I mean F-4s were one of the primary SEAD carriers for the USAF during the 60-70s to be fair
A very large Air RB EC gamemode like that would be enjoyable too, something akin to DCS gameplay wise I suppose.
Sorry for the delay. I finally found the bug in the cell colouring formula and fixed it. So the AGM-88C/D should be correctly coloured now.
Thanks, I’ve added AGM-78B/C/D data to the spreadsheet.
As a reminder: If anyone wants to dig up details on ARMs, or do a right up on one, then post it here and I can include it in the main post (with credit). I’m only really familiar with British / some American ARMs, so can’t take the main post much further than it currently it.
1 Like
i’ll link to the french Martel/ARMAT thread
I actually have a theory that they are adding the F16 Block 52 in PoBIT modification instead of the block 70/72 because the 52 is the main SEAD platform of the United States atp… It will be pretty much the most capable SEAD platform in-game, a good aircraft to test systems like the HTS, legacy HARM C/D models, modern AARGM and maybe even AARGM-ER. With this move they are future proofing their ability to add more capable BVR platforms (F15EX, F35?) while also introducing a “plug and play” option for systems testing (April Fools modern SEAD Event?).
Why?
Well it’s an educated guess based on the known capabilites of the F16CJ. The HTS (HARM targeting system) is a game changer, I don’t know if Gaijin will be able to introduce the Link 16 functionality of the HTS but even a single F16 can determine the ballpark postion of the SAM site by just being scanned by the radar (up to PGM2 track quality, PGM5 being the lowest), with a squad of F16 perfoming Pseudo-range multilateration, highest degree of accuracy can be achieved (PGM1). A couple of additional factors:
- HARM attack modes, each one designed for different attack parameteres, for example the PB mode enables very precise shots around a steerpoint. At close range the AGM-88 would be very hard to intercept with impact speed around mach 2.3 at low altitude
- Access to legacy and modern HARM variants: from the C variant up to the G
- HTS/TGP/SAR sensor fusion
- Sophisticated target selection: the HARM enables pre-launch configuration of the seeker head to target specific radar emitters, for example one could designate a steerpoint in the near vicinity of the SAM system and fire a HARM missile to target specificaly the FLAP LID S-300 tracking radar
- Access to effective DEAD ordnance, for example the CBU-105, CBU-97 Sensor Fuzed Weapon
Although its all speculation that depend on the actual implementation of the ARMs and SEAD, in the current GRB meta HARMs coupled with the HTS provide the most favorable factors for effective DEAD.
Thank you!
Can you add info about Kh-31PD and Kh-58UShKE?
1.2-11 GHz → D, E, F, G, H, I band.
Spoiler
The X-58USHKE anti-radar missile, which is being demonstrated again, is a thoroughly modernized version of the well-known X-58U missile developed by GosMKB Raduga and is equipped with a universal wide-range passive radar homing head similar to the Kh-31PD. A distinctive feature of the Kh-58UShKE is its suitability for carriage on the UVKU-50 internal fuselage catapult launchers of the T-50 aircraft, for which purpose, in particular, the size of the control surfaces has been reduced.
Original
Повторно демонстрируемая КТРВ противорадиолокационная ракета Х-58УШКЭ является глубокой модернизацией известной ракеты Х-58У разработки ГосМКБ «Радуга» и оснащается аналогичной Х-З1ПД универсальной широкодиапазонной пассивной радиолокационной ГСН. Особенностью Х-58УШКЭ является ее приспособленность для несения на внутрифюзеляжных катапультных устройствах типа УВКУ-50 самолета Т-50, для чего, в частности, уменьшены размеры рулей.
What’s the source for that frequency range?
I don’t know if this has been posted here yet, a pretty comprehensive source on the AGM-88.
Texas Instruments (Raytheon) AGM-88 HARM
Is Kh-38 overperforming according to this web archive?
For launch conditions of up to 12,000m and 450m/s which is 1620km/h, shouldn’t it be a maximum of 40km?
Is there any other source for the equipment operating time besides what I posted which shows 90 seconds as opposed to 155 seconds in-game?
nothing is saying anything about 90 seconds there
it can stay combat ready for 90 hours notthing is saying 90 seconds
1 Like
Disregard what I wrote then, my translator’s not the best.
Perhaps, though between some assumptions (like I doubt they’ll be usable past 30km) and the brief explanation of what ARMs are going to look like from the Q&A, I think half of that is going to be irrelevant.
I think the factors of greater impact will be:
- What ARMs can be used against which SAMs (if that is even modeled)
- How many ARMs can be carried (perticularly important at higher BRs with mass missile interception)
- What needs to be given up to enable carrage of ARM
To that end, Im thinking one of the stronger may be the Tornado GR1/GR4 simply because it can carry a boat load of ARM, including 2 ARM no matter what the loadout and can operate at a BR where hopefully it wont see the top SPAA, especially the new Pantsir.