Doesn’t matter if we know for sure that the j10 and j11b got ecm, they won’t add it unless you provide official documents that state it has it. Hence why the j11a still doesn’t haven’t the correct radar or rwr. Its current radar can’t even guide r77’s.
SPS-141 is an ECM pod primarily, so you can add the MIg-21s to the list
1 Like
I would like to keep Internal and External ECM pods separate. Especially for discussions. Internal ECM would be easiest to implement. Wouldn’t require any modeling physically. Wouldn’t require mod research etc etc. I only listed options for internal ECM.
Well the SPS-141 is already modelled on many MiG-21s, that’s how they have countermeasures in the first place. Giving them a countermeasure pod but making it non-functional because “it’s not internal” is just some US bias bs, especially when the US already has BVR dominance.
I am not sure you actually went through my posts. I am advocating for this, especially now, because it is something that EVERYONE can get. I think pods would be a great discussion for another post, especially due to the complexities of them. Many of them are far more than simply ASPJ and ECCM. In some cases the pods are far more active and disruptive systems. They should get added, but that’s an entirely different subject. It wouldn’t even be US Bias. The SPS-141 is entirely useless against anything newer than an Aim-7B. Where the Mig-21 currently sits the SPS-141 would be susceptible to HOJ of the Aim-7s, and doesn’t work against the Aim-54, Aim-120, Pythons, Micas, R27 or R77 etc. the SPS-141 is strongest in rear facing, has no side lobes, so it would require you to turn away to work on what little it does. Getting into the weeds here on pods, but this is why I think pods really need to be their own thread/discussion.
I am not saying pods don’t deserve a discussion. I am saying Internal ECM vs Pods needs to be two different discussions. Internal is by far the easiest to implement early on, and is fair to EVERYONE. Saying “well we already have a pod model” isn’t equal to everyone and would be an entirely different talk.
I think that’s right though the ALQ-164 does basically everything, also the later ALQ-231 is also an option, but a a slightly different role.
There are a significant number of potential ECM permutations which are dependent on the operator and often timeframe / threat in question, and how far you consider ECM as an umbrella term to stretch. There isn’t really some definitive configuration that F-16s use as it is based on what the expected this is.
The biggest thing about the F-16 in particular is that in the Deep configuration, a pod can’t be carried on the centerline station (Station 5, ECM pods can also be carried on stations #3 & 7, the mid wing stations) without clearance issues (due to the fact that in an emergency hard landing / gear failure it would strike the ground, and since the pod can’t be jettisoned its not an approved configuration for station #5 on the F-16), which reduces the number of bands they can cover, I don’t think this can be changed in flight, though it may be possible with later variants as they may be able to use DFM techniques, though at reduced efficiency since Antenna with large bandwidths trade off effective range.
The -184 is a digitized / modernized version of the ALQ-119, (which is found on earlier / some export F-16s) and is claimed to be an S/C/X band (NATO D~I band) Noise & Deception pod, though if we compare it to contemporary systems (e.g. AGM-78B~D) S/C/X band refers to; 2.65 to 3.2, 4.8 to 5.3 GHz, and 8.8 to 9.6 GHz. (coverage can be estimated for in game SPAA / SAM can be seen sheet linked in the First post of that topic).
Also that it uses approximately 750kVA of power which puts an upper limit on what can be radiated, and thus the effective & burn though ranges as well.
They weren’t that common on fighters (they would use pods, which when in specific configurations could provide protection from some threats), Strike airframes tended to at least have defensive systems, which would target ancillary systems, to frustrate the response and buy them time to execute their mission.
1 Like
Didn’t F-14A in 1970s have ECM as well?
1 Like
the problem with ECM is that its kinda impossible to model correctly. i really dont want to see a DCS-esque ECM.
They did, the ALQ-100 (an E~H-Band Track-Breaker), of which the antenna can be seen on the underside of the nose, near where the IRSTS / TCS would eventually be co-located.
The -100 would later be replaced by the improved ALQ-126.
Additionally some variants of the F-14 were fitted with assorted additional ECM systems (e.g. ALQ-41, -121, -153, -154, -165 -167, -176).
I wouldn’t expect any more depth than the existing (D)IRCM implementation, so basically the only thing that will matter is the effective, & burn through ranges, which will basically provide a defensive range bands where the missiles can’t be used to target protected airframes (Home-on jam may not be modeled, at least at first).
I’d personally provide them to Strike aircraft first, to return some level of survivability to them at SARH / ARH missile BRs, as it would necessitate some level of interception instead of engaging missiles at a distance from intercepting fighters and require a larger time investment to prosecute a target. since jamming easily defeats TWS, though would reveal the jammers location at extended distances.
This also happens to deal with SAMs just as well so would allow for the next tranche of longer range systems (e.g. MIM-23, etc.) to be implemented.
I believe LOAF and HOJ should have already been modeled. For starters you can use the Aim-120s HOJ to target SPAA. The Aim-120D models INS and GPS capture the target coordinates and can be very effective against ground targets. This would have helped with problems like the Pantsir long ago since we are being refused AGM-88s to balance the game.
Aim-9s were used in Vietnam to target vehicles, something else we are missing in game.
Russian helicopter pilots used the R60s seeker to help find targets at night in Afghan.
HOJ and LOAF can’t come soon enough honestly.
A potential problem is that; without requisite ECM be modeled at least alongside it, they either lack a use case or bypass existing methods of defeating missiles entirely (and if stretched to include systems like the AN/AXX-1 TCS as found on the F-14B) provide limited recourse outside of early fusing of the missiles as a defense.
I do think that an improved Automatic engagement mode would be a fair tradeoff for systems forced to face off against later Anti-Radiation Missiles, where possible. Further a refinement of which systems specifically require the search radar to be actively emitting to function would be needed.
The AGM-87 Focus was explicitly used against trucks & vehicles that used special Vapor discharge lamps, in combination with a specific lenses setup optimized for night driving that had significant emissions in the IR band uncooled PbS & requisite filter was sensitive to.
It was also only employed against non-augmented test targets at night, not that other variants lack Air surface capabilities under some specific conditions (The AIM-7 for example also had some limited Air to surface capability against significant targets).
I have to disagree here. The INS, GPS, HOJ, and Track Memory function are key essentials. Millimeter wave RADAR like in the AIM-120 even can distinguish enough resolution to find a ground target. And that is is a non dedicated AGM missile. I don’t believe radar should have to be on to hit the target.
But also just Maddog firing the missiles shouldn’t be soft locked like it is now. We should have a key binding that allows firing them cold.
Unless I am mis-understanding and you simply mean for the initial launch?
Aim-9 were also successfully used against ground vehicles, and were found to also be great for night time recon/targeting. Essentially an early thermal hack for finding things. Although the success was very limited. The warheads are just not designed for heavily armored targets. But where this could come into play is that SPAA is generally not heavily armored.
But I feel this is side tracking anyways from my intent on bringing to life Internal ECM systems. Hopefully these can get online, because we are approaching aircraft that have DIRCM and RADAR Decoys dropped from flare tubes.
Yes please. I need my sky shadow
1 Like
You have the CF18, EF Typhoon, and F35A coming. All of which have Internal ECM and some of which have 360 DIRCM.
Although the DIRCM would only be useful against older missiles, and not modern US Missiles since they use IIR and IIR isn’t countered by DIRCM. This means Aim-9X, Python 5, and R72M2 would still get ya.
So would ASRAAM and IRIS-T…
1 Like
That is what we are afraid off. Will be very difficult, sometimes impossible to explain and prove to users that ECM X is efficient against radar or seeker Y and not efficient against radar or seeker Z. Even if we have reasonable assumptions for this.
SPS-141 uses square swept wave and inverse con scan techniques, AIM-7 from C to F versions use conical scanning for direction finding. HOJ may not help at all. But who cares: HOJ defeats ECM, SPS-141 is trash e.t.c.
Cough;
1 Like
Too bad F-104S.ASA is most affected by the missing ECM in the game.
IIRC, Their RWR was part of ECM or something else.
RWR, ARM and ECM are designed to “work” with specific and known threats.
It should be defined somehow against which of them it works and how well.
Highly likely it is impossible to obtain solid reference - a lot of space for game designers to play with this game mechanics and a lot of space for others to complain that it doesn’t work as it should.
1 Like