AN/ALE-50
-
I know a few years back there were some inquiries to the implementation of the “little buddy”. I am curious if anyone knows if there are any plans to try to implement the little buddy into the sim. It would definitely be a big hit!!
-
…I thought the idea was to avoid getting hit?
-
…I thought the idea was to avoid getting hit?
yeah smart ass it is, that’s exactly the point. ……
-
yeah smart ass it is, that’s exactly the point. ……This is why I never post much here anymore or fly BMS much anymore. I would even go so far as to say one of the reasons BMS is losing fans to DCS is the arrogance of ALOT of people on this forum. Nearly every post on here and a lot of you guys come running with your ruler screaming “mine is bigger!!!” Its so tiresome I avoid this place for the most part.
Wray79, but you did a foch, they already banned some players on this Russian site for too inquisitive questions:(
-
I think that towed decoys would be a great addition to the sim. I hope you didn’t get too shaken up out there the other day. That was a big one.
-
My problem with such requests they ignore the consequences of such thing while even much more basic things are not modeled.
Not mentioning the towed decoy is such a classified system which makes not possible the model with such accuracy as other non modeled issues which has declassified documentation for modeling. -
My problem with such requests they ignore the consequences of such thing while even much more basic things are not modeled.
Not mentioning the towed decoy is such a classified system which makes not possible the model with such accuracy as other non modeled issues which has declassified documentation for modeling.Molni,I know this has been discussed before, and I understand. However, please consider the following…Jane’s F-18 modeled the -50 back in the 90’s . In that sim , the 'Little Buddy" didn’t seem to make much difference , countermeasure-wise. However, we did have the immersion of implementing something as in real life.
-
Molni,I know this has been discussed before, and I understand. However, please consider the following…Jane’s F-18 modeled the -50 back in the 90’s . In that sim , the 'Little Buddy" didn’t seem to make much difference , countermeasure-wise. However, we did have the immersion of implementing something as in real life.
Nope, you are not right. The ALE-50 is a gamechanger. Against man in the loop SAMs (SA-2/3) is useless but against S-300PT/PS/PMU1 and both Kub-M3 and Buk-M1 and is very likely works with very high efficiency because of hardware and date of applied technology of these systems. During the OAF the ALE-50 technically killed the Kub SAMs… (Buk-M1 is “only” a more advanced Kub-M3 with different missile and more FCR).
It would be VERY difficult to make any model which is not terribly bad and could make difference between different type of SAMs. Type means here the working principle of the SAMs based on guidance type, used wavelength and antenna types…
-
Nope, you are not right.
Molni, with considerable respect I must disagree. My idea is that the -50, even a not completely modeled one, even one that made no real difference, would give us the immersion “fun” of implementing it in flight. I used Jane’s as an example as the Little Buddy didn’t seem to make much difference there, but I still got to "play"with it.
I do agree about the -50 and the SA-6, from what I’ve read.
I’m not even going to attempt to question you or the Dev’s about the difficulties of implementing an actual working model. -
Molni, with considerable respect I must disagree. My idea is that the -50, even a not completely modeled one, even one that made no real difference, would give us the immersion “fun” of implementing it in flight. I used Jane’s as an example as the Little Buddy didn’t seem to make much difference there, but I still got to "play"with it.
I do agree about the -50 and the SA-6, from what I’ve read.
I’m not even going to attempt to question you or the Dev’s about the difficulties of implementing an actual working model.As long as it is no real lobe and scan modeling talking about modeling well the ALE-50 is simply funny. Before you model ALE-50 you have to create the lobe modeling, giving the parameters of every lobes, other hardware differences and modeling very specific working principles of EVERY SAM system. Without this you can have only such model of ALE-50 which has nothing to do with physics. The current EW/radar modeling is also very abstracted because of obvious reasons… Literally is not real big difference between the SA-2 and SA-6 only some generic modeling parameters, Falcon can have only “quantity” but not “quality” modeling. I hope you understand the very strong meaning of this.
In RL ALE-50 was a gamechanger against SA-6 while during the Cold War it was one of the most dangerous Soviet army air defense system, especially with the lock after launch and optical tracking capability of the Kub-M3.
I advise to read the short description of the Kub-M3 here.
http://www.mediafire.com/folder/ibpuhagkr7a8w/ENG_-_HT_OsszefoglaloI could list any day at any time far more important and far easier implemented missing or not completed issues than modelling the towed decoy.
-
About my dreams:
- Lobe and frequency modelling of different type of radars. Currently is not lobe modelling, all ARM can be used from any direction it does not matter in RL you cannot launch because you would outside from any lobe of the SAM. AGM-88 cannot be used against radars with m wavelength.
- Real FCR and EW radar modelling fort real SAM SA modelling. FCRs and EW radars have totally different working principles and lobes.
- New IR sensor modelling to model the effect of ground clutter and many other factors.
- In RL are totally different IR seekers with different IRCCM capabilities which cannot be described by a single flare chance value. This also can be upgaded.
- Effect the winds of bombs to model REAL CEP which strongly determines your altitude and bombing accuracy as long as you do not use PGMs.
- And many others…
What are the similarity of the items in the list? They are GENERAL modelling issues have effect on EVERY stuff in their category while the ALE-50 request is a very aircraft specific while demands also a general radar modelling upgrade as well as very specific SAM modelling.
I’m not able to understand why so many ppl wish to see such things is Falcon universe which are classified while such things are not modelled where you can have the very exact and detailed sources to model the many things. ALE-50 is a classified item you do not know even the length of the cable in operation depending on aspect, SAM type, etc.
Most of requests simply do not consider the impact of their wishes concerning to source, level of modelling and available sources. IMHO if you can choose always the general modelling should be improved because it has global impact on the whole environment. I choose any day any of the items above the list over ALE-50…
-
I believe we ask for these things because we simply do not know as much as you about the development side of the sim. As a flight sim fan ( speaking for myself) I would just like to see things in the sim that I see and read about from real life. It is not of major concern how it is modeled or how it works “behind the scene” Sometimes it seems too much emphasis is placed on making the sim as real as possible. The sim will never be 100 percent accurate, it cant be and that is the nature of anything related to the military. Still it does not mean if you do not have the exact modeling of how it is supposed to work you cant do it. Sometimes some outside of the box thinking is required. It seems you are making the choice not to work on it because you can not model it how it works in real life, and that is your right. I get it and understand. I also understand we will prob not see this in the sim and im ok with that as well……but…regardless of how it works I still personally would like to see the ALE-50 in the sim if for nothing else than the added factor of immersion when flying some good ol wild weasel!!
Nothing but respect to you Molni, im thankful for everything you and the BMS Devs do for the community.
-
I believe we ask for these things because we simply do not know as much as you about the development side of the sim.
This is not exactly true. I made huge mods for the Falcon for 5+ years and I saw what I saw even without knowing the code just the DB.
It is not of major concern how it is modeled or how it works “behind the scene”
This is the point where you lost me…
In a HC simulator this this is the main concern…Sometimes it seems too much emphasis is placed on making the sim as real as possible. The sim will never be 100 percent accurate, it cant be and that is the nature of anything related to the military
.
If you neglect all sources and possible variations the result will be an arcade game…Sometimes some outside of the box thinking is required.
Sorry but if you wish to model something at least basic parameters should be known and considered… And are lots for towed decoys which are not modelled at all…
-
This is not exactly true. I made huge mods for the Falcon for 5+ years and I saw what I saw even without knowing the code just the DB.
This is the point where you lost me…
In a HC simulator this this is the main concern….
If you neglect all sources and possible variations the result will be an arcade game…Sorry but if you wish to model something at least basic parameters should be known and considered… And are lots for towed decoys which are not modelled at all…
You missed the point entirely friend. At this point I withdraw from the conversation.
-
I believe we ask for these things because we simply do not know as much as you about the development side of the sim. As a flight sim fan ( speaking for myself) I would just like to see things in the sim that I see and read about from real life. It is not of major concern how it is modeled or how it works “behind the scene”.
You can never get the “values” correct as they are most likely confidential, but you can simulate the mechanism behind it accurately. For that to happen though, as molnibalage points out, there are other prerequisites that are required first for them to have any meaning/niche. If you just want the feature without the correct mechanism (i.e. it will not work from a tactical POV) what’s the point other than having a placebo?
-
@TwanV:
For that to happen though, as molnibalage points out, there are other prerequisites that are required first for them to have any meaning/niche. If you just want the feature without the correct mechanism (i.e. it will not work from a tactical POV) what’s the point other than having a placebo?
Exactly. For a 100% arcade result with a “just have something approach” to me is pointless.
-
Exactly. For a 100% arcade result with a “just have something approach” to me is pointless.
OK… And what do you think about the current HAD?
Following your logic with this display we are already in the ‚arcade league‘, simply because it‘s fictionary.So why not judge the demand for a -50 as a feature request which might be sometime integrated as an educated guess? Concernig priority, the dev team will decide „if“ and „when“. Surely there are other more important things to be done, but why damn that thingie at all?
-
You see in my mind it shouldn’t be that hard. Its a friggin decoy, its a towed piece of chaff that emits a radar signal. So it is classified and you don’t know how it works I get that. I know its towed behind the jet at around 300 feet, I know it emits a radar signal to spoof missiles. So why is it so impossible? IS it impossible to create a model of the ALE-50? that emits a radar signal the same way the f16 does in the sim? From my point of view all of the pieces of the puzzle are already there in the sim they just need to be assembled. There is more than one way to skin a cat. I dare to say it is probably doable but it wont happen because he is picking his battles and this one he isn’t going to change his opinion on. So therefore all of this is an exercise in futility.
I want to reiterate this is not any kind of attack on anyone. Without guys like Molni I understand the sim would not be where it is today. Nothing but respect for you guys.
-
…I think I’d rather have laser MAV. Drooool…
-
OK… And what do you think about the current HAD?
Following your logic with this display we are already in the ‚arcade league‘, simply because it‘s fictionary.So why not judge the demand for a -50 as a feature request which might be sometime integrated as an educated guess? Concernig priority, the dev team will decide „if“ and „when“. Surely there are other more important things to be done, but why damn that thingie at all?
Electronic page 99.
https://www.scribd.com/document/2326271/F-16-MLU-Manual-Part-2My advices.
Next time try to use sources before comment anything in the topic.
Or simply ask the developers about what is “fictionary” and what is not.