Project Reality Forums

I think the Anti aircraft systems that are guided by radar in game should get an automatic lock-on square on them when they are locking on to an aircraft since in real-life AAs are countered in this way. When they lock on to aircraft they send out a radar signal that can be traced by missiles destroyed. This could make AA drivers think a little more then simply pointing at the sky and clicking. It might be a stupid suggestion idk discuss.

Btw i did search but i was at a loss what exactly to search for to find it so if its been suggested before i do apologize.

I'm more in favour of putting anti-radiation missles in PR and giving ground based radars the ability to switch off like aircraft can do. It's something that's been sorely missing from most reality based games I've played, and there's nothing similar at all in any BF2 mod (with the possible exception of the cruise missile in AIX, but you can't untarget yourself from that). This is significant because it would be a very marketable asset that would further set PR apart and get new players in. I for one was attracted to PR, in part, by hopes of reliving the days of intense DC dogfighting and ground attack missions, and I know the former DC community is large and still very much looking for a new game to take to (F:FoW being the massive letdown it was to us).

I really think some anti-rad assets would add tactical depth to the game, but having said this, aircraft are probably already a little on the hard side to counter from the ground. I propose extending the lock-on range of SAM systems and including anti-rad missiles to counter it.

I agree. Anti-radiation missiles on something like the F16 would be awesome. And maybe give the AA gunners two modes: Unguided and Radar-Guided.

azreal64 wrote:I agree. Anti-radiation missiles on something like the F16 would be awesome. And maybe give the AA gunners two modes: Unguided and Radar-Guided.

what would the unguided do?

also i meant to write anti-radiation missiles in there somewhere but i guess i forgot.

Perhaps rather than unguided, give them a passive radar mode - where they are able to acquire and lock on to targets using active radar (such as planes with missles armed). I don't know, maybe this is silly...

Also, when I said anti-rad missiles, I meant the fire and forget, parachute deploying, long loiter time ones for the aircraft.

I know this is old, but I'd love to hear if it would be feasible. It'd be awesome in my opinion to replace the bombs on the F16 and replace them with the HARM or something. (Or have both)

i know that 21cw had their aa set up that you could switch between unguided and guided missles. when you fired unguided, you were invisible to the enemy, when you had the guided on, the pilots could get a lock on you.

yeah , RADAR locking missiles would be nice . Cause the current AA system sucks balls ( no offense to DEVS) , after all a Gaskin would comfortable take out helicopters , but Jets would be the only ones that would stand a very good chance of evading missiles. From my experience of seeing a Gaskin fire 4 missiles and CAS huey coming towards it and not a starch, so yeah kinda not reality .

i always thought the missiles were heat seaking cos the planes drop flares to counter not chaf !

BlackMagikz wrote:yeah , RADAR locking missiles would be nice . Cause the current AA system sucks balls ( no offense to DEVS) , after all a Gaskin would comfortable take out helicopters , but Jets would be the only ones that would stand a very good chance of evading missiles. From my experience of seeing a Gaskin fire 4 missiles and CAS huey coming towards it and not a starch, so yeah kinda not reality .

Agree, gaskin suck balls. You could at least up the ante by replacing it with the strela-10. EDIT: or the SA8 Osa/Gecko, which uses radar guided missiles.

bondsan wrote:i always thought the missiles were heat seaking cos the planes drop flares to counter not chaf !

And yeah, they are heatseeking. AFAIK both Gaskin and Avenger (stinger) missiles are infra-red. However the missiles on the British AA and the chinese AA are radar guided.

bondsan wrote:i always thought the missiles were heat seaking cos the planes drop flares to counter not chaf !

I think flares are actually meant to represent both chaff AND flares dropped at the same time, which is I think what you do in real life if you think there's a missile after you.

Anyone with real world experience or knowledge care to confirm/deny this?

bondsan wrote:i always thought the missiles were heat seaking cos the planes drop flares to counter not chaf !

They're some kind of horrible bastardisation, which means its really difficult to model any difference heat seeking and radar guided missiles, even if you take flares as a metaphor for both flares and chaff.

Of course if the Starstreaks were made to simulate their beam riding SACLOS they'd be very difficult to use in PR I suspect.

Its a shame because it takes away some the opportunities for finesse and varitation in air to air and air to ground combat. I have a feeling it would be very difficult to stop the anti radiation missles from homing in on those using heat seeking missiles, or the ability of some aircraft to detect the thermal bloom of a missile launch etc

mat552 wrote:I know this is old, but I'd love to hear if it would be feasible. It'd be awesome in my opinion to replace the bombs on the F16 and replace them with the HARM or something. (Or have both)

ye im in favour of this id rather have aa and air to ground missiles than aa and jdams because jdam are a great area attack weapon but they r not always effective and the a10 has a better arsenal of weapons to do the same job, and the sinics will say that the f16 is a anti air role but in terms of ground the f16 has a better chance of taking out ground aa than the a10 has due to the speed

I don't like the idea. It removes team work and further unbalances the jets vs aa.

If you think it's too easy for AA to shoot down jets, then your doing something wrong. A good pilot can not only avoid the AA, but with team work, engage and destroy him easily. There is no more tunguska, like there was when this was suggested. Times have changed.

badmojo420 wrote:I don't like the idea. It removes team work and further unbalances the jets vs aa.

If you think it's too easy for AA to shoot down jets, then your doing something wrong. A good pilot can not only avoid the AA, but with team work, engage and destroy him easily. There is no more tunguska, like there was when this was suggested. Times have changed.

Well, I'm not sure if it's possible, but, if you could have it so that after around 5 seconds of having it you located the (Radar) AA position, that would be awesome. HOWEVER, seeing as you can't launch the missiles without radar assistance, and then enable it in flight, it wouldn't quite work as well.

Though the engagement ranges do compensate for that, and so it probably wouldn't be that big of a problem, since it would require some more work on the AA crewmember's behalf than before, as well as adding a difference between Radar and IR guided AA missiles.

Though, I wonder if it's possible to launch guided missiles that have a carrier defense in front of them, and then enable/disable the thing...

It just sounds really complicated otherwise to code though, and I have no idea if has been or even can be implemented in some way or another.

badmojo420 wrote:It removes team work

Not true.

badmojo420 wrote:
If you think it's too easy for AA to shoot down jets, then your doing something wrong. A good pilot can not only avoid the AA, but with team work, engage and destroy him easily. There is no more tunguska, like there was when this was suggested. Times have changed.

It is easy enough, but the great majority do not use AA properly.

In any case, the reason people fell thing would be unbalanced is because:

-View distance (needs to be doubled at least on maps like kashan for realistic balance).

-Speed (combined with view distance worsens the situation).

-Over effectivity of the flares in PR.


Over a lot of testing we have achieved a balance between AA and aicraft, with both parties being able to lock on. The end result is a more realistic behaviour and a huge importance on tactics to win, along with teamwork.

I know you find this incredibly hard to believe, I am not suprised, most do. But then most of the people who say this do not know the assets well enough.

Alex6714 wrote:Not true.



It is easy enough, but the great majority do not use AA properly.

In any case, the reason people fell thing would be unbalanced is because:

-View distance (needs to be doubled at least on maps like kashan for realistic balance).

-Speed (combined with view distance worsens the situation).

-Over effectivity of the flares in PR.


Over a lot of testing we have achieved a balance between AA and aicraft, with both parties being able to lock on. The end result is a more realistic behaviour and a huge importance on tactics to win, along with teamwork.

I know you find this incredibly hard to believe, I am not suprised, most do. But then most of the people who say this do not know the assets well enough.

Actually, i agree with most of what you've said. Reading this thread gives the impression that people want to just add a radar guided missile, with no changes to anything else. Which is what i am opposed to. The changes you listed would be needed for it to be balanced.

Say what you want, i still think the current PR system of visual location, and relaying grids to the pilot provides more teamwork than simply flying around locking on. But it's a stupid argument since good pilots can fly around and visually spot targets anyway. I'm just saying the radar locking would give bad pilots an excuse to pilot poorly. If that makes sense.

Alex6714 wrote:
In any case, the reason people fell thing would be unbalanced is because:

-View distance (needs to be doubled at least on maps like kashan for realistic balance).

-Speed (combined with view distance worsens the situation).

-Over effectivity of the flares in PR.

all u said are good ideas , but increasing the view distance is not possible because of the Engine limitations ( i learned that through my first suggestion ). Much of lack of reality in the game can be traced back to chitty Vbf2 Engine.


we all know the reality of AH-64 , killing any vehicle within 8kms and Inf ( effectively ) 1.5kms . But sadly the vBf2 Engine limits or prohibits that

The BF2 engine doesn't prevent enlarging the view distance.

Desert Rats, For instance, has a 2km view distance:


And while the effective engagement distances of the Apache cannot be replicated on maps that are half the size of that distance, it is possible to enlarge it considerably, because the difference between being forced to engage at 800 meters to being able to engage at 2000 meters is huge.

Out of curiosity, would this be feasible to code? The ability to lock onto something locking onto you? Or at least the ability to find locate it, after x amount of lock time?

jbgeezer wrote:Agree, gaskin suck balls. You could at least up the ante by replacing it with the strela-10. EDIT: or the SA8 Osa/Gecko, which uses radar guided missiles.



And yeah, they are heatseeking. AFAIK both Gaskin and Avenger (stinger) missiles are infra-red. However the missiles on the British AA and the chinese AA are radar guided.

The British one uses the Starstreak missile, which is a multi-warhead laser guided HVM. The closest thing to how it would actually work is the vbf2 AT kit, albeit much faster.

Vs helicopters, if this system were used in game it would be unstoppable; the only countermeasure is to break line of sight; being laser guided, you can't just pop a flare and fool them. Would be largely useless against planes though; too fast.