SA-17 Grizzly - Harm killer ?
-
according to Tactical Reference, I read SA-17 has the capability to engage HARM missile : really?!!!
-
In reality it does for sure, even old SA-2 could do that, at least in theory.
AFAIK in BMS SAMs do not engage any missiles. -
Yeah, fly in DCS and you can see this happen but its not currently possible in BMS. SA10/11/12/15/17/19/22 should all have this ability (with varying levels of ability).
-
Constrains of this makes it very thermal on the terrain. IRL it works, but in perfect conditions. Intercepting a HARM and a Scud are two different things.
-
I have seen on acmi SA2 launch at Spice bombs in ITO in 4.33.
-
When BMS makes SAMs able to engage missiles, we should also be given the MALD to be able to saturate them.
-
@Master:
When BMS makes SAMs able to engage missiles, we should also be given the MALD to be able to saturate them.
It would also mean naval warfare modeling on a new and different level because ASM also could be targetted.
On my dream wish list there are very high along with simultaneous target capability engagement and lobe and fire arc modeling for SAMs. -
@Master:
When BMS makes SAMs able to engage missiles, we should also be given the MALD to be able to saturate them.
Or rather more advanced jammer with RANRAP, DRFM, VGPO, RGPO, angle deception and so. Real ALQ-184 has it all.
Detailed data is classified, but assuming that it is software defined almost anything we put in it will be more or less realistic.I seen some data in one of the manuals, the complete fault list with enormous ammount of position for that ECM pod was available (manual was not classified), most of them were related with some of the mentioned techniques. Also some very generic data on that panel was mentioned.
Constrains of this makes it very thermal on the terrain. IRL it works, but in perfect conditions. Intercepting a HARM and a Scud are two different things.
Yes, if the SEAD flight is using terrain masking (just like the strike flight is) there is very little time to intercept HARM. Turning radar on and trying to acquire it may be a suicidie for the radar itself It is also why HARM is HARM and not just ARM. It needs a speed to give enemy less time for reaction.
-
Or rather more advanced jammer with RANRAP, DRFM, VGPO, RGPO, angle deception and so. Real ALQ-184 has it all.
Detailed data is classified, but assuming that it is software defined almost anything we put in it will be more or less realistic.I seen some data in one of the manuals, the complete fault list with enormous ammount of position for that ECM pod was available (manual was not classified), most of them were related with some of the mentioned techniques. Also some very generic data on that panel was mentioned.
Can you link that manual plz?
-
Or rather more advanced jammer with RANRAP, DRFM, VGPO, RGPO, angle deception and so. Real ALQ-184 has it all.
Detailed data is classified, but assuming that it is software defined almost anything we put in it will be more or less realistic.I seen some data in one of the manuals, the complete fault list with enormous ammount of position for that ECM pod was available (manual was not classified), most of them were related with some of the mentioned techniques. Also some very generic data on that panel was mentioned.
Yes, if the SEAD flight is using terrain masking (just like the strike flight is) there is very little time to intercept HARM. Turning radar on and trying to acquire it may be a suicidie for the radar itself
Is not even lobe modeling in the BMS4 as I know therefore this is a very, very, very far dream. Not mentioning the n+1 modes of SAMs in RL.
Is literally no chance to see any of these as long as the current code and modeling values are working as way the they are doing. Even from MI side are huuuuuuuuuuuuuge task if you wish to make any of these into the game.
Even the stone age Volkhov has at least 3 main guidance mode with different leading options and against them were designed more than one way of jamming… -
@Master:
Can you link that manual plz?
I seen many of them, can’t recall which one it was but i think it was one of those for HAF series F-16C.
The detailed data for the panel (rather than just generic info and fault list for PFL) is in the classified supplement that have not yet leakedCould be that one: http://falcon.blu3wolf.com/Docs/HAF-F16-34.pdf
Starts at page 511 regarding PFL.
Pages 847 and 848 for panel.