Shoot down attack drones using AAA without radar (tracking, search) // v1.09.1817-1825.11

[YuriyAntropov]

Brief description:
After update v1.09.1817, the radar definition of kamikaze drones was changed from "Aircraft" to "Guided Weapons," which made it impossible to shoot them down with AAA, which have "Aircraft" and "Helicopters" listed under "VALID TARGETS" in the database.

Here's what's written in the changes for update v1.09.1817:

TWEAK: When detecting OWA-UAVs (e.g. Shahed-136), classify them as "weapon" contacts, not air

Here's a link to the article that prompted these radical changes:
https://forums.matrixgames.com/viewtopi ... 0#p5251950

Here's my more detailed description, which I wrote in another thread (+ opinion):

Excuse me, but why did you do that?
Previously, at least all units with the "AAA" prefix (14mm and higher) shot down drones because they saw them as aircraft, but now they're considered "guided weapons," and only those with radar (for tracking) can shoot them down. Previously, this logic was SOMEHOW understandable: cruise missiles, guided bombs, etc. were "guided weapons," and they could ONLY be shot down by weapons that could track their target with radar (even though this logic is flawed from a physics perspective). And now even a Lancet drone, flying at 60 knots (1.6-meter length and a 1-meter wingspan), can only be shot down by vehicles with radar. Or is a Shahed drone, flying at 100 knots and the size of a small car, also inaccessible, say, from a ZU-23-2? Even if its trajectory is "towards you" (in the forward hemisphere) or "away from you" (in the rear)?? Even if it's 100 meters away and at an altitude of 100 meters???
I've personally never fired anything heavier than a 5.45mm round at a static target, but the HUGE amount of real-live video footage, for example from the war between Russia and Ukraine, where a Browning machine gun mounted on a pickup truck is capable of shooting down a Shahed drone at a decent distance without radar (and only with an air situational awareness system (in the form of a map with markers) + a thermal sight (and not always even that)), confirms my words that your innovation has no basis in the real world (I assume you want to stick to realism when creating a game, right?).
To the question "Suicide drones have a lower RCS than aircraft, which is why they're classified as 'guided missiles,'" I'd reply that, for example, the Furia UAV has a lower RCS, but on radar it looks like an aircraft... NOT LOGICAL.

Criticize? Suggest.- you'll say. I suggest:
The simplest thing is to return to the way it was before, where kamikaze drones were displayed on radars as "Airplanes" or as "quadcopters" (on their own radars). That's bad, but at least it would be somewhat consistent with reality.
The best option is to expand the "Probability of Hit" logic. What I'm saying is: is there a chance of shooting down a huge ICBM with a pistol if it!! FOR SOME REASON!! has a speed of 0 and an altitude of 50? The answer is: yes (if a 9mm bullet hits its own hole several times in the fuel compartment and creates an incredible spark (+the target is detected and is being tracked by the eye)). That is, with a target's RCS of "100 square meters," an altitude of 50 meters, and a speed of 0 knots (+ hull wall thickness + fire hazard?), the chance of hitting such a target with a pistol is 80% (FOR EXAMPLE!). Or if a small C4 (covered with contact detonators) flies past in the air at Mach 1, at a distance of 100 meters, the chance of hitting and detonating it with a 9mm = 0.000001% "PoH." No matter what data you plug into this rough formula, the "PoH" WILL ALWAYS BE > 0, whether shooting down a Boeing with a Patriot, or an ICBM with a ZU-23. Only in the first case the "PoH" will be high, and in the second, it tends to 0. Of course, you have to add a bunch of input data to this "formula" (like reaction delay or guidance delay), but this is the principle. That will be realistic.

We have a saying: Even a stick shoots a fire once a year.

Thank you for your work.

Thanks, I see the reason for the change.
But then it becomes even more confusing.

It seems to me that if "drones aren't shot down AUTOMATICALLY (with Tight) because if they're an "Airplane" type on the radar, it requires manual identification," then it's NOT THE SOLUTION to make all OWA-UAVs "Guided Weapon" so that only units with radar can shoot them down. But now OWA-UAVs are shot down automatically (with Tight)......
I can't judge for you, but doesn't it seem AT LEAST unrealistic to you that drones can't be shot down by simple AA guns? And it seems to me that the ability for units to shoot down drones without manual identification (using the "H" "N" keys, etc.) is a LESS significant problem than the one that appeared after all kamikaze drones were designated "Guided Weapons" and now can't be shot down with regular AA?

I might be missing some details, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Thanks!


PS:
I'm in no way rushing to make changes; I just want to hear your opinion on my topic.
Am I right in my statements? Or not?

Here are links to videos of drones being shot down with anti-aircraft guns (in case anyone asks, "Is it really impossible to shoot down a drone without targeting it?") "Radar"):

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/oe5jdirzFh0
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/oNpwVL7rwdA
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jRcRjk1US10
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/6nd3ZtStbf4
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/w92_fg-K954
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ZmUYtTqvEXA
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/9uoFOvhxkmw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxKCKHcD86I
and so on. If that's not enough evidence, study physics.

Steps to Reproduce:
Launch drones from pre-positioned launchers at the target so they fly over the guns.

Attached Files:
test2copy.zip (saved before launching AAA targets)

[Dimitris]

confirms my words that your innovation has no basis in the real world (I assume you want to stick to realism when creating a game, right?).
[...]
If that's not enough evidence, study physics.

You're a bucket of sunshine, aren't ya

More later.

[Dimitris]

The simplest thing is to return to the way it was before, where kamikaze drones were displayed on radars as "Airplanes" or as "quadcopters" (on their own radars). That's bad, but at least it would be somewhat consistent with reality.

Consistent with reality? "Thousands of Shaheds have penetrated our airspace but we have not marked them as hostile (and hence we're not shooting at them) because they show up as 'airplane' targets" - This is your realism?

[Dimitris]

The best option is to expand the "Probability of Hit" logic. What I'm saying is: is there a chance of shooting down a huge ICBM with a pistol if it!! FOR SOME REASON!! has a speed of 0 and an altitude of 50? The answer is: yes (if a 9mm bullet hits its own hole several times in the fuel compartment and creates an incredible spark (+the target is detected and is being tracked by the eye)). That is, with a target's RCS of "100 square meters," an altitude of 50 meters, and a speed of 0 knots (+ hull wall thickness + fire hazard?), the chance of hitting such a target with a pistol is 80% (FOR EXAMPLE!). Or if a small C4 (covered with contact detonators) flies past in the air at Mach 1, at a distance of 100 meters, the chance of hitting and detonating it with a 9mm = 0.000001% "PoH." No matter what data you plug into this rough formula, the "PoH" WILL ALWAYS BE > 0, whether shooting down a Boeing with a Patriot, or an ICBM with a ZU-23. Only in the first case the "PoH" will be high, and in the second, it tends to 0. Of course, you have to add a bunch of input data to this "formula" (like reaction delay or guidance delay), but this is the principle. That will be realistic.

So, what you are suggesting here is to treat aerodynamic weapon contacts (such as cruise missiles or OWA-UAVs) as "airframe" targets (and thus engageable by weapons that have an "aircraft" WRA entry) IF their kinematic properties place them within the engagement envelope of the own weapon being considered for employment.

We can discuss that.

[YuriyAntropov]

The simplest thing is to return to the way it was before, where kamikaze drones were displayed on radars as "Airplanes" or as "quadcopters" (on their own radars). That's bad, but at least it would be somewhat consistent with reality.

Consistent with reality? "Thousands of Shaheds have penetrated our airspace but we have not marked them as hostile (and hence we're not shooting at them) because they show up as 'airplane' targets" - This is your realism?

Of course not, it wasn't accurate before the changes, and after the changes, it's become even less accurate. If you compare "Automatic hostility detection" and "Slow drones are flying overhead, and I won't shoot at them with an anti-aircraft gun," the former is more realistic than the latter. But that's not what I was talking about...

Sorry if I expressed myself rudely somewhere. I understand that you made the changes to fix an issue users raised in Tech Support, and you didn't mean to "purposely remove the ability to shoot down drones with AAA." Frankly, I didn't want to post in the Tech Support thread because I knew you KNOW you created a temporary solution when you made all drones "Guided Missiles." I'm sure you knew this when you made the changes, and you have long-term plans for BOTH automatic detection of hostile aircraft and the ability to shoot down drones with guns (and let them appear on radars however you like).

When I talked about "realism," I meant the possibility or impossibility of shooting down drones, not my comparison or my assessment of your solution to fix the original problem.

I just want to hear from you: are you planning changes that will fix both my issue and the original unit detection problem? If not, why not?

Thank you for your work and for listening to the community!

[YuriyAntropov]

The best option is to expand the "Probability of Hit" logic. What I'm saying is: is there a chance of shooting down a huge ICBM with a pistol if it!! FOR SOME REASON!! has a speed of 0 and an altitude of 50? The answer is: yes (if a 9mm bullet hits its own hole several times in the fuel compartment and creates an incredible spark (+the target is detected and is being tracked by the eye)). That is, with a target's RCS of "100 square meters," an altitude of 50 meters, and a speed of 0 knots (+ hull wall thickness + fire hazard?), the chance of hitting such a target with a pistol is 80% (FOR EXAMPLE!). Or if a small C4 (covered with contact detonators) flies past in the air at Mach 1, at a distance of 100 meters, the chance of hitting and detonating it with a 9mm = 0.000001% "PoH." No matter what data you plug into this rough formula, the "PoH" WILL ALWAYS BE > 0, whether shooting down a Boeing with a Patriot, or an ICBM with a ZU-23. Only in the first case the "PoH" will be high, and in the second, it tends to 0. Of course, you have to add a bunch of input data to this "formula" (like reaction delay or guidance delay), but this is the principle. That will be realistic.

So, what you are suggesting here is to treat aerodynamic weapon contacts (such as cruise missiles or OWA-UAVs) as "airframe" targets (and thus engageable by weapons that have an "aircraft" WRA entry) IF their kinematic properties place them within the engagement envelope of the own weapon being considered for employment.

We can discuss that.

Not quite so.


I believe that IDEALLY we should move away from the strict division into categories of "Airplane," "Helicopter," "Drone," "Cruise Missile," and "Ballistic Missile" in the "what targets can this unit hit" section, and instead develop an even more advanced PoH system.
Every enemy target on our radar has its own RCS, speed, altitude, range, and other characteristics, BY WHICH the operator independently determines "what type of target it is." As far as I know, most air defense systems don't have automatic target type identification, and only the system operator (or the system's computer) can determine what kind of target it is based on the target's characteristics. That is, "I see a TARGET at an altitude of 30, a range of 12, an RCS of 0.1, and I think it's a helicopter," NOT "I see a helicopter..."

I think that's true in reality. Weapon systems don't have a strict classification, like "I CAN'T shoot down helicopters, but I CAN shoot down ballistic missiles." There are radar blips, there's the rationale for hitting (money), and there are other factors that make air defenses "NOT WANT" to hit a target. However, ANY system CAN hit ANY target, WITH THE "PoH" VARIABLE. Note: IF THIS SYSTEM HAS DETECTED AND IS TRACKING THE TARGET BY SOME MIRACULOUS MEANS!

This is a significant change to the entire game, I understand, but it will be as close to realism as possible.


Situation: For example, a ZU23-2 detects an aircraft at high altitude and speed, and simultaneously detects a drone at medium altitude and minimal speed. In the current update, AAA will start shooting at aircraft, but not at drones, Because it CANNOT do that, because it's a "Guided Weapon". I think this shouldn't be the case and it's wrong, and I think you agree.


Therefore, as a "medium-quality" solution, I propose allowing AAA to shoot down "Guided Weapons" (except ballistic missiles (or those with a speed exceeding Mach 1), so as not to worry about "0.00001 PoH").

Let's think about what would happen in this case:
What constitutes "Guided Weapons"? Bombs, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, unguided rockets, etc. Now, with some examples: can the 23-2 shoot down a "dumb" bomb (like a Fab-500) flying straight at you? It can. What reduces PoH: its small size. What increases PoH: its clear, free-falling trajectory, the 23-2's higher firepower, etc. Can the 23-2 shoot down a cruise missile (like a Tomahawk)? Yes. It's a visually large target flying at subsonic speed, and it whistles like an airplane. Can it shoot down ballistic missiles? No. And unguided rockets? No, they're too small and fast.
The same applies to other AAA weapons in the game, which currently have the ability to destroy Helicopter and Airplane-type targets.

I agree that a caliber smaller than 12mm may not penetrate the hull of a missile or bomb, so let's leave it as is: anything smaller than 12mm can't penetrate Guided Weapons, but it can penetrate unarmored Airplanes and Helicopters, but with a low HP.

I propose introducing strict restrictions for AAA in this version: the gun can't shoot down anything below 12mm (it already exists), and it can't shoot down anything above Mach 1 (or remove the ability to shoot down only ballistic missiles and unguided rockets from the "Guided Weapons" section).


Well, you disagree with my first "quick" solution (revert to pre-update status), so the optimal solution would be to implement the "Medium" option I proposed in the next update.

I'm not making any strict demands; I've never developed a single game in my life. I'm just telling you how I would do it myself.

Thank you!

[Blast33]

Next to the chance a system has against a guided weapon, another contributer to the realism is the Weapon Release Authority.

Maybe a ZPU-23 or a SA-6 GAINFUL has a very small PH to hit a Mk-84, I also like to be able to withold the ZPU or the SA-6 to fire at something like this. Maybe I disagree with the possiblity to hit all targets and then the Weapon Release Authority helps a lot.

Clipboard01.jpg (36.71 KiB) Viewed 96 times

Now we have one category, mini drones. But what if we extend this a little. Maybe group 3-5 can be grouped together or 4 and 5?

UAS classes.jpg (26.76 KiB) Viewed 96 times