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?
Sounds more like a full defensive suite than just ECM
First 2 are usually done by RWR.
3rd and 5th is IRCM that is already in-game on the SU-39. Would be highly specific to the ECM pod and not general to all. I dont think any Western jet has that kind IRCM (at least none Ive heard of)
6th is Sensor fusion
last is a decoy
Only one is what Id actually call “ECM”
is good for British used ECMs and how they function
