Threat Guide
-
@Cloud:
Well if you’re working with BMS then why didn’t you cross pollinate the BMS TacRef with that extensive data??
C9
Very valid question.
Simple answer, working on too much already.The thread database was done around 2004-2005. As TeeSquare already wrote, it takes a lot of work.
If the WDP database helps here… Everybody happy.Gr Falcas
-
Ok … I have entirely re-build the TacRef (update of elements present and deletion of elements not present) for the future version … but I did not take care of the details (General Information / Dimensions / Performance /. … etc …) I leave it for the community.
IF … there are people interested in updating those details , please rise the hand and we will coordinate this with all the possible volunteers, the aim being to standardize a maximum (or a minimum) of the format of the information presented (Format, units, info provided … etc …)
-
Thanks for this very useful document !
-
I started on the aircraft but have only made it thru 3 so far in alphabetical order. I have a template started in word and leave out pieces that don’t apply to a particular a/c or for items that I can’t find.
How did you want to work this? I can submit the text in word docx format or I can put the text into the editor, but there is only one tac ref file and I don’t know if the file can be merged with others without extracting the text one small part at a time out of the editor.
So far I keep everything in both the word docx and the tac ref file as I go.
-
Hi TeeSquare!
Since you are the only one, I send you the 4.34 TacRef.bin so you can directly work on it.
Check Mp later in the day …
-
Raising my hand here.
Sent from my F3213 using Tapatalk
-
Raising my hand here.
Sent from my F3213 using Tapatalk
Okay thank you for proposal. I propose you to coordinate with TeeSqaure which section(s) needs to be studied and check with him waht is the prefered “format”
The only thing I suggest is, for SAM systems => to keep the “Threat calls” section.
Since TeeSqaure has a very good experience on the “The Vault” document which is extremely well made … I give him my absolute confidence and I am sure that he can be an excellent leader into that project!
… At least, if he is okay and if he accept the task (?)
-
-
On the topic of MAR: What assumptions were used in generating this number? Im thinking defense technique on the part of the target, etc… does the range given allow a missile fired to just barely miss, does the target defend in a certain manner every time, details.
Looks to be a very useful document, thanks greatly for the effort!
-
MAR numbers were based on several different things. The resulting numbers varied a lot. Just a few seconds of variation in reaction time and speed changed the results. So I used numbers that worked most of the time. Some scenarios were tested and others were based off previous tests for similar platforms with similar weapons. Some general notes are on page 10.
A typical scenario is a clean (no jammers or fuel tanks) F-16C52 at 20k ft that detects the enemy and goes gate. Simulated loft launch, crank, and watch distance to bandit. Pump using 4g slice turn while still gate at MAR. The actual distance gets closer than MAR while in the turn. I found it better to keep speed up while cranking so the energy can be used while turning and running nose low. A slow crank allowed the missiles to get closer in end game.
Some platforms with shorter ranges, I used a slice turn away in gate. In some cases a weapon was launched and the pump allows the missile to be dragged. In some cases there is no missile launch.
With gun only platforms it was a slice turn away in gate to stay outside gun range. In some cases this may not be enough if the bandit can fly faster.
-
AGM-119 Penguin IR, 70nm ?? this can’t be right , it has merely ~<20nm with MK3 upgrade designation.
Original missile from around mid 80’s had 10-15nm range. cca 2-3x maverick’s range.
… in this case even wiki is correctOnly harpoons (western tech) qualify at 70-80nm range for asm’s.
-
On my 3/11/2015 version, I have a red mark changing it from 25 to 70nm so I’m guessing that I tested it to 70nm. It sounds like it should have less range. Are you seeing less range in BMS or saying it should have less range in BMS?
-
On pp. 45, shouldn’t the GBU-10G/B Paveway II be a penetrator?
-
Outstanding work! I was dreaming of that document, you made it !
Thank you for sharing. -
Is this document still valid with 4.34? or are there some changes that need to be made?
-
I have been taking notes and making changes over the last few years. It took several hundred hours of work to put the document together so I am focusing on testing the areas that I read that changed in lieu of testing everything all over again. I didn’t want to post anything new until I at least tested all of the opfor air defense systems since they changed so much.
Testing the SAMs is much more difficult now since they turn their radars on and off and don’t always shoot at the same distance anymore. I have tested all of the opfor air defense except for the HN-5A. The manpads are much more fun to fly against now, the way they track flares.
From browsing through my redmarks:
Search and acquisition radars were added with new RWR symbols.
Some SAMs can track multiple targets now.
Bands that can and can’t be detected have been updated.
There are redmarks all over the ranges but they are basically similar to before.
There have been changes to the drag of missiles which effects their accelleration and the tactics that can be used against them.
Several a/c RWR symbols changed.
IR seaker changes. Need to test all of these again.
Some a/c names changed.
Some a/c radar changes that I need to test. -
Thanks for the reply. This is my go to document and reference it almost every time I fly. Looking forward to upcoming changes.
-
That’s hard work yes.
Thank you for your job :thumb: -
Some SAMs can track multiple targets now.
???
Which? I tried S-300P(S) and it does not have simultaneous engagement capability.
-
Hi TeeSquare, unless I’ve missed something major (?) I don’t think you’re right (unfortunately) as far as I know there are no such capabilities yet.