Page 1 of 2

Refinement of Anti-Aircraft Infantry (MANPADS)

Posted: 2008-07-27 17:30
by M.Warren
I do hope all Anti-Aircraft Infantry (MANPADS <Man Portable Air Defense System>) get's some much needed attention aswell by the v0.8 installment. Certainly well overdue for a visual cleanup I'd say, especially from the hands of [R-DEV]Chuc.

Hopefully there will be no more of that "shoving-a-missle-down-the-barrel" routine. Should be more along the lines of tossing the discharged unit to the side instead similar to the SRAW and Eryx after use. However, it's said that the FIM-92 Stinger and the SA-7 Grail can be reloaded at an resupply depot or disposed of while out in the field.

Pay particular attention to the following:

FIM-92 Stinger
A. Sound of the rapid beeping of target aquisition phase.
B. Sound of the solid tone of target lock-on phase.

<Note: Although they seem to be firing at an airborne target, it's clear that they are using training missles. These missles simply simulate a "live-fire" without actually using an armed warhead. Pay close attention to the audible sounds heard during it's operational phases.>
FIM-92 Stinger Training Launch - Swiss Military

<Note: You can faintly hear the solid tone of the target lock-on phase if you listen closely.>
FIM-92 Stinger Training Launch - U.S. Military


SA-7 Grail
A. Sound of the "honking" tone of target lock-on phase.

<Note: Take note of the "honking" tone of the target lock-on phase.>
SA-7 Grail - Czech Military


<Note: Take note of the "honking" tone of the target lock-on phase.>
SA-7 Grail


Types of Anti-Aircraft missle guidance systems.

Now seeing as people are starting down the road toward the subject of Anti-Aircraft missles, let's take a moment to clarify a few things... There are several different types of anti-aircraft missles in the world.

A. Radar Guided (Radiation)
  1. Positive aspects - Long range detection. Not effected by flare countermeasures.
  2. Negative aspects - Target aircraft can easily determine when being detected and begin to evade. Is effected by chaff countermeasures.
B. Heat Seeking (Infrared)
  1. Positive aspects - Target aircraft cannot easily determine when being detected and begin to evade. Not effected by chaff countermeasures.
  2. Negative aspects - Short range detection (Sometimes assisted by radar.). Is effected by flare countermeasures.
To help explain alittle bit more in-depth, I've taken a sample of an older thread I had posted about Anti-Aircraft missles.
M.Warren wrote:(Currently Used in BF2/PR) Heat seeking missles are guided by infared imaging where the heat of the engine exhaust usually is it's source of guidance using the aircrafts own power source against it. Although it is usually countered by flares which simply burn extremely hot and try to trick the missle into thinking it's the actual target causing it to detonate it's warhead... Although, rather than the missle blowing up as it should, it just flies through the flares instead in BF2/PR.

(Not currently used in BF2/PR) However radar guided missles generally operate upon the basis of the detection of a metallic object within a certain proximity, usually countered by chaff which are simple thin shredded metal strips that fan out in a large area (Like a wall of metallic confetti.) to attempt to trick the missle into thinking it's the target causing it to detonate it's warhead.

But currently, no it's not realistic. But it also would be difficult because now PR would have to devise a new missle counter measure system and different types of missles to be fired and pilots would have to know what to do when to do it and how to deal with it.
Anti-Aircraft Infantry

FIM-92 Stinger MANPADS
Target Guidance
The "fire-and-forget" Stinger missile employs a passive infrared seeker to home in on its airborne target. A passive infrared seeker emits no radiation that a target aircraft can detect, and, instead, guides on the infrared energy (heat) emitted by the target.*** Because the Stinger employs a passive homing seeker, it is a "fire-and-forget" weapon that needs no guidance from the operator after firing, unlike other missiles that track the reflection of a designator beam, requiring the operator to maintain a lock on the target. This allows a Stinger operator to take cover, relocate, or engage other targets immediately after firing a Stinger.

Target Identification:
The Stinger system features a proportional navigation system, integrated Indentification Friend or Foe (IFF) interrogation, and threat adaptive guidance. Proportional navigation enables the missile to effectively hit moving targets by injecting a multiplier factor into course corrections so that the missile overcorrects for a target's evasive maneuvers, leading the target to a successful interception. The integrated IFF subsystem allows the Stinger operator to query a target aircraft to determine if it is friendly. Before firing, the operator depresses a button on the gripstock assembly, emitting a coded radio signal. Aircraft equipped with friendly IFF systems will recognize the coded signal and respond with the appropriate coded reply. The IFF subsystem emits one tone if it authenticates a friendly aircraft, and another if the aircraft is unknown. The IFF subsystem is intended to prevent friendly-fire incidents. The Stinger's threat adaptive guidance takesover in the final stages of its approach to the target, slightly shifting the missile's aim from the target's IR hotspot to more vulnerable areas of the aircraft.


*** - Before there is a misconception... Be advised that in this explanation is that the missle ITSELF does not emit any GUIDANCE SIGNATURE for an aircraft to detect... However, the truth of the matter is that any aircraft properly outfitted with modern electronic IR detection can still identify an incoming Heat Seeking missle.

The way these electronic IR detectors work is that it constantly monitors the outside world on a vigil for an irregular "Heat plume" that is generated by an incoming missle. If the detection system does notice the incoming missle, it will warn the pilot which then must begin evading and dispensing flare countermeasures. As you can see, it is significantly harder to detect a Heat Seeking missle than it is a Radar Guided missle that bounces radar waves off of the aircrafts metallic skin.


SA-7 Grail MANPADS
Target Guidance
The SA-7 GRAIL (Strela-2) man-portable, shoulder-fired, low-altitude SAM system is similar to the US Army REDEYE, with a high explsive warhead and passive infrared homing guidance. The HN-5 ( Hong Nu = Red Cherry ) is an improved Chinese version with upgraded capabilities. The SA-7 was the first generation of Soviet man portable surface-to-air missiles. Although classed as "fire and forget" types, the missiles were easily overcome by solar heat and, when used in hilly terrain, by heat from the ground. The SA-7 seeker is fitted with a filter to reduce the effectiveness of decoying flares and to block IR emissions. The system consists of the missile (9K32 & 9K32M), a reloadable gripstock (9P54 & 9P54M), and a thermal battery (9B17).

Target Identification:
An identification friend or foe (IFF) system can be fitted to the operators helmet. Further, a supplementary early warning system consisting of a passive RF antenna and headphones can be used to provide early cue about the approach and rough direction of an enemy aircraft. Although the SA-7 is limited in range, speed, and altitude, it forces enemy pilots to fly above minimum radar limitations which results in detection and vulnerability to regimental and divisional air defense systems.


Anti-Aircraft Vehicles

Tunguska-M1 and Armament
The Tunguska-M1 vehicle carries eight 9M311-M1 surface-to-air missiles. The missile (NATO designation SA-19 Grison) has semi-automatic radar command to line-of-sight guidance, weighs 40kg with a 9kg warhead. It is 2.5m long with a diameter of 1.7m and wingspan of 2.2m. The missile's maximum speed is 900m/s and can engage targets travelling at speeds up to 500m/s. Range is from 15 to 6,000m for ground targets and 15 to 10,000m for air targets.

M6 Linebacker and Armament
The current production Stinger missiles are the RMP (Reprogrammable Microprocessor) FIM-92D and the Block I FIM-92E. It has a dual-mode infrared and ultraviolet rosette scan seeker. It is 1.5m long and 70mm in diameter and weighs 10kg at launch with a 3kg HE-FRAG (High Explosive Fragmentation) warhead. Maximum speed is Mach 2.2 and range is 200m to 4.5km. Maximum altitude is 3.8km. The Block I missile has a new roll frequency sensor and an improved processor.

By the way... The M1 Tunguska carries 8 missles onboard with 2 in storage. The M6 Linebacker carries 4 missles onboard with 6 in storage. This means both AAV's have a realistic missle capacity of 10 compared to the current 8 missle limit.

That pretty much sums it all up. But now you probably understand Anti-Aircraft missles better than before.

Re: Refinement of Anti-Aircraft Infantry (MANPADS)

Posted: 2008-07-27 17:32
by Tirak
Vids don't work try posting the links instead.

Re: Refinement of Anti-Aircraft Infantry (MANPADS)

Posted: 2008-07-27 19:40
by Craz3y|Assasin
Tirak wrote:Vids don't work try posting the links instead.
they worked for me

Re: Refinement of Anti-Aircraft Infantry (MANPADS)

Posted: 2008-07-27 21:18
by Conman51
i dont care much about the sound..but i think they need more range

Re: Refinement of Anti-Aircraft Infantry (MANPADS)

Posted: 2008-07-27 21:57
by Fluffywuffy
Conman51=US= wrote:i dont care much about the sound..but i think they need more range
The honking tone would tell you when you have the best lock.

Needs those winsauce smoke effects.
I agree Warren.

Re: Refinement of Anti-Aircraft Infantry (MANPADS)

Posted: 2008-07-27 22:09
by Mora
I approve of this suggestion.

Re: Refinement of Anti-Aircraft Infantry (MANPADS)

Posted: 2008-07-27 22:40
by steve_06-07
I agree with warren also, you should rely on a tone instead of a symbol to tell you you have a lock. So instead of this.
Image

You should have something like this.

Image

Re: Refinement of Anti-Aircraft Infantry (MANPADS)

Posted: 2008-07-27 23:56
by Outlawz7
And proper aiming reticules.

MANPADs gave lock on tone back in 0.5, but they removed it for 0.6, I think it had to do something with a sound bug, when you could hear the tone without locking onto anything and it was annoying as hell.

Re: Refinement of Anti-Aircraft Infantry (MANPADS)

Posted: 2008-07-28 02:34
by Celestial1
Looking at those videos, it also seems that the lock-ons take quite a bit longer.

Would this be in order for PR, or would it just waste time?

If longer range could be implemented as well, then it would probably be much more interesting.

Re: Refinement of Anti-Aircraft Infantry (MANPADS)

Posted: 2008-07-28 05:49
by Charity Case
Good suggestion Warren, here are a few things I'd like to add:
  • I don't know if it's possible, but it would be realistic to remove the lock tone heard by aircraft being targeted by MANPADS since they use passive infrared guidance.
  • While not a priority, conventional CATA armies (MEC and PLA) should probably use the SA-18 Grouse instead of the Grail. The Insurgents and Militia could continue to use the Grail. But since the SA-7 was developed nearly fifty years ago, it would be more realistic to give modern armies a modern weapon.
  • Since the effective range of surface to air missiles (SAMs) is already stupidly short due to BF2's draw distance, I don't feel the MANPADS should be given a longer range. A shorter range should help differentiate MANPADS from other SAMs and compensate for the lack of lock tone in aircraft (assuming that is implemented).

Re: Refinement of Anti-Aircraft Infantry (MANPADS)

Posted: 2008-07-28 05:57
by Brummy
Charity Case wrote:Good suggestion Warren, here are a few things I'd like to add:
  • I don't know if it's possible, but it would be realistic to remove the lock tone heard by aircraft being targeted by MANPADS since they use passive infrared guidance.
  • While not a priority, conventional CATA armies (MEC and PLA) should probably use the SA-18 Grouse instead of the Grail. The Insurgents and Militia could continue to use the Grail. But since the SA-7 was developed nearly fifty years ago, it would be more realistic to give modern armies a modern weapon.
  • Since the effective range of surface to air missiles (SAMs) is already stupidly short due to BF2's draw distance, I don't feel the MANPADS should be given a longer range. A shorter range should help differentiate MANPADS from other SAMs and compensate for the lack of lock tone in aircraft (assuming that is implemented).
Agree with bold statement.

Removing the tone would be realistic, but then you would have to look for a way to quick responding advanced defending systems properly. Which would be a tad hard, if not hardcoded if I am right.

Re: Refinement of Anti-Aircraft Infantry (MANPADS)

Posted: 2008-07-28 06:11
by steve_06-07
Yeah I agree also, the IGLA is already in game in the chair system, would it be hard to duplicate one of those to replace the Grail?

Re: Refinement of Anti-Aircraft Infantry (MANPADS)

Posted: 2008-07-28 08:35
by nedlands1
Some interesting literature on the Stinger MANPADS:

FM 44-18 Table of Contents

FM 44-18-1 Table of Contents

The quick beeps you are hearing, with the stinger, are probably from the IFF unit to signal that the aircraft is unknown. The solid tone signifies the establishment of a successful "IR acquisition signal".

As usual, CoD4 isn't the definitive source for information regarding military equipment. :-D

Image
CoD4

Image
Real life

Re: Refinement of Anti-Aircraft Infantry (MANPADS)

Posted: 2008-07-28 12:33
by AnRK
I don't care what happens as long as the change it so we can shoot down light helis with these things in in .8. Last night some douchebags were H-AT sniping from the littlebirds on Qwai from a ridiculous height, far too high for tanks, APCS and 50s, and too hight for small arms to e accurate. Really annoying.

Re: Refinement of Anti-Aircraft Infantry (MANPADS)

Posted: 2008-07-28 12:54
by M.Warren
Charity Case wrote:Good suggestion Warren, here are a few things I'd like to add:
  • I don't know if it's possible, but it would be realistic to remove the lock tone heard by aircraft being targeted by MANPADS since they use passive infrared guidance.
  • While not a priority, conventional CATA armies (MEC and PLA) should probably use the SA-18 Grouse instead of the Grail. The Insurgents and Militia could continue to use the Grail. But since the SA-7 was developed nearly fifty years ago, it would be more realistic to give modern armies a modern weapon.
  • Since the effective range of surface to air missiles (SAMs) is already stupidly short due to BF2's draw distance, I don't feel the MANPADS should be given a longer range. A shorter range should help differentiate MANPADS from other SAMs and compensate for the lack of lock tone in aircraft (assuming that is implemented).
By the way, I've updated the main post with additional information about AA missles. They also answer a few of your questions.
AnRK wrote:I don't care what happens as long as the change it so we can shoot down light helis with these things in in .8. Last night some douchebags were H-AT sniping from the littlebirds on Qwai from a ridiculous height, far too high for tanks, APCS and 50s, and too hight for small arms to e accurate. Really annoying.
All infantry Anti-Aircraft is capable of locking onto Light Attack Helos now, this detail was changed awhile back. So you don't have to use L-AT or .50 cals on jeeps against them if someone has a MANPADS in the area.

Re: Refinement of Anti-Aircraft Infantry (MANPADS)

Posted: 2008-07-28 12:54
by steve_06-07
'[R-CON wrote:nedlands1;745920']As usual, CoD4 isn't the definitive source for information regarding military equipment. :-D
Sorry if I didn't get my point across, I wasn't referring to the design of the scope but showing the comparison that PR has a locking symbol without a locking tone, and CoD4 has a Tone instead of a locking symbol like IRL, which is what I was trying to suggest.

Re: Refinement of Anti-Aircraft Infantry (MANPADS)

Posted: 2008-07-28 12:58
by Outlawz7
AnRK wrote:I don't care what happens as long as the change it so we can shoot down light helis with these things in in .8. Last night some douchebags were H-AT sniping from the littlebirds on Qwai from a ridiculous height, far too high for tanks, APCS and 50s, and too hight for small arms to e accurate. Really annoying.
Knock knock, Littlebirds can be shot down by AA since 0.75.

Re: Refinement of Anti-Aircraft Infantry (MANPADS)

Posted: 2008-07-28 12:59
by AnRK
M.Warren wrote:All infantry Anti-Aircraft is capable of locking onto Light Attack Helos now, this detail was changed awhile back. So you don't have to use L-AT or .50 cals on jeeps against them if someone has a MANPADS in the area.
Was it? It's been long since I've actually used one, or even seen one used for that matter, that I had to ask my team if it was possible, and everyone who answered seemed to think it wasn't.

Re: Refinement of Anti-Aircraft Infantry (MANPADS)

Posted: 2008-07-28 13:05
by M.Warren
AnRK wrote:Was it? It's been long since I've actually used one, or even seen one used for that matter, that I had to ask my team if it was possible, and everyone who answered seemed to think it wasn't.
That's allright. Outlawz lurks the forums to pinpoint minor details like that. He gave me the "wtf-bbqsauce" treatment when I finally picked up a HK21E and realized it had semi automatic, 3 round burst and fully automatic weapon modes. Nothing new to me. :p

Re: Refinement of Anti-Aircraft Infantry (MANPADS)

Posted: 2008-07-28 13:13
by AnRK
Yeah I know what he's like hahaha, I pretty much downright ignore most of what he says cos of comments like that sometimes. I've been playing religiously since .5, an been in the PR Tournament for like a year and a half, so I'm not exactly some clueless new guy. :p

Didn't know about the HK thing, think I can count the amount of times I've played MEC support on one hand. If there were more decent squads in game, I might be able take a break from leading and use it.