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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I have no doubt the mechanics will need to be simplified for game purposes. Honestly its totally expected and anyone who wasn’t expecting it to be that way is kidding themselves.
I think it gives the game designers lots of room to create fun an interesting mechanics. Which will massively broaden the SPAA gameplay from the current “spawn, don’t move and shoot things”. Also for ARB we can have loads of super fun gameplay with huge maps and more variations in the GBAD assets to strike.
You too can make suggestions about additions to the game in air/ground/naval sections. Just because someone makes a suggestion about a certain part of the game doesn’t mean it will be added immediately or make other game modes irrelevant for a patch. In the incoming patch there will be ray tracing and some other stuff which will benefit the ground mostly, there’s also a reworked map specifically for the tank battles. Not only that, every major patch brings new stuff to all branches be it a new game mechanic or a vehicle.
Hello, it seems like developers removed the C/D band receiving capabilities from the APR-39. And i get it, APR-39 and ALR-56 use the omnidirectional antennas for the C/D bands. But they still should display low band threats from all directions in front at 12 o’clock. Will you add this capability back?
