Currently, we have known there would be new updates on the entire RWR system.
It would greatly affect the current mechanism. And these changes are both unrealistic and unhistorically as well as greatly affecting the balance within the game.
Also, the changes to the RWR considerably affect the identification of enemies in air combat.
If you want to know more could have a check on the latest youtube video and join the dev server to test them in person.
There was no reason for the change other than “We need secret documents to prove that these things can identify these other vehicles” which we will never get for very obvious reasons. Not to even mention the stupidity of NATO vehicles not being able to ID other NATO vehicles
Strange. I thought these RWRs were digital. meaning that if there was ever a conflict with a nation whos radar we havent identified, all it would take was a software update and all of the RWRs in the entire air force could then identify it. Very unhistorical if true, someone fact check me.
Yep. Been the norm with digital, programmable RWRs since the 70s/80s
Early ones would have a data limit on how many threats are in the library at any given time (still dozens), but you add and remove and program the library on the basis of intelligence about who you are fighting and what systems they have. Displays are fully alphanumeric and will show what ever the threat library has been programmed to show - but naturally there’s standard notation
Modern ones will store data about threat emissions themselves for analysis after the flight, so the library can be updated in future to account for emerging threats.
Just have a look at the one for Indra’s ALR-400
Upload or download of emitter libraries and data stored during the flight
• Data sovereignty: Threat library fully programmable by the End User.
• Standard MLV, fast Ethernet auxiliary port, or cockpit control unit removable compact flash are valid ways to upload or download data.
This is all pretty standard stuff for RWRs in the past 30+ years, apart from the hardware for data storage and transfer increasingly using standard commercial electronics (cables and laptops) rather than bespoke cables and devices.
Some older examples showing how things developed in the space of just 10-20 years from the late 1980s to 2000
Spoiler
US Defence Intelligence Agency paper from 1990 talks of the French Thomson-CSF/Thales’ TMV011 ‘Sherloc’ RWR system in Iraqi service on their Mirage F1 and other aircraft.
A high-speed analogue and digital processor incorporates a threat library of 100 modes which readily reprograms on the flight line. The library extends to 200 modes. Although unconfirmed in the Iraqi inventory.
US Naval Postgraduate School, Center for Joint Services Electronic Warfare on commercially available RWRs describes Britain’s GEC Marconi/Selex’s Sky Guardian 2000 thus:
An emitter library of 4,000 emitter descriptions can be loaded by a PCMCIA smart card incorporated into the control unit.
So we see even the export models of Western RWRs are programmed to identify hundreds, if not thousands of different emitters. And this can be updated at the user’s convenience, without returning to OEM.
Welp i guess dev finally lost their mind
The thing that perfect that don’t need to change
“Well let make it have problem”
Thing that need fix badly
“We’ll ignore that because we’re not competent enough to fix here take some Leopard”
As a Chinese player, i must point that J-10A(歼-10A) rwr CAN NOT identify ITSELF. How can J10A cannot identify J10A as clear word? It doesn’t make any sense.
That means gaijin work is a joke, especially they just without any thinking to decide this.
For God sake, i do believe there’s only one country cannot identify threads, that’s no doubt is RUSSIAN FEDERAL. Gaijin just simple think not only CHN but also NATO tech same bad as RU Airforce, which cannot identify even OWN AIRCRAFT RADAR WAVE.
I know for some of them there are non classified documents from the manufactures that state their RWRs can have their software updated for new targets.
As someone who worked on 5th gen aircraft and 4th gen avionics systems I know first hand that so long as the switches(receivers) used on the aircraft can track and detect the specific frequency being emitted, that data IS recorded then offloaded onto hardware at the hangar, then sent up to depot to have rewritten, the data is then pushed back to not only the same squadron, but literally any NATO branch and squadron that also uses equipment that can also track that frequency. Now there are legitimate complications when going from;
whereas the processor might not be able to understand whats being sent. This would only be an issue on legacy airframes like early block 16s, early 15s (probably not the MSIP), something like the F-4E or F-4F or maybe even the EJ KAI. But would be unrealistic to affect the later variations of these platforms as the EW suite and Integration has specifically been updated.
