That’s how the BOZ-107 works in automatic mode, takes feedback from the RHWR and chaffs accordingly.
5 Likes
That is also how Zeus on GR5/7/9 is supposed to function as well.
5 Likes
Hope that function gets added to the game soon, i assume helis MAWs work simmilary.
The MAW-300 UV sensors shown on the NG demonstrator were developed in South Africa by Grintek who are now owned by Saab. So I thought if anybody, SAAF would be the first ones operating Gripen C with the system installed (same system is on Rooivalk etc.). But that doesn’t seem to be the case either.
Presumably the LWS proposed would also be the Grintek/Saab LWS-310 system that compliments MAW-300 on several platforms (Rooivalk, C-130, HAL Dhruv, Su-30MKM) as part of Saab’s IDAS/CIDAS system.
MAWSU selected for Gripen E is apparently a different model based on Elisra (Elbit) PAWS-2 IR sensor.
2 Likes
Anyone know what the tail fin antenna additions are?
i have found images of the same serial number gripen having both kinds at different times.
So i wonder if they are modular for specific missions or a permanent upgrade made.
I also wonder what purpose they serve as i cant find them listed in any infographic about the C version.
It might be for the datalink. Datalink, as of to tactical datalink, not to the missile.
ILS antenna
But then what is the difference between the two versions?
Is it the gripen to gripen and then later the “Link 16” Nato uses?
@da12thmonkey
No, that one is internal in the center of the main “square” of the antenna it the top, in asking about the additional “fins” added to the sides.
According to several publications, that’s what the fins are
Saab Gripen Maritime proposal with the ILS antenna in the latest position:
SAABS own current similar image shows the ILS antenna as one without the wings (i.e. internal in that square).
(https://www.saab.com/globalassets/products/aeronautics/gripen-c-series/gripen_c_packing-iron)
So is the addition the UHF antenna internally and the ILS antenna moved to be external?
and what then is the addition of the “wings” on the here listed RWR antenna?
I think they’re just iterative improvements of the ILS system.
Either the aircraft didn’t have an ILS system installed at delivery so no antenna at all, or that it was entirely internal but Saab, SwAF or other users found it wasn’t reliably receiving ILS signal from the ground station in its original form, so made the antenna wider.
Then perhaps found that it’s position at the back of the stabiliser was still not good under some approaches (potentially the wings occluded it during high-AoA landings), or that having it next to the EW transmitters caused interference. So in more recent years they have moved it forward to where the RWR receiver is located.
There are even older images of 39208 during Taurus KEPD trials in the early 2000s, where it didn’t have the finned antenna
Gripen E - the latest development in the Gripen line, has it located in the most recent position where that RWR fairing is on Gripen C. But E doesn’t have the pointed RWR fairing there on the leading-edge of the fin.
So potentially moving of the ILS antenna on Gripen C reflects RWR changes in line with Gripen E’s RWR layout, freeing up space to move the ILS antenna there instead.
I assume how it looks in cutaway drawings just reflects what year the drawing was first produced and/or what references the artist used when drawing it.
That makes sense!
thanks for the info :)
Why does the Rb75T in game have less explosive TNT equivalent than the RB75?
It has the same explosive mass which is wrong as the entire point of the “T” version was to have more explosives in it (T standing for “tung” meaning heavy in Swedish).
Not only that, but i’m also fairly certain that it isn’t supposed to be a SAP-HE either as the RB75T isn’t any new AGM-65 variant but a Swedish modified AGM-65A (later AGM-65B).
Its also heavier in game but lacks the additional explosives and has less(???) penetration.
Here is an 8 month old report on the missile.
So basically just more explosives strapped behind the shaped charge and designed to create shrapnel in addition to the penetration being stronger.
as it is now its a downgrade instead of being an upgrade.
screenshots of stat cards
Guess they thought it was an AGM-65G, explosive mass doesn’t matter here, the AGM-65G kills anything it hits.
So is it just a case of the stat cards having the wrong amount of explosives listed?
The AGM-65G is also listed as having 39kg explosive mass, I can’t remember where but i’m like 95% sure that i’ve seen the AGM-65G listed with the heavier warhead as well.
Edit:
the US air force official website lists the AGM-65G as a heavy warhead variant.
https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104577/agm-65-maverick/
AGM-65G and other Blast Penetration Fragmentation Mavericks have a 220lb steel warhead with a 80lb HE filling.
Spoiler
It is a 1 hit kill everytime I’ve used it on the Harrier GR7.
This might then be a translation issue… x)
i understood it as more actual explosives, not just that the warhead itself was heavier.
Thanks for the info!
Yeah its not explained very well in Raytheon’s brochure either, they just list the full 300lb weight. But the main different is HEAT vs BPF (SAP-HE in game).
Here is a handy guide;
4 Likes
Thank you so much!
You do A LOT of great work on the forum and on the issues site! THANKS!
So Sweden basically did an “Ikea” and took the B seeker with the “SAP-HE” warhead to make it more effective than the normal A/B version but cheaper than any of the IR/Laser variants.
1 Like
@Gunjob Some questions about flares as i couldn’t find any info while searching.
-
what characterizes “large” and “small” flares? Like, are there standard sizes that are considered large/small/(huge?) for the sake of the game?
-
Is there a specific order (of size) flares are fired in?
for example: If the JAS39C has the 12 huge(?) ones in the pylons, 80 large ones in the body and 640 small ones in the BOL pods. Which ones get fired first?
Should this be selectable together with the chaff/flare amount and the ability to fire those separately?
(Or at least to fire the biggest ones first and then descend in effectiveness. It’s not worth “saving” the bigger ones for later if you don’ät survive the first missile x) ) -
are different flares differently effective against IRCCM missiles and non-IRCCM missiles independent of size. As in; do some jets have more effective flares than others even though both carry “small” flares?