I assume that all of those functions it can do, it can do in quick succession. They don’t generally need to be constantly in one type of use.
1 Like
like how (iirc) some PESA can very quickly swap to previous TWS contact to update more frequently while still scanning?
It’s probably not just one antenna and when it is using an antenna for more than one purpose does it really need to sit there for more than a split second to send an interrogation signal and then go back to whatever else it was doing?
1 Like
Thank you for your response and thank you for all the time spent improving the game content for French planes. In fact, the speed indicated on the Dassault Aviation website is that to preserve the Ram coating of the plane. Furthermore knowing that the Rafale is capable of carrying 1.5 its weight in payload and that it can carry 5 heavy loads and in particular 4 under its wings. Even if I understand that aerodynamic friction and load transport are not correlated, it is not normal that it has a lower tear speed than planes which are not capable of the same transport load.
It’s a digital antenna.
It can perform dozens of functions simultaneously while sending or recieveing data.
This is not a new or special capability…
hey guys, any news on Rafale’s reduced RCS or AESA radar capabilities ?
it’s still doesn’t have the reduced RCS in WT if I’m correct, or the AESA radar capabilities
I would not expect much on the AESA until everyone else gets them. As for signature reduction, I would not expect anything anytime soon as they have to make sense of the reports for both the Rafale/Eurofighter, see how they can implement it especially with different stores, and etc. And even when they understand how to implement it, they may want to delay it until everyone else has their Gen 4.5 with AESA/PESA that can counter the reduced RCS features.
6 Likes
Do you even read what you’re typing?
If the initial IFF interrogation is being made to the Rafale, and then everything afterwards is being done via MIDS/Link-16;
- IFF is not constantly providing ally location since its the ally making the interrogation, so you arent receiving any info regarding ally location in that way.
- You’re just asking for datalink info and pretending its the IFF system thats providing it since you know the bug report will otherwise be denied.
@Gunjob can this bug report be looked over again? The bug report itself is clearly stating the system being requested is completely unrelated to datalink, but the creator is arguing that the IFF system would not be used for constant ally position sharing and it would actually be datalink, suggesting the creator knows his bug report is faulty in reasoning but is fishing for an advantage the aircraft should not have in-game due to gaijins specification of tactical datalinks not being in-game yet.
1 Like
First off, you can’t expect Gunjob to do something about the discussions we’re having on how things would be in reality, and expect it to translate into the game. We’ve talked about and gone over how things are in reality.
What Gaijin could simply do is say that because tactical datalink is not in-game yet, the Rafale aircraft would be forced to constantly use its standalone IFF. Then you might argue that the emissions of the IFF should constantly be emitted, but I would argue that’s pointless as the Rafale F3R had revised antennas which combined them into one L-band antenna on the spine. And no top-tier RWR to my understanding in-game would even detect L-band.
Feel free to make a counter bug-report anytime but I’ll insist on having my sources included as well out of fairness.
Why not fixate on the A-10C and its datalink instead of being fixated on solely the Rafale? Point to devs that unlike the Rafale, the A-10C does not have its own standalone IFF and must rely on tactical datalink only.
20 Likes
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
I can expect Gunjob to look over a bug report and move it to “info requested” or otherwise now that new information and discussion on the topic has been provided, seeing as that is his job as a technical moderator and Id like to think the majority of people know him to be a good and unbiased technical moderator. I would’ve provided all this in the bug report, but comments are closed, and I figured that you might be a reasonable person who could admit to being wrong when new information was presented, but here we are.
In which case it should be on D-band RWR at all times due to constant D-band radio emissions.
D-band (NATO) is L-band (IEEE) in a different notations. We already know the Rafales IFF system works in L-band (1090MHz specifically), its literally on the brochure I already provided. I converted it to D-band, since the game uses NATO radio notation.
Because the HMD IFF is already a lost cause seeing as the devs believe it to work via the power of friendship and pixie dust, since as they initially shot down a report for the F-16C to acquire SADL in-game (the datalink bound system that allows permanent HMD IFF to the A-10C).
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/vgZoidxjgwWM
You, on the other hand are making a request for the IFF system to perform a function it could not possibly do without constant emission of IFF interrogation signals, which, as I’ve already covered, would compromise the aircrafts stealth irl and in-game if that’s how it worked.
This point you wont even concede to, instead arguing that stealth would not be compromised since the function of constant position updates of allies (what you are asking for in your bug report) would be done by datalink, which is true for irl, but is inapplicable in-game due to the devs response on the above linked SADL bug report.
I owned up to my mistaken assumption that the IFF system functioned directly through the RBE2-AA radar, apologized, and provided new info as to why that would not matter in-game and/or would compromise the aircrafts ability to remain hidden. You’ve done nothing but grasp at straws and compromise the credibility and position of your own bug report simply to cling to the hope you can gain an unwarranted advantage in-game.
It’s LPI just like the radar, something NATO was very familiar with and why Russian EW aircraft like to try and approach NATO planes as much as possible - to try and see if they can get examples of emissions to potentially crack it.
Your nonsense take that it should show up on any RWR is based on a lack of foundational understanding of these systems. The cryptography of NATO IFF is not solely to prevent people from sending and receiving false replies.
5 Likes
I wouldn’t say it’s a lost cause. I’ve gone ahead and made a report asking why the A-10C has HMD IFF and the F-16C doesn’t. Hopefully we’ll see what Gaijin says.
Inconsistency on the A-10C’s helmet datalink // Gaijin.net // Issues
4 Likes
Then you should be doing the same for the M2K5D-RMV and the Rafale, and retracting your bug report on permanent friendly position via IFF.
Obviously it is. Insinuating that IFF, datalink, and GPS connection would show up on RWR doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. But he’ll be free to make a bug report if he wishes to. Every aircraft in-game with GPS weapons/bombs attached should be having emissions at all times as well I suppose.
Why would I? Feel free to create a bug report showing that GPS connection, future data-link, and IFF should all be having emissions that show up on RWR. It most likely is not the case IRL at all.
Of course you wouldnt lmao, you’re a hypocrite and your entire position stands on rules for thee, not for me. You have no qualms bug reporting the A-10C to lose its HMD IFF function, but refuse to do so with the Rafale and M2K5D-RMV because they’re french vehicles and you are biased. They literally use the same Scorpion HMD.
Datalinks, GPS connections, and IFF would all be highly directional irl, and likely generally be passed through a primary control node of some kind (such as an AWACS or satellite in the case of datalink/GPS) which isn’t hiding its location through minimization of radio emissions as it would be contrary its function, and is most likely in the complete opposite direction of the enemy which would minimize the chance of radio emissions from a frontline fighter being picked up by enemy combat aircrafts. IFF specifically would only involve very directional short duration signals (interrogation signal and response) with no constant repetition irl, making it largely irrelevant in a battlespace. That being said, these signals are known to be possible to intercepted, which is the very reason they are encrypted in the first place so as to not provide the enemy with information.
As I’ve already stated, its near impossible IFF works via constant signal emission over a large area irl (as it would need to to provide constant ally location like you’ve requested in-game). As the brochure itself stated, the IFF works on a target designated or sector scanned function, which implies it only IFF targets already found by other sensors. The IFF would not be doing the job of the primary radar or IRST.
1 Like
How am I biased? What a ridiculous assertion. I’m an American through and through and have no ties to France nor any French ancestry. Never even visited the country. Perhaps I accidentally bumped into a French person on a street and never realized it, that’s the extent I have of any connection to the French.
I simply said, “Why would I?” because it’s not as simple as you make it out to be. Some sources indicate M2KD-RMV uses the same IFF system as the Rafale. Further, I don’t make reports on things I am not intimately familiar with or acquainted with. However, it is very easy to simply understand that the A-10C uses datalink on its helmet to identify friendly targets, and Gaijin stated that they do not allow tactical datalink. That is far easier to understand as a concept than to get into the nitty-gritty of IFF, data-link, GPS connection, how their emissions work, and etc. You are pushing me to report something that neither of us can concretely understand off of a 1-hour search on the internet.
14 Likes
Oh yeah let’s get gps deviation modeled, for extra realism, instead of getting fundamental problems with vehicles and weapons fixed.