Harm Attack Display colour codes
-
Yeah that’s what green/gray is. Gray out of FOV of the HTS can’t know status so it’s colored “no info.” When in FOV it’s green for “should be able to see if it’s emitting or not, but currently not.”
-
Yeah that’s what green/gray is. Gray out of FOV of the HTS can’t know status so it’s colored “no info.” When in FOV it’s green for “should be able to see if it’s emitting or not, but currently not.”
That does make sense thank you
edit : so a green can become grey and not just a yellow one ?
-
I believe red and flashing red indicate lock and guidance mode even if the SAM is not targeting you. I’ve seen red and flashing red SAM’s in friendly airspace (Hawks, I believe Patriots too) and there’s no way they were engaging me.
-
Yeah that’s what green/gray is. Gray out of FOV of the HTS can’t know status so it’s colored “no info.” When in FOV it’s green for “should be able to see if it’s emitting or not, but currently not.”
Did some testing, and this is not the result I had. See below for more details.
I believe red and flashing red indicate lock and guidance mode even if the SAM is not targeting you. I’ve seen red and flashing red SAM’s in friendly airspace (Hawks, I believe Patriots too) and there’s no way they were engaging me.
I tested that too, but could not confirm. An SA-2 engaged my wigman, and I could see the SA-2 on my HAD and it was in the detection range, but it remained yellow color, no red or flashing red. I could see the missiles in the air too so I am certain I looked at the correct SAM.
OK did some more testing, here is what came out of it :
- The HTS can only look forward, so as soon as an emitter is behind your 3/9 line it will not know if that particular emitter is scanning / tracking you
- If the emitter is in grey colour = it is tracking you but is outside of the HTS’s FOV. This is true for both tracking & guiding a missile.
- If an emitter is green, it is either currently off or not tracking / guiding a missile on you.
Some screenshots that are more explicit :
-
Hmmm… I’ve always thought that HTS/HAD should be 360 device, or definitely more then only 180 in-front hemisphere. …, close or almost like RWR.
eg. Similar to the front passive array of the sub , it has coverage of about 270-300 degrees even its location is in the bow. So there is no “hard-cut” , only blind spot to the stern.
Another example would be the 2nd , rear-one AFT transceiver of the Data-link pod , you can see in HSD when you switch ANT , that coverage should be in the front of the HTS , !only without that blind spot in the middle… that just feels wrong, but can’t say, that stuff is probably classified., like HTS.
Cheers
As the US Air Force retired its Phantoms,
replacing them with the F-15 and F-16, the
F-4G faded into history. The replacement
for the F-4G in USAF service is the
AN/ASQ-213 HARM Targeting System
(HTS) equipped single seat F-16CJ.
The podded HTS system, carried on an
inlet pylon, provides forward sector
coverage for the F-16C, which is an
important distinction from the original F-
4G Weasel, capable of searching 360
degrees for offending radar emitters. Many
purists in the electronic combat community
do not regard the F-16C/HTS to be a robust
replacement for the F-4G/APR-38/45,
despite the better frequency coverage and
sensitivity of the newer HTS system -
single sector coverage is a tactical
disadvantage against the all-azimuth APR-
38/45 system.
The F-16C/HTS combo achieves its
combat effect by exploiting digital datalink
targeting information provided by the RC-
135 Rivet Joint electronic surveillance
aircraft, and more recently the ESM
equipped E-3C AWACS. In effect the F-
16C/HTS is ‘vectored’ against an emitter
tracked and identified by ‘offboard’
sources. Without these ‘offboard’
supporting surveillance systems the F-
16C/HTS loses much of its potency.… Well , I’ve been wrong before
-
Hmmm… I’ve always thought that HTS/HAD should be 360 device, or definitely more then only 180 in-front hemisphere. …, close or almost like RWR.
eg. Similar to the front passive array of the sub , it has coverage of about 270-300 degrees even its location is in the bow. So there is no “hard-cut” , only blind spot to the stern.
Another example would be the 2nd , rear-one AFT transceiver of the Data-link pod , you can see in HSD when you switch ANT , that coverage should be in the front of the HTS , !only without that blind spot in the middle… that just feels wrong, but can’t say, that stuff is probably classified., like HTS.
Cheers
now you know what it’s like too subsim, cheers
-
Hmmm… I’ve always thought that HTS/HAD should be 360 device, or definitely more then only 180 in-front hemisphere. …, close or almost like RWR.
eg. Similar to the front passive array of the sub , it has coverage of about 270-300 degrees even its location is in the bow. So there is no “hard-cut” , only blind spot to the stern.
Another example would be the 2nd , rear-one AFT transceiver of the Data-link pod , you can see in HSD when you switch ANT , that coverage should be in the front of the HTS , !only without that blind spot in the middle… that just feels wrong, but can’t say, that stuff is probably classified., like HTS.
The HTS is not simulated correctly in BMS, and the point of my post was not to actually discuss that since we know that it does not reflect reality.
I’m just trying to understand fully how it works in BMS
But thank you for confirming that the real pod should see 360° around it, or close to it I guess -
Yes, sorry speaking from memory without checking.
Clearly gray is a red (or worse) indication which has left FOV. It stays gray until back in FOV with color state yellow or below.
-
The HTS is not simulated correctly in BMS, and the point of my post was not to actually discuss that since we know that it does not reflect reality.
I’m just trying to understand fully how it works in BMS
But thank you for confirming that the real pod should see 360° around it, or close to it I guessEhh, nope, HTS is not 360 , not even close, as the quoted text says, it is only front quadrant , that should be 360:4=90 only degrees FOV forward , but the text is kinda old 2005ish , so it could be outdated with some newer block upgrade version till today. …who knows… it’s clearly not one of the things on public bbs
Anyway, pretty small FOV, but better overall performance , sensitivity, even data-link with other ESM systems around, E3, RC135. That makes it competitive against F4’s 360 sensor, but it also means you need more “expensive” platforms around area of interest, and of course they would need some cover too.
Meh, … the question is almost philosophical rather then technical
-
Ehh, nope, HTS is not 360 , not even close, as the quoted text says, it is only front quadrant , that should be 360:4=90 only degrees FOV forward , but the text is kinda old 2005ish , so it could be outdated with some newer block upgrade version till today. …who knows… it’s clearly not one of the things on public bbs
Anyway, pretty small FOV, but better overall performance , sensitivity, even data-link with other ESM systems around, E3, RC135. That makes it competitive against F4’s 360 sensor, but it also means you need more “expensive” platforms around area of interest, and of course they would need some cover too.
Meh, … the question is almost philosophical rather then technical
Thanks for your feedback Any source to your information ?
-
google
https://www.ausairpower.net/SP/DT-EADS-MAY03.pdf
but as I’ve said, that stuff ain’t gonna be public soon (or ever), bet ya on it
-
From your own link… :
The podded HTS system, carried on an inlet pylon, provides forward sector coverage for the F-16C, which is an important distinction from the original F4G Weasel, capable of searching 360
degrees for offending radar emitters. -
-
Yup, that’s what he said.
Maybe I am misunderstanding ?
What he said :nope, HTS is not 360 , not even close
What the link he posted says :
The podded HTS system, carried on an inlet pylon, provides forward sector coverage for the F-16C, which is an important distinction from the original F4G Weasel, capable of searching 360 degrees for offending radar emitters.
-
Maybe I am misunderstanding ?
It would appear so
The link says:
- The podded HTS system, carried on an inlet pylon, provides forward sector coverage for the F-16C
- distinction from the original F4G Weasel, capable of searching 360 degrees for offending radar emitters
so, F-16: forward sector
F4: 360 deg -
It would appear so
The link says:- The podded HTS system, carried on an inlet pylon, provides forward sector coverage for the F-16C
- distinction from the original F4G Weasel, capable of searching 360 degrees for offending radar emitters
You are correct, I have read that too fast
-
ARMs deliver their best range performance when launched in range-known modes, and low cost receivers such the TAS or HTS provide this capability without the cost, complexity and integration penalties of dedicated ESM receivers such as the Wild Weasel APR-38/47 or the Tornado ELS, albeit with some limitations in angular coverage (Lockheed-Martin).
Source : http://www.ausairpower.net/API-AGM-88-HARM.html
The USAF’s podded HARM Targeting System (HTS) fitted to the semi-dedicatedF-16CJ SEAD aircraft is the first of the new generation of lightweight rangefinding receivers to be operationally deployed. The receiver mounts on the forward starboardLantirn station, and provides 120 degree coverage over the forward sector. The F-16CJ/HTS is supported in theatre by the RC-135V/W Rivet Joint, which provides AWACS-like wide area coverage of hostile emitters, and vectors the F-16CJ to engage the target radar (USAF).
Source : http://www.ausairpower.net/API-AGM-88-HARM.html
That enabled the aircraft’s HARM Targeting System (HTS), which only provided a 180-degree field of view in the foward sector…
Source : http://tinyurl.com/yc4d9lhf
So yes, it seems that the HTS is look forward only
-
-
it rapidly starts to run into EW type issues, the primary one being getting information on how it works. The BMS team has in the past indicated an understandable reticence for making things up, even if plausible.
Its completely impossible to know 100% for sure how the entire system, friendly and enemy, will work - peoples real job IRL is to try figure this out. Even a partial success is considered a win, there. The best we could ever manage for a sim would be a plausible interpretation.
My thoughts: it would be an interesting campaign mechanic if the capability of each sides EW varied based on intel (or even a dice roll…). You could have a video that plays, showing technicians servicing the jamming pod, while a speaker tells of how in the field updates are improving the wartime performance of electronic self protection jamming… based somewhat on the success of ground troops capturing strategic locations, each side could have improvements to their RWRs - random chance of ‘capturing’ a north korean radar if its engaged in ground combat, after which it appears on RWR but before which, its not detected, or only rarely detected as being something else.
The variability on performance of real EW equipment based on its programming is something very hard to capture in any sim, I think. For what its worth, I think BMS does a good job! Its just that there are ways I think it could potentially be improved.