Not entirely, since radiated power can be found for a lot of the common systems, & radars / jammers, and that since power falloff obeys the inverse square law, finding “burn though” ranges is pretty easy as long as reasonable simplifications are made (e.g. assuming jammer uses an isotropic antenna, etc. ).
So in short Jammers have a minimum range where they are effective, and so they can still be shot down by missiles using SARH guidance, just at a much reduced range.
The problem is when you get into the interactions between systems and their specific capabilities, since we don’t have anything resembling similar depths for all potential candidate systems;
An Example.
For example would the SPS-141 (as carried by a number of Soviet & exported airframes) still defeat the AIM-7M or Skyflash.
We know that it is effective against the AIM-7D & -E, maybe -7F & AIM-54A (if you trust Iraqi claims) as they all use conical scan seekers but I don’t have hard data for the latter. But the Missiles in question use Mono-pulse seekers, which is known to be resistant to waveforms that target Conical scan seekers, so should resist it, but I don’t have anything on Technique Generators (for obvious reasons), or if it was ever modernized or was modular in any way so could be made effective, also to which revision are the configurations modeled in game held to.
The is also a further question about the interaction between the APG-65 (and Other radars that use Pulse-Doppler Illumination methods, and again which configuration has access to what) and Sparrows since the radar doesn’t change it’s waveform when guiding a missile, from that of track, so they would need to be cautious about emission control.
Further questions about how to model the Jammer’s interference are also worth refining, as their actual impact can range from degraded guidance to a complete inability to launch on a target due to the interference, let alone relaying that to the player and further questions of if Home On Jam should be modeled for Systems that have said capabilities are also worth answering.
I think much of the work needs to go towards a novel implementation for the mid and high tier Bombers & Strike Airframes to improve their survivability, While restricting the EW capabilities to only those against Airborne threats at first (since A2G capability has significant further implications on Ground mode’s Balance)
There are certain systems we know can be jammed by Sky Shadow (or whatever it is that was used with BOZ-107) on the GR.1, that would be our starting point
A lot is also known about Vietnam era systems and pods, One thing that I’ve noticed is that they eventually start describing numeric “range bands”, in place of directly providing the absolute frequency ranges and finding a description for each one specifically to allow the bands to be converted back to a frequency range, and then into (either New or Old, NATO standard (pre/post JC/MF agreement) letter bands), has proven to be difficult, especially for more modern pods, for example “Range band 3.5+”, what does that mean?
What I’ve found so far indicates(New NATO);
Band 1—64 to 150 MHz (VHF communications)
Band 2—150 to 270 MHz (A band)
Band 3—270 to 500 MHz (B band)
Band 4—0.5 to 1 GHz (C band)
Band 5/6—1 to 2.5 GHz (D though lower E bands)
Band 7—2.5 to 4 GHz ( Rest of E though G)
Band 8—4 to 7.8 GHz (most of the G- and H-bands)
Band 9—7.8 to 11 GHz (upper H-, I-, and lower J-bands)
Band 10—11 to 20 GHz (Rest of J band)
As many pods are modular and have a significant number of configurations, it can get confusing, also much of the job of the pods seems to be disrupting automatic datalinks & Radio communications systems, not degrading the performance of Systems relevant to War Thunder, so exactly how useful some pods would actually be is questionable since DFM capabilities is relatively recent in terms of additions to the game.
I’ve also go Brochures for the ALQ-87, -101, -119, -131, which covers most US podded families, since many systems are just updated or revised versions of said pods.
same specific fuel consumption as an F-404 just that it can produce more overall thrust (= higher fuel consumption).
but at the same power its the same consumption.
its actually more efficient than the F414
is good engine yknow
and you also have low supersonic drag so supercruising isnt hard
Cant wait for inevitable butchered eurofighter FM because lack of data and no one being able to bug report it. The super cruise speed is going to be one of those that will be big issue point
You should be able to get at least mach 1.3 in an interceptor configuration, mach 1.5 was mentioned twice at least but ive never seen the loadout specified.
gaijin has to butcher the flight model because they cant model negative stability.
1.5 mach is clean btw, 1.2 - 1.3 is with a2a loadout which includes some fuel tanks
To be fair this is also why the Gripen seemingly overperforms, so in this case it might end up somewhere similar in terms of overperforming.
Apparently they can’t model the negative stability due to the instructor and given that is also part of why flankers are so abysmal, perhaps its time for an instructor overhaul.
2.5minutes to Mach 1.5 at 35k ft my reason for saying the supercruise is going to be a problem point is well gaijin trying to figure out how it’s possible without creating a completely broken FM. We all know the engine really struggles with trying to FM without it having some trade off somewhere else. Gripen and tornado being a prime example of that.
Lmao… there we go then, I honestly wasn’t expecting it to be possible I suppose semi-recessed pylons help with that. Are we considering ‘full’ to be 8 AAM’s or 6?.
This is the same as what’s shown in the background of BAE’s Striker 2 demo as well, albeit alongside the rastered NV overlay, and with coloured symbology that the Striker 2 adds
