[Poll] Improved airfield defenses in simulator mode

Dev Server "Leviathans" General Discussion - Dev Server
1

With the addition of new guided weapons in recent updates, airfield defense systems have become increasingly ineffective to the point where they simply cannot defend their positions anymore .

Reminder of the context :

Currently, airfields in simulation mode above 9.0 Br (approximately) are defended by Roland systems firing Roland 3 missiles. These missiles have a maximum range of 8km, allowing them to effectively intercept players within 6km of the airfield. The chassis firing this missile allow a maximum firing elevation of 35°, allowing it to intercept targets at low or medium altitude. In addition, airfields are defended by various vehicles with anti-aircraft guns (for example, Guépard), these vehicles are effective against targets at low distance and altitude (less than 4 kilometers). These different systems were integrated several years ago (when they were the best anti aircraft system in the game) and have therefore not been changed for a long time.

The problem :

The problem today is that the game has evolved significantly since the introduction of these vehicles. Aircraft are faster, carry better weapons that range further, and are carried in greater numbers.

Starting in 10.7, with the introduction of aircraft capable of carrying a large number of guided air-to-ground missiles, players are no longer safe on their airfields, and the higher the BR, the greater the destructive capabilities.

  • In 10.7, a player can destroy an airfield’s entire defenses (while remaining at a distance of approximately 15 km) in two attack passes.

  • In 11.7, a player can destroy an airfield’s entire anti-aircraft defenses (while remaining at a distance of 20 to 25 km) in a single attack pass.

  • Starting with 12.7, a player can destroy a moving aircraft on an airfield while remaining at a distance of 20km or more.

This ability to destroy aircraft without having to be within range of any counterattack allows some players to destroy airfield defenses in order to kill their opponents as soon as they spawn, making the game mode unattractive for new players unfamiliar with these techniques and potentially finding themselves stuck on airfields.

This lack of airfield defenses has also caused another problem: suicide attacks. Dropping bombs or rockets allows you to earn a large number of battle points, some players take advantage of the lack of defenses to attack in a loop by crashing into enemy airfields to make as many battle points as possible, leading a large number of people to want to play “PVE” in a mode supposed to be as close as possible to reality.

Some ideas for a solution :

  • A first idea would be to gradually improve anti-aircraft systems based on the Br. Rolands would provide adequate defense for battles ranging from 9.0 to 10.3, and would be replaced by more powerful systems beyond that. For example, defenses could be carried out by ITO-90s from 10.7 to 12.7, then by Pantsirs from 13.0 to 14.0, allowing players to attack systems but presenting a certain risk for anyone who gets too close.

  • A second, more radical solution would be to deploy the most powerful anti-aircraft systems as soon as guided weapons become available, thus no longer allowing players to attack enemy airfields. For example, with Pantsirs from 10.7 and Spyder AIOs for top tier battles

  • Finally, a solution that could be more easily implemented, even if the defenses remained in their current state, would be to add the ability to intercept munitions, allowing for example the DCA to destroy missiles targeting them or to destroy munitions targeting players.

Let me know what you think and if you have any other ideas I’d be happy to add them.

  • Leave the defenses as they are
  • Gradually improve anti-aircraft according to the Br
  • Replace current defenses with the strongest defenses in the game
0 voters
  • Anti-aircraft systems must not be able to intercept munitions
  • Anti-aircraft systems must be able to intercept munitions
0 voters
1 Like
2

While I agree with this, lets get ARAD into the game first before we slap higher end SAMs into Air SIM EC, otherwise bases will more or less become fully immune to attacks and base baiting will become quite prolific.

3

So, to be honest, I don’t really see the point of anti-radiation missiles right now. If the most advanced systems had a range similar to that of the best air-to-ground weapons, it would be useful, but currently, I don’t think so.

With an A-10C at 4,500-5,000 meters, you can hit a fixed target 20 kilometers away without any problems with a GBU-39. It’s the same for a Gromm, a Kh-38, a Paveway IV, an AASM, or an LS-6. There are already enough weapons in game to counter any anti-aircraft systems.

4

Should be combined/be a part of a major SEAD update for SB. Not just adding more advanced SAMs to the AFs but also SAM sites scattered about. Would make for excellent gameplay.

The only major change I think they really need to make with AF defences (besides that), is adding mobile SPAAGs to protect them from GPS guided weapons

5 Likes
5

Considering the types of munitions available to to top tier aircrafts, along with general aircraft performance, a mix of air defense systems should be provided to the AF much like currently seen with the mix of ZA-35 and Rolands. Neither a system like Pantsir or SLM/AIO would be able to do all the work required alone, since stuff like Grom-2 and GBU-39 still vastly outrange the Pantsir.

Something like IRIS-T SLM or Spyder AIO for the long range systems and Pantsir or CS/SA5 for the close range systems, with limited munition interception capability.

This would threaten targets that are trying to straight-line airfields either to sling missiles at planes taking off or to try to zombie bomb the AF out to a range of 40km while offering more of very high threat bubble around the <20km range where people trying to actively camp the airfield tend to sit, without threatening ppl that are within ~20-40km due to other reasons (dogfights or objective gameplay) too much.

Munition interception is a bit more touchy a topic I think, and should be limited in capability. The airfields are still technically objective targets (granted, them being so is purely negative for the game experience), and the GBAD screen of the AF should not be a get out of jail free card, though it should actually pose a significant threat to those who try to camp the airfield or attack it.

Therefore, making the AA intercept all munitions is a no-go, as it would effectively make the airfield no longer a viable target in objective gameplay, and would make it “too safe”.

Something like intercepting AAM within like 2km from the runway, along with limited interception of munitions aimed at airfield AA or stationary aircrafts specifically to reduce the risk of total airfield GBAD degradation via GBU-39’s would be what I’d suggest as a first step, but itd require a lot of tweaking to prevent abuse from either the attackers or defenders I’d think.

Pantsir on its own wouldn’t cut it atm, with 18km max range and less than that as effective range vs maneuvering targets, it just likely wouldn’t be able to deal with pop-up attacks at around 10-20km, a range many missiles currently used at top tier can easily bridge.

There may also be a level of map dependency to consider. SLM on a flat map like Denmark where there is no chance of terrain masking would be significantly deadlier than SLM on a map with heavy terrain masking like Afghanistan, so maybe replacing all SLM’s with Pantsir on those maps, or with Spyder AIO with its shorter ranged missile options would be preferable?

2 Likes
6

Not really no, even the humble shrike reaches out to 35 to 60km, limited mainly by the speed of the launching craft.

The primary boon of ARADs is also the fact that the radar unit itself is painting itself as well, meaning you dont need to search for the radar at all as your RWR and the ARAD system itself will identify, display and target the emitting radar without need for the player to search for it, something every other AGM system needs to have happen.

7

Also a great idea. The SEAD event was fantastic and really should be implemented in sim more. Also very m,uch in line with point 1 and 2 of my suggestion (shameless plug lol)

1 Like
8

For missile interception I think it wouldn’t be too powerful (if the way it works remains the same). Currently all anti-aircraft systems at an airfield are focused on the first target that enters their range until this target is destroyed, then they move on to the second target. If we keep this interception operation it would be easy to saturate the airspace with a few munitions. On the other hand you are absolutely right, it would still be necessary to limit the interception range to prevent everything from being destroyed before arriving in their zone.

1 Like
9

Given that the Roland’s radars are currently only active when you’re in their engagement zone and shut down as soon as their target disappears, anti-radiation missiles would have virtually no chance of hitting their target (unless you’re willing to throw yourself into the middle of the airfield). There’s nothing ARADs do that GPS-guided munitions can’t currently do.

In my opinion, anti-radiation missiles would be perfectly appropriate if we were fighting Patriots or S-300s. These systems would be far enough away that precise GPS munitions would be impossible, and the power of their surveillance radars (which would always be activated) would allow for good guidance.

Moreover, if I remember correctly, a few months/years ago, Smin announced that the main problem with ARADs is that they are not very effective against small anti-aircraft systems due to their weak emission, which doesn’t allow for optimal guidance.

10

Yeah, I was thinking the same. AFs need to remain a viable target to attack, but require proper SEAD before hand and even then, only when attacked in a smart way

11

The roland search radar is always active unless manually disabled and should function as such, it emitting is more than enough to engage.

No his issue was the warhead of most ARAD missiles which is designed to perforate the radar system, not blow it up like a JDAM or similar weight dumb bomb.

Referring back to the shrike, one of the emitters that the Shrike was tested on is the Roland 1’s search radar so it’s ability to track our current AA systems will not be a issue.

12

In my opinion, base defenses should only destroy enemy ammunition at BR’s above 13.3. If it’s lower than that, it should practically apply to lower BR’s, going up to 10.7 when the possibility of shooting down base defenses at a distance begins.

I believe that what should be taken into account is the speed and maneuverability of the ammunition that can be launched. For example, aircraft rockets exceed MAC 2.2.