I know about EFT’s, i just dont know any other NATO jets using them.
Flares shouldn’t really reliably be captured because of the seeker push ahead, it tracks the leading edge of the heat signature, as such even if the flare was the same signature of the defending aircraft. It would track the forward edge of the fighter but the flare receding behind the targets current flight vector would fall out of FOV.
I’d imagine the goal of spectral flares is to break modern IIR tracking gates similar to BOL. BOL does it by volume, where as a spectral flare does it by illumination and signature matching. Good for tracking gates not so good for suspend seekers.
That’s my guess anyway.
9 Likes
I know its not the place but can you check your dm?
I made a small bug report about J8F Gunjob.
It would end up with the exact same CM load as the Tornado F3s… I really doubt it would stop them nerfing the typhoon
So, they would only be implemented when we have ASRAAM and IRIS-T
Iam not to sure about that due to how spectral flares work
They are basically mimicking the IR signiture of your plane / engine
So the seeker might not shut off due to it not registering it as flare
Gaijin adds 6th gens like the Tempest
Has the same squished HUD
2 Likes
squished and not working UV filter ))
4 Likes
It works great…
Until you go into 1st person view
Depends heavily on what is actually mean by Spectral If you mean just that they are matched more closely there are a lot, that at very least make more of an attempt than the current “Large”( MJU-7A/B; 1* 2 8") & “Standard”(M206 1 1 *8" ) caliber flares.
For example there are the MJU-22/B & -27/B would both be more closely matched to a tactical Aircraft’s signature.
To beat angular rate gate , you need a Kinematic flare(e.g. MJU-47), which propels itself (using it’s own off gasses as a propellant) to retain more of the aircraft’s velocity so it remains unfiltered for longer, since deceleration due to exposing flare to the free airstream slows it rapidly otherwise and serves as a useful discriminant against slow rise flares.
Thx for the explanation
Since we’re talking about countermeasures - do you think that with the advent of electronic warfare (“when”, not “if”) we’ll be in for another “marketing lie” adventure when it comes to BriteCloud?
Probably
It really depends if they go whole hog in an update, or roll things out over a few updates.
Further as to how granular the categories of Integral, podded & expendable jammers are, I could see a number of things happening.
I do think that Assuming it isn’t just C&P from Mobile
It's a pretty boring "Silence, Radar for 15 seconds" button
The system is represented in WTM by two types of ECM:
- Lock-on interruption.
- Missile interception.
Lock-on interruption system
Missile interception system
Lock-on interruption system: interrupts the targeting of enemy missile launchers by silencing the >radars of all enemy ships for 15 seconds.
How to use: to activate the system, wait for the indication that your ship is being targeted and press the ECM button
Integral systems should come first for Bombers and Strike aircraft as they most need the survivability bump, and serve as an introduction to methods and allow gaijin to balancing mechanics and the players to get to grips and begin developing and refining techniques and countermeasures.
And example of said systems follows
Podded systems tend to focus on the Surface to Air Threat, as such are specifically useful for GRB at this point in time as they are modular stores that can be optionally mounted.
Expendables are another thing entirely, and remain practically entirely guesswork as to their performance.
Though Sky Shadow would render the Tornados immune to F-4s. That would be very useful in ARB.
But definetly gunna be interesting to see how ECM is implemented. I reckon it will function much like IRCM does but once you get close enough. it will stop working
It could, but then the question is if you then model Home on Jam and other Counter-Countermeasure modes, Or Degraded Radar search / track states?
And if not; is it solely based emitted power, so then what S/N ratio counts as sufficient for Burn Though to occur?
The issue is that things tend to be newer as BRs increase, which induces an inherent advantage to being down tiered as most Systems would become ineffective pretty quickly.
Sparrows, for example the AIM-7C (as found of the F3H-2) has a Home on Jam capability against non-pulsed Barrage and Noise Jammers, which no sells practically everything older than the Tu-14 and the AIM-9C (F-8E) and AIM-4F(F-106) are similar.
I doubt we’ll see these anytime soon
Id guess basically the ghosting we’ve already got in game, but rather than being a bug. Its intentional. The radar is far less accurate in providing locational data, and sometimes produces mirror images or the target traveling in incorrect directions.
Id guess this would affect the min range. The more power, the further away you would “burn through”.
Im guessing it will be largely standardised. With a lot of ECM vs ECM differences just ignored.
Jamming tends to cause the loss of range data, successful track breaking is what causes angular and velocity error.
This makes a lot of the mechanization for missiles not function so they have to resort to other methods to deduce range, and so track less optimally significantly impacting their performance.
Its the other way around the more powerful the Jammer, the closer you need to be to burn though, due to the Inverse-square law interacting with the fact that the Shooter’s radar returns needs to make a round trip, and the jammer’s radiated power only needs to go one way, so it’s not linear.
There are further considerations to be had with the Gain of the system (dissimilar antenna designs have really weird sidelobe interactions, especially at some resonant angles), and the potential for the jammer to use Steered Antenna and later beams, and how the Target’s RCS changes at angles.
Sure, but then that raises potential issues with how to model modular systems, as Pods e.g. the ALQ-101 ('Nam era) onwards tend to have tens of potential configurations, that ether:
- Spread their energy evenly across a select spectrum for insurance (much of it would be wasted in game as dedicated Surveillance radars are not implemented)
- Hyper focus their power on a particular band for an expected threat based off external factors
- Power (not all are ram air / Jet Fuel driven) or weight / clearance concerns for a given platform.
- a mix of the three
To treat them equally makes things a little too simple and may expose their carriers to edge cases where they would have been otherwise been protected by a specifically configured pod, or otherwise lack benefits of the lighter weight, less draggy pods which could further cause fuel concerns in Sim, and further reducing available ordnance (and takeoff weight) by taking Primacy over the Centerline station, and diverting External Fuel to the Wet Stations on the wings in most cases, displacing ordnance(and would be further strained should Anti-Radiation Missiles turn up).
I get why they likely wouldn’t do modularity, but it will cause frustration considering available documentation if some level of modularity is not implemented.
The above being why I think it is the ultimate answer to CAS is to make them pick and chose what they want, as no aircraft truly has enough stations for everything.
You mean like IR signatures?
I dont think it would necessarily be that big of an issue and the external systems could just be a little stronger to compensate But I cant think of the top of my head any BR where there would be an overwhelming difference in advantage. Closest I can think of is the Harrier T10 vs Tornado Gr1, but then the T10 already comes with the disadvantage of being subsonic. An advantage of an intergrated ECM would probably help