Combat: How To Beat Radar Guided SAMs More "Realistically" | DCS WORLD

0:00 Introduction
5:51 Briefing & Examples
40:03 Tacview Data
TUTORIALS: grimreapers.net/tutorials
PATREON(monthly donations): / grimreapers
PAYPAL(one-off donations): www.paypal.me/GrimReapers
WEBSITE: grimreapers.net/
TWITCH(stream): / grimreaperscap
FACEBOOK: / grimreapersgroup
TWITTER: / grimreapers_
DISCORD: / discord (16+ age limit)
DISCORD: (Junior GR)(15 or unders) Speak to AuntyStatic or Rage Infest in main discord to attain access.
CAP'S X-56 HOTAS MAPS: drive.google.com/open?id=1g7o...
#GRTutorial #DCSTutorial #AirToGroundCombat #GR #DCSWorld #Sams

[@Gkhub.777]

How to kill sam

[@grimreapers]

kzbin.info/aero/PL3kOAM2N1YJcR0yJfN82co23MADdkxXp8

[@medotaku9360]

@@grimreapers ohhh my god that's a playlist 😲

[@GenericName1084]

Shoot

[@seattlekarim964]

This video shows what I like the most about Cap and DCS. For Cap: look at the effort he puts in! This video took hours to make: it's useful and entertaining. For DCS: I know we debate the accuracy of the simulation but the things that work in real life work in DCS. I think that's amazing.

[@grimreapers]

Thx Plan!

[@stephenfowler4115]

Nice video but he doesn't answer the original question. Short answer is yes you can shoot another missle down with a fox 2 but you have a better chance of winning the lottery. Longer answer. For IR homing missiles the time frame for obtaining a lock is so short that its over before you can start. That and it would only work from a head on aspect which rules out any IR missiles prior to the AIM 9L. The real problem here is that maneuvering to obtain a lock on the missle by the intended target isn't possible. Radar guided missiles are another story. When fired from behind the target you have a similar problem as with the afore mentioned IR missiles. Maneuvering into a position to obtain a lock takes too much time. When fired from a headon position there is a possibility of obtaining a lock with late model IR missiles like the AIM 9X. However like Cap said that's a very dangerous chance to take.

[@thundercrosssplitattack2064]

24:25 would be so funny if it pitches down and the rocket booster ignited again XD

[@akisakis7980]

Remember the F16 footage that trying to evade some missiles from iraq??? Go see it if anyone haven't seen it yet...and watch the speed and the attitude

[@s2korpionic]

I believe those were SA-2s

[@grimreapers]

Yup I remember

[@gradywr]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/aKbLZayDdt1li6M F-16 dodging 6 Iraq Sams.

[@svmik]

There is a set of quick training missions for Viggen created by corvinus (can be found in user files on DCS website). Each SAM system is represented in a separate mission, so it's a great training tool. I am sure it can be easily adapted for other planes.

[@MavicAir1]

Good video! Move 1:It's the logical move. You drove it to the ground and ended up low. Two tactics in one move. Move 2: Burn it out. Most of the time I was doing Move 1 by instinct . Got it now. Thanx

[@grimreapers]

thx Ross

[@michaeldwyer3466]

I disagree about he altitude, here is a quot regarding swedish pilots and an exchange with the RAF "They would fly around at Mach 0.95, 650kt give or take a bit, and they trained at 10m. We flew through firebreaks in trees, we flew all over northern Sweden at 30ft, and we never went below 600kt." page 34 www.collectair.co.uk/pdf/interview-hr.pdf

[@aakashjain4569]

10 meters won’t be enough to dodge missiles if the S-300

[@sasquatchycowboy5585]

@@aakashjain4569 over the ocean, or flat desert maybe not. 10 m is below trees, and anywhere that has trees and hills being that low is going to make you invisible to the radar. The only way that s300 will be able to track you, is if the radar has an active seeker on it, and is already looking right at you when you break the line of sight with the s300. There is no way around it the lower you go the the smaller the threat ring from a ground-based Sam will be. Now if you put radars in the sky and network them down to the sam site that might change things. But it's still going to be harder to pull something out of the ground clutter. The only reason the US is abandoned low altitude ingress at the moment is because we haven't bought anyone that had air defenses in the last 25 years.

[@niconet84]

THANK YOU man I definitely love this guide. Clear and useful :)

[@PiSiCaN]

i was strugglin with sams. Now its crystal clear.thanks to you 👍

[@arzhangsadeghi]

you are the most dedicated person eager to teach others and share your information, I really appreciate all your time and efforts you are putting to make these videos, thank you so much.

[@grimreapers]

Pleasure AS

[@isaaccoote2874]

Your videos have been what've turned me back onto DCS World. Thanks a million Cap, I would be lost without all of the awesome videos you guys make!

[@grimreapers]

Pleasure

[@ElbigEmo]

@18:00 "*gun sound effect* *actually shoots OH! they're working XD* - Cap!

[@bmw540i]

TacView was a great idea for the overview Cap! 👍🏻🇬🇧

[@LockDCS]

I mean, flying low to the ground to avoid SAMs is basically what the Viggen was built for. It's realistic, but only really suited for a limited number of purpose built aircraft.

[@mzaite]

Except low to the ground means MANPAD's

[@LockDCS]

@@mzaite True, but if you go low and fast and stick to cover you stand a good chance of beating them. Again, it's really only suited for aircraft like the Viggen that can fly low and fast and can thus fly in and out of the effective range of Manpads and even for that matter AAA faster than the weapons can be fired and have a chance of hitting.

[@kukulkanlordofcas4931]

Yes, finally, you released it!

[@buddogg86]

Helicopters hide in the treeline just high enough to poke senors out, Then pop up and shoot. As well as nap of the earth flying or (noe) was designed to help use terrain as cover flying very low. Noe can help mask from radar signatures.

[@jackstheraptor2791]

Low-level flight for avoiding SAM was or maybe is possible . It has been done by Iranian f-5 and f-4s during the Iran-Iraq war. They flew the jets under 50 feet (Not even 15 feet) for attacking oil refineries and air bases and most of the time they succeeded to do so. The problem was the constant need for aerial refueling and the bombing run which they had to increase the altitude. Sorry for bad English.

[@theAV8R]

47:54 just casually flying under the power lines

[@dixievfd55]

I play the Panzer Corps Modern Conflicts mod. Because of DCS, I know the S300 is a priority target every time one of my units spots one.

[@steelpanther88]

I think the Argentine pilots who shot the exocets at the British warship like HMS Coventry, they maybe flew really low like sub 50 feet. But thats just from watchign the documentary without hard evidence otherwise and it was the British ship radar which maybe was good or not at the time.

[@theoccupier1652]

Buccaneers during a red flag exercise did a 20 mile attack run at below 20ft, they were successful in defeating the radar etc, trouble was they kicked up dust trails & could be seen by the other sides fighters which swooped down on them, but even the fighters couldn't get any missile locks on them & no gun cam footage showed any hits :)

[@grimreapers]

Awesome

[@theoccupier1652]

Don't know if links are allowed … Put this in the YT search bar The Buccaneer at Red Flag with Ken Norman

[@novo6462]

2:00 Regarding shooting down sams with Fox 2's. Theoretically its possible. Ukranian soldiers have been shooting down 3M-54 Kalibr (Sizzler) missiles with MANPADs, theres at least 1 video I have in a collection that shows this. If it produces a significant IR signature, it can be detected at least from the rear.

[@skatterpro]

2 minutes in so far.. But thanks for listening to us, Cap! Knowledge is power!

[@grimreapers]

Amen

[@antonkozyriatskyi2268]

GR, I've got a challenge for you: land 4 Hornets on a carrier in a formation, so that the first one catches a 4th wire, second one 3rd wire and so on.

[@grimreapers]

Good LorD!

[@Davros-vi4qg]

mmm... impossible challenge? each hornet is longer than the space between wires, so even if they did land simultaneously, they would all collide. landing a sequence of Hornets, first on one wire, second on two wire, would be a challenge!

[@antonkozyriatskyi2268]

@@Davros-vi4qg they may land in grid-like pattern: 1 and 3 Hornet land more to the left and others more to the right

[@Nails077]

Might be a more reasonable challenge to just do two. If they seem able to do that with enough space to squeeze in two more then try it with 4. Another pattern if you do it with 4, if there is enough space between the 1 and 4 wire, have them near the middle, and then the 2 off to the left and the 3 off to the right. Anyway I'd be satisfied seeing them just try to land 2 at once using the 1 and 4 wires.

[@GregAtlas]

Wouldn't be taught to go low to the ground? To my understanding, that was pretty much Warthog flying 101. I'm not sure about the interference thing, but you either have to fly below the arc of the SAM radar or block line of sight with terrain and that makes them lose guidance assuming you're not dealing with fire and forget missiles once they're fired.

[@commiccannon592]

9:39 SR71 says you sure about that

[@yelizhenden2702]

I haven't heard if you mentioned about how knowing the missile types shapes your decisions. I mean when it appears in RWR as S-10 missile is locked on you and launched, are you considering the knowledge of its guidance by radar or IR or the knowledge of the possible range of SAM site? In which cases would you feel surprised?

[@JithinJose2]

Cap, Can we defeat a missile just by turning into it?

[@tmo_117]

Growling Sidewinder answered that question, he survived 1 out of 2

[@rmp5s]

Great video. Do you have something like this for air to air/bvr?

[@mrshambler23]

FYI: Regarding flying very low. You mention in the video (around 03:50) that it would be unrealistic to fly at 15 feet. Now 15 feet translates to about 5 meters. During the cold war, Swedish air force pilots trained on a regular basis, flying 10 meters above the sea surface. This would translate into about 30 feet then. I don't know where the number 15 came from, if that was an exact number or an approximate number but 30 is quite close to that number. Although it should be said that a lot of Swedish pilots died during training in the cold war period. Subsequently, in later years the rules where changed in order to avoid deaths from flying so low. ( Försvarsmakten, 2017: 06:00 . youtube video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hnTHl3x8h9x6g6s (in Swedish) ) As I understand it, the Swedish planes, in particular Viggen, was designed to fly low and fast in order to avoid detection and do the job as quickly as possible, i.e. minimal exposure time. On another note: Thank you for the videos, I find your content very helpful as a new player.

[@grimreapers]

Thanks Sten that's awesome. Good work.

[@maxencelavigne5406]

I may or maybe not be an engineer working for a company who may or may not make missiles and you can technically shoot down missiles, people just don’t cuz it’s dangerous and a waste of a missile

[@bmg50barrett74]

Isn't it more preferable to turn away from the missile/SAM site when doing the reversal at 33:33? Or does turning towards it cause the missile to have to adjust lead more visioucly?

[@thedoncastellani]

My dad was a B 52 piolet in Desert storm, Afghanistan, and Iraq in 03. I probed him for hours on how to beat Sams. He said you don't, God just flips a coin. He also said turn directly away, pop chaff, and lick the dirt if you can. The scariest thing that ever happened to him was a SA6 or 7 up his ass that their EW specialist beat.

[@user-fl7cu2bj5u]

I personally think shooting down a radar guided Sam may well be possible. Now possible and easy are different things. I imagine if you had a radar guided surface to air missile on your tail and you perform a cobra maneavour of some kind to force and overshoot and quickly enough get your nose down it could be possible to get a lock and potentially a fox 2 in an f15

[@sasquatchycowboy5585]

If you have a radar cat in surface-to-air missile on your tail and you cobra, you die. And if it did miss you, why bother shooting at it? Why waste the missile? It's already passed you and no longer is a threat. What is a threat is the other missile that Sam site just fired at your low energy ass. Covers are cool in their shows.Cobras can yank your nose around to get a high aspect Fox 2 off. But cobras are not useful for evading missiles.

[@DessertUnicorn]

When you notch u need to be perpendicular to the radar wether it is the radar on the ground or in the SAM when you are perpendicular to the radiation source you are invisible to the radar no matter the altitude or speed but it has to be very much perpendicular. Once you are no longer perpendicular the radar will regain lock so active guided missiles will resume tracking but they will bleed a lot of energy

[@DessertUnicorn]

Stefan Lazic it works for me against players and against Sam’s just need to constantly change your angle towards them to find that perfect perpendicular position

[@cmibm6022]

Very good and informative. I do wonder what active jamming will mean in relation to SAMs - a test of this may be? Another interesting thing would be if you would try to do some of the same stuff with a Viggen against some of the best destroyers in DCS. To make it most realistic will require some wind, so that we have waves to clutter the radar. Can you get close enough to launch at the carrier group? Further: Is DCS good enough that you can track and shoot down cruise missiles launched at the carrier group? That would be a valid task for the F14 ;-)

[@grimreapers]

Will investigate.

[@sasquatchycowboy5585]

You can absolutely track and shoot down cruise missiles launched at the carrier group. Hell it's even a tasking for the AI now. But yes you can see cruise missiles and you can shoot them down. If you can get in front of SuperSonic missiles, you can lock them up and shoot them down. You can lock them up and shoot them down. Hell I've even managed to kill the high altitude missile from the tu-22 like once, when all the stars and planets aligned and all the spheres were in the same place. But yeah the radar model on DCS isn't terrible.

[@capras12]

I would say evading a SAM by shooting it down is "unrealistic" only because how inconsistent I likely would be. But i feel like there is no way that it is impossible.

[@sasquatchycowboy5585]

I don't know, but I suspect moderniza radars can probably detect incoming missiles especially big ass Sam's, and they might be able to acquire a lock and they might be able to guide something like an amram in. We already know the USAF is looking at using a laser pod to shoot down incoming Sam's. And that's not in 10 or 20 years that's f****** soon. They've already tracked and killed one from a ground station. It's just getting it on the jet now. So I suspect actively killing and coming missiles is probably going to be a thing. And that may be why the Air Force decided to buy the new f-15. Having a beast mode that can carry over a dozen amarams might actually be a good thing. Because if we can do it China and Russia are certainly going to be able to do it.

[@capras12]

@@sasquatchycowboy5585 I don't think tracking the missile is a problem, I think hitting the missile is. With how fast and narrow they are there is a good chance a counter missile would miss, or detonate too late. Lasers would effectively remove this issue.

[@lucky_luke4785]

below 500 feet you climb, the missile lofts and then you recommit to the ground and let the missile lead itself into the ground

[@reLAXbro13]

Does the RWR tell you when a missile has been fired directly at YOU specifically, or just that a radar guided SAM has been fired? I fly the A-10C and I’m always wondering if I should go evasive as soon as the missile launch tone sounds, or if that might have been shot at a friendly

[@grimreapers]

yes or at least in a very close area to you

[@sasquatchycowboy5585]

RWR specifically only tells you if you've been locked by a radar. Radar's guiding semi active missiles go through different stages of locking the target. I'm not an expert on what those are, but basically it's either just searching, it's tracking, or it's guiding. Your rwr gear can tell you which one of those modes is in. The A10 is also equipped with a missile launch warning system. This is activated by an IR signature that matches that of a rocket motor igniting. So your rwr can tell you if a radar has locked on to you, and is guiding. And m-laws can tell you if a missile has been fired in close proximity to you. As whether or not that was a missile intended for you, born in a tank missile being fired at a tank, or even one of your wingman letting loose with a Maverick, you'll need more information. If you're flying single player and you have a wingman he should be calling out Sam launch if a Sam was fired in your vicinity. If you're playing online and you have a wingman it's pretty good practice for one of you to stay outside of the Target area and provide OverWatch. So he may see a Sam launched, but he may not. So what action you take when you get a indication on your missile launch warning receiver is going to be dependent on your situation and your situational awareness. I know that's not an easy simple answer, but it's not an easy simple question. Not in DCS and not in real life.

[@user-lu5jj8qs3h]

While you can shoot down SAM's with Fox 2's, the odds are still against you from the point of view that there are probably a lot more SAM's aimed at you than you have Fox's 2's (per plane). Mathematics (and physics) just take over. This is from the home gamers point of view.

[@WarPigMantis]

Cap, ADA guy here. While I cant share information about specific systems. Can a fox 2 engage a ADA missile? Yes it could depending on angle of attack. Would it be effective? Depends on the missile type, size, fuzing ect. I would consider it a last ditch effort...not necessarily unrealistic. Planes do indeed fly that low in combat conditions but the truth is theres no need...the ADA systems in dcs are actually very unrealistic. I've seen a hawk launch at a target 100 miles away when its range is only 45km. In real life, generally 50ft is about where most radars blindspots are depending on the type of radar, and elevation of said sam site

[@grimreapers]

Thanks Sir, great info!

[@WarPigMantis]

@@grimreapers idk if it will be any help to you but ive put together a video for SEAD of my own. your input is appreciated kzbin.info/www/bejne/enmwhYSNga1_pbM

[@raakeshsingh7852]

@@WarPigMantis it's the ArmeeD'lair or something else?

[@WarPigMantis]

@@raakeshsingh7852 I'm not sure what you're asking

[@raakeshsingh7852]

@@WarPigMantis are you from the French air force, because it's short form is ADA too

[@stephenzenerak7846]

Yeah there has to be some distinction between unpractical, inoptimal, and impossible, the term "realism" isn't that defined whether it's absolute (physical) realism or practical/tactical realism, but there's also conveniental and resource realism where the military does some things because of convenience or resource constraints but they could have easily do it another way, that one is most difficult, should the simulator be strict or should the simulator allow it (permissive), for example let's say if there's no technical limit on which pylon a load can be attached but in reality they'd still wouldn't never putting a heavy bomb on the tips because it wouldn't make sense (weight/balance) I think that kind of stuff should be possible in the simulator, because simulator shouldn't prevent your stupidity, if you're stupid in real life then it should work the same if you're stupid in the simulator, a simulator correctly simulating the consequences of being stupid.

[@mauricefuchs7921]

I'm not smart enough to evade/avoid some stuff in my shitbox viggen and I fail everytime so yeah if you're stupid in a sim you're just stupid

[@eliahaj2233]

21:25 why dropping at sea level doesnt work?,under radar horizon how will the tracking radar keep locking on you when the signal is interfered by ground?,I know this method doesn't actually work as if it does then long range missiles will be useless as aircraft will be warned of heading missiles and then use this tactic to break radar lock easily but I want to know the reason behind it not working in dsc and real life ?

[@denisbujoreanu5993]

If you want to keep it "realistic" then you will almost never know exactly when the tracking missile's spent its fuel and went ballistic so doing those S-es horizontally will not be easy to determine how long you should keep it up. One way would be if you get blown up after you stop doing them then it didn't work but honestly there's no way to know for sure. You could try to compute some things such as flight/burn time based on the estimated launch distance but without knowing exactly how far the missile was launched from it would be a bit of guessing to know when to stop es-ing. I'd say you'll become very religious very fast in this situation. What you've showed here is neat for educational purposes, but I'd argue that it's not how you'd approach in real life a SAM. You don't get to see the missile after its smoke is gone and chances are you'll miss its launch telltale as well unless in a utopian setup where the SAM is in plain field with no cammo or cover. You can argue the cover will hinder its detection and tracking capabilities but it is a trade-off most SAM commanders would know and use, same with keeping its dish powered and scanning at all times.

[@grimreapers]

Roger Denis. We have real fighter pilots in our non-flying ranks and literally almost everything we do in DCS is not what they do in real life. When human life is involved the factors change massively.

[@MongooseTacticool]

"If it's stupid, but it works, it's not stupid" :)

[@grimreapers]

Driving my car to work at 130mph works just fine, gets me to work REALLY fast. But it is stupid because there is a high chance of dying.

[@MongooseTacticool]

@@grimreapers haha true. It's from Murphy's laws of combat :)

[@benjaminnevins5211]

I was paging through new videos and thought this said "more radically" :( I want to evade missiles Like a Boss

[@poseidon5003]

The American RWR sound doesn't instill a sense of panic like the Russian peacock does.

[@thundercrosssplitattack2064]

I mean I hid behind a mountain and the Sam still picks me up on its radar and fired

[@crashmaster26]

lol you're going to dodge an S300 with a Tiger... you've got balls sir :P

[@grimreapers]

lols

[@mikemclean6242]

Why cut the power in the dive

[@krzysztofgawe1089]

2:00 However I'd like to agree with you, I have to say... "I'm sure that a red Unicorn flies around Alpha Centauri. Give me a proof that it isn't!" It is a language of manipulation mate. Avoid it please.

[@sheila9358]

Good video.. real tactics not like some Il2 pilots who shoot down 10 planes in 30 min and think they are "aces"

[@HobelDcs]

have you ever played Il2 in the MP? with the cannons it is much harder to aim than just send a rocket in DCS or on the lead point to goals ... or just start flying or landing everything super easy in DCS / Modern aircraft But DCS has other difficulty levels so stop with such dumb comparison WW2 VS Modern wtf dude ...

[@TheGrzes1966]

The SA-6 destruction method shown by you has nothing to do with real life. The SA-6 battery does not look for targets continuously. RWR will not help you find SA-6. After receiving a warning from a long-range radar with an approaching target, the SA-6 battery temporarily activates the search station. Then, for a moment, the tracking station determines the parameters of the target. Then everything is turned off and waiting. Knowing the distance to the destination and its speed, we know how long to wait. The maximum range is not fired. With the turn on the radar and the launch of missiles, the target is waiting for the "death zone". When the target is at a distance of 15km, the radar switches on the rocket and hits after 15 seconds at a distance of about 10 km. there is no time to maneuver. After that, the SA-6 batteries do not stand out individually, but five in the form of a regiment. The SA-6 battery is protected by MPADS and ZSU-23. Try to defeat such a regiment with planes from the 70's. It is a pity that SAM batteries in DCS are directed by stupid AI. In the 1980s, I was an SA-6 operator. ;-) I used Google Translate.

[@luciansimionescu365]

Hi. Im a junior pilot in the Romanian Air Force and i would like to ask you a couple of questions about how realistic the SAMs in DCS are, if you would like to help me. Thank you

[@TheGrzes1966]

@@luciansimionescu365 I am very curious about your questions.

[@luciansimionescu365]

@@TheGrzes1966 1. Is the RWR that effective in real life? In the air to air mode, the AIM-120 can be fired in Track while scan mode which does not trigger an RWR firing alert, the RWR just stays on radar lock alarm. Is there such a system for SAMs as well? 2. In game, as long as you are tree top level and beaming the radar(staying perpendicular) + using some chaff you have a very high chance of defeating the missile. Is it so easy in real life? 3. How effective are in reality optical tracking systems such as the british Rapier? 4. If you use the SAM network as stealthy as you describe and literally ambush the enemy, how is a fighter squadron suposed to survive and fight back? Thank you for your time!

[@TheGrzes1966]

@@luciansimionescu365 Question No. 2. Sam's tests or exercises achieve over 90% efficiency. In the "real" life is not so good. It seems that most of the missiles fired miss. Probably also due to counteraction.

[@TheGrzes1966]

@@luciansimionescu365 Question No. 1. This is not a question for me. I was only an SA-6 operator in the 80's. This is a question for Iraqi or Serbian pilots who have had a meeting with AIM-120;)

[@ivanstepanovic1327]

Good thing this game doesn't allow SAMs to use "short pulse guidance" technique. TBH, that would be OP in a game such as this. In reality in 1990s, helped us score some hits against F-16 and other planes, including those on wild weasel missions. Mainly Kub (SA-6) was used for this type of launch very successfully.

[@wilburhaines5653]

So youre telling me ace combat lied to me about shooting down missiles?

[@grimreapers]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/qofXq594mp2rodU

[@wilburhaines5653]

@@grimreapers Didn’t mean that in a bad way man just joking around haha

[@azisandwich]

Realistically or realisically

[@Davros-vi4qg]

Azi Sandwich realisically, its the dcs version of realistically 🥴🖖🏼

[@azisandwich]

@@Davros-vi4qg ok

[@grimreapers]

lol thx!

[@GenericName1084]

Yeah, be very very careful when taking advice from the "No such thing as __" guy.

[@raakeshsingh7852]

Why don't those real life pilots fly with you cap?

[@grimreapers]

Good question. Real pilots tend not to be very good gamers from our experience...

[@raakeshsingh7852]

@@grimreapers oh, look at AteChuetTopgun2Speaker, the channel of a former French Navy Rafale pilot, and Growling sidewinder's pain.............. Yeah but, everyone is not the same

[@pukkajob8325]

Are you from Norfolk?

[@grimreapers]

sort of, family is from Eye.

[@pukkajob8325]

Grim Reapers no way, I live about 20 minutes away from Eye! Great video by the way!

[@trondyne3513]

Shooting down SAMs with Fox 2 missiles would depend on the speed and heat of the SAMs. Not sure why it's a "crazy" idea...

[@GShock112]

Told you and keep telling you the missiles are so bugged in DCS. That SAM is probably within 5 miles because you can see it. The closure speed is beyond the need to lead so much as to crash down back into the ground. But well... we're talking of a sim where an Amraam is slower than a Mirage (The Amraam flies at Mach4). :-)

[@Bonqiqi]

Do the maths, you know his altitude and you can guess the distance the missile has to travel. What altitude will it intercept him if he went straight down? I did a rough estimate and its roughly 10 seconds for him to go from 5000ft to sea level if he dives 90degrees and its roughly 17 seconds for the missile to arrive at that same point if it travels at its max 2.8 mach speed all the way.

[@GShock112]

@@Bonqiqi No need for maths, if a Mirage can fly faster than an Amraam, as shown by Growling SideWinder, it's all wrong. Missiles know their altitude not just the target's altitude. They wouldn't fly into the ground just because they must lead the target because they know the target itself can't fly into the ground. The guy is amazing and puts lots of work into explaining everything in DCS (literally everything) and I watch ALL his videos despite not having installed DCS. So, as far as I am concerned, excluding the few vids from Growling Sidewinder, all I know of DCS comes from the Grim Reapers. :-) Unfortunately this sim is eyecandy but pretty unrealistic. This video points out the second problem of missiles in this sim. The first one being Amraams flying slower than Mirage, this one with SAMs crashing into the ground.

[@Bonqiqi]

@@GShock112 I could've sworn in DCS only the older SAM systems crash into the ground, the newer ones like s300 have terrain avoidance.

[@GShock112]

@@Bonqiqi It's not the only issue. Take the SECOND example in the same video. If you take the S300 specs, (Sa10b) he inserted in the sim, you'll see the max range is 40km (IIRC). He was engaged at mid-range and then he did an about face and started doing hard turns left and right. Check the range circle, the SAM dropped down at half range. Supposedly then after 20km it had burned all its fuel. Here's the problem. The rocket engine doesn't have a faster-slower, it travels at the max speed and the missile turns and dives according to the kinetic energy applied by its fins at a particular speed. You may burn its speed by forcing it to do big turns at high Gs but the fuel is still the same and its speed drops and increases according to the straight-turn changes. When the missile turns and bleeds speed, its turning radius also changes accordingly.... in DCS, it appears to be burning so much fuel to lead the target but it doesn't because it turns faster and better. We're talking of a missile that travels at 2240mph, his F5 is turning left and right at 550kts. In the previous example the target would have been reached in 183 seconds (i did the maths and this doesn't include the fact this was a 0° aspect originally so this calc takes into account a static target whereas the time would have been LESS than 180 seconds). As a result of this crazy idea, the missile is out of fuel and you've outrun a missile that's designed to hit a static target at double your range in less than 5 km. And I don't even wanna enter the domain of proximity fuses. SAMs are countered by electronic warfare, not this BS idea you can outrun them... but hell if you can outrun this way an Amraam that flies at Mach4 with a Mirage we're in the fantasy not in the simulation environment. At half range you're in the lethal radius. It's ok to beam, ok to use ECM, of to use chaff and ok to try to bleed energy but keep in mind you're basically dead in the real world. You can't outrun it and if you dodge it you must dodge it by a lot otherwise its proximity fuse will still damage you and dmg on a jet always hits something important.

[@Bonqiqi]

@@GShock112 I'm guessing you saw Ralfi's podcast on missile in DCS. Might be possible these errors are intentional, as these missiles are still in use today.

[@denisbujoreanu5993]

Fifteen feet?!?!?!...you must be jesting.....As I recall the minimum tracking and engaging altitude for the "god-almighty" S-300 is in the tens of meters, somewhere like 20-30 meters high. Nowhere near the 5-6 meters that represent the 15 feet... this is ridiculous... Recall that the SEAD planes (F-111 Aardvark and the Su-24 Fencer) have terrain following radar but even with that the minimum altitude is something like 50-60 meters which would make it very difficult for any radar system to detect and track then compute a stable fire solution. The trick was anyway to get close enough to launch your HARM or Kh-31P then give the radar on the SAM something to look and shoot at while your own missile rides the beam from the SAM's radar down their antenna.

[@thomasbessis2809]

Hi! Just a little tip from a nobody; I was this close to watching the video cause it looked like an interesting subject... But damn, 48min...

[@grimreapers]

Yeh I know. Some things need an in-depth answer though.

[@sheila9358]

video f-16 dodging 6 sams kzbin.info/www/bejne/aKbLZayDdt1li6M

[@NDAGR-]

So I guess your saying anything is possible until someone proves it isn’t? The worse argument I’ve ever heard. Like talking to a child.