoy AA with GPS bombs unless you are a god, you need terminal guidance.

Very not the case unless if you are using anything above the 500lb bombs, the likes of GBU-39s are largely unusable after the drift changes.

If you are in LEO and cresting mach 1, with the running issue as already stated, the bombs still only reaching out to around 3 km for terminal guidance, unlike the 10KM of the hammer or KH-38ML.

These bombs also still are not present in a majority of nations, with the US only getting any LDAMs last patch with the F/A-18C Late.

Only for the above 500lb bombs, you can easily still not hit the base targets due to the drift added, if this was not present (IT SHOULD NOT BE FOR NATO BOMBS) I would agree, to that same end it still cannot deal with convoy AA.

Depends, as already stated, convoy issue, but the walleye is the only bomb of the group that will reach it’s target reliably as the other bombs do still have inadequate guidance time unless you launch them at absolute max velocity, or are in a F-111F who can drop the bombs at Mach 1.4. Can also use the AGM-130 which just resolves this issue full stop so yeah, just use those.

Your own quote you attached wishes for them, wrongfully thinking that map size is the only limiting factor as to why they should not be, they currently have no counterplay, only the SLAMRAAM and Swedish IRIS-T wagon do and the SPYDER, everything else outranges aircraft by a massive margin.

Except that you are purposing solutions for something that is no issue to begin with, airfields are not meant to be safe, if you make them death zones like you are posturing for, fights will just degrade into airfield camping like the initial airfield AA changes caused, with both sim and ARB matches just degrading into “who got killed by SPAAG first”.

Unless proper SEAD weapons get added, any upgrades to airfield SPAAG are just multiple steps backward.