Question: Never thought a SEAD mission would be so hard...

[RedGuard]

In Falcon BMS, SEAD mission could be a piece of cake. You lock on the target through pod, You launch the missile, and boom, radar destroyed.

But in SPMBT, SEAD is almost a pain in the ***. Once SEAD fighter enters the battle, it has to test its luck by evading all the missiles before it could attack anyone. Then, ARM launched, and AAs always know when to shut down the Radar, which turns ARM into a blind fly, even when I use sth like AGM-88D. Even if I hit the target coincidently, it's hard to destroy something with mere HE.

IMO, SEAD is useful finding where the AA is, then you should use artillery to take it out and never expect ARMs could do anything good.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Out of curiosity what year are you playing in? The targeting POD issue is something I've brought up in the past and hope to get worked into the game from at least a visual stand point I don't know if the game software would allow for targeting integration or not. The AGM-88 up to the AGM-88D is a "radar emissions" rider with an 150lb. HE Frag. warhead to render a SAM site or individual SAM unit radar ineffective/blind by destroying it's radar system and if lightly armored the unit itself. Unless the unit is evading the missile the hit probably should still be at a fairly reasonable level for the newer SEAD weapons currently available at least from the mid 1980's which would include the AGM-88D. But again I cannot speak to the games software issue in this regards just to the weapons. Experience levels of the units involved do come into play here I suspect. And the weapons available are also a factor because, for at least the last 3-4 years the AGM-88E has been in use which is designed as a "shoot and forget" weapon and is not limited to just the U.S. in regards to this technology for SEAD weapons. This is another reason typing of the planes are important because did you know the only current USAF jet using the AGM-88 is the F-16C? This data is important so if someone comes along...like me and I see your scenario occurred in say 2013, then beyond any software issues, we would know that since a "jerk" like me pointed out "well wait a minute the USAF/USN/USMC/ITALY/AUSTRALIA had the AGM-88E in 2013." We would know to add the weapon and in the case of the USAF, also what platform to apply it to. But yes mid 80's to current SEAD mission survival rates and mission success should be higher then prior to that. The A-10 in its CAS role against ISIS with some fairly sophisticated SAM technology at it's disposal has not managed to bring down one A-10 (And I hope I didn't jinx someone out for the next 24hrs.) a lot of this is because of the Pods (Visual/Targeting/EW integration.), standoff capability etc. similar to the modern SEAD planes.
AGM-88...
http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets...m-88-harm.aspx
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_di...0&tid=300&ct=2
Note the last updated info at bottom.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-88.html
I hope you'll take the time to read the incremental improvements made to each type of the AGM-88 series I.E. the AGM-88B/or C added 12,800 TUNGSTEN steel fragments to the warhead-lethality. The C/or D added GPS capability-accuracy.

AGM-88E
http://www.naval-technology.com/proj...missile-aargm/

Well I'm off to bed have a great weekend! Sorry that's for me to have!

Regards,
Pat

[Suhiir]

While SEAD aircraft do need to survive Area SAM defenses, most of the time they have stand-off weapons so never get in range of MPADs or AA-guns. At least their first pass, many rely on cannon/bombs for a second.

Radar using units don't always shut down their radar, seems that about 80% of the time they will however.

Any HE weapon is of limited use vs an armored target, and even AT weapons seem to have only about a 50% chance of getting a solid hit (that's assuming they hit in the first place).

I'm afraid most SEAD aircraft in WinSPMT won't shut down opposition radar-guided air defenses by themselves.

From my own experiments I found that adding a Maverick or similar stand-off anti-armor weapon in the second weapon slot of SEAD aircraft makes them fairly effective. The anti-radar weapon in the first slot almost always locates opposition air defenses, fires, they shut down their radar (most of the time), the weapon misses or fails to destroy the target (most of the time), then the secondary stand-off anti-armor weapon fires and actually destroys the target (most of the time). I seem to get around a 75% first strike kill rate with this set-up (remember that about 50% of the time an anti-armor weapon won't get a killing hit even if it hits).

FYI - currently the USMC OOB uses:
AGM-45 Shrike (01/62-06/71) Acc=70, Warhead=10, HEP=9, HEK=9
AGM-78 ARM (07/71-12/85) Acc=75, Warhead=17, HEP=9, HEK=9
AGM-88 HARM (01/86-12/16) Acc=90, Warhead=12, HEP=10, HEK=10
AGM-88E AARGM (01/17-12/20) Acc=100, Warhead=12, HEP=10, HEK=10

Perhaps I should field the AGM-88E AARGM earlier then 2017 but it's not that much of an improvement (in the game) over the AGM-88 HARM (A thru D models).

[RedGuard]

So glad that someone agrees with me...maybe SPMBT should add a feature that ARM could silence radar only.

[Tomas]

Well, I believe that all the aspects of SEAD can be only abstracted at best in SP.

In real life, the aircraft conducting SEAD would not enter the map at all (with current map size) and would fire it's ARM from far away.

For example the mentioned F-16C with HARM can operate at least in three modes, if I remember right. Pre-briefed mode for known threats (missile flies to given steerpoint and activates onboard seeker), Harm as sensor mode (where it actively guides itself to emmiter from the beginning) and "datalinked" mode.

Depending on the presence of HTS module, the performance of the whole system may vary.

Now, with current systems and their anti-missile capability, the SAM site might be able to defend themselves too.

Turning off the emmiter of no longer helps with more recent ARMs, as they "remember" the emmiter location.

All in all, as I've said, it's complicated stuff and can be only abstracted in SP (which is done already). Perhaps simply adjusting the ACC of the missile (to increase POH) would help. If there was possibility to make the attack happen "off-map", it would be good too, but the SAM (especially more capable system) must retain some capability to shoot down the A/C if lucky.

[dmnt]

What are the EW ratings of the attacker and the target? If I understand the game model correctly then the one with higher EW has an advantage in SEAD strikes: electronic countermeasures and counter-countermeasures fight each other and the better computer wins.

[Imp]

Maybe I am lucky but I find the SEAD missiles hit on a fairly regular basis.
As Suhiir said picking a plane that has a decent armour killing weapon in its second slot gives a good chance of taking out armoured AAA also.
Not always needed though there are a couple of SEAD missiles that are effective vs light armour.