HTS Display
-
From an official presentation about SEAD:
https://i.imgur.com/insDwcs.jpg
Source:
Lt Col R. Matt Russell
F-16 Test Pilot
Chief of F-16 Flight Test
United States Air ForceWhere did you get this and is this really legit??
-
From my harddisk. The presentation is called “Modernizing SEAD for the 21st Century”.
-
From my harddisk. The presentation is called “Modernizing SEAD for the 21st Century”.
This isn’t really the avionics for the HARM is it??
-
Where did you get this and is this really legit??
See page 15 here: https://www.dsei.co.uk/__media/libraries/west-theatre/Lt-Col-Robert-Russell.pdf
-
From an official presentation about SEAD:
https://i.imgur.com/insDwcs.jpg
Source:
Lt Col R. Matt Russell
F-16 Test Pilot
Chief of F-16 Flight Test
United States Air ForceHmm interesting, thanks tbuc! One thing that is not clear in this image is how unranged radars are displayed.
-
From an official presentation about SEAD:
https://i.imgur.com/insDwcs.jpg
Source:
Lt Col R. Matt Russell
F-16 Test Pilot
Chief of F-16 Flight Test
United States Air Forceinteresting, i think the yellow “^E” letter it’s an Eurofighter??? i remember in 4.32 some F-16 radar apears in my HAD like Yellow “^16”
-
See page 15 here: https://www.dsei.co.uk/__media/libraries/west-theatre/Lt-Col-Robert-Russell.pdf
Very interesting indeed. Another question I have for BMS is this:
If I use HTS to fire at long range (30-20NM), and the radar is green when I lock it up and fire, if the radar comes on will the HARM detect it in flight and lock onto it if fired using HTS??
Of course PB mode would be best for preemptive launch but I wonder if HTS is just as good for preemptive shots as well. Because if the radar is green (off), theoretically I would assume it’d be the same as PB mode and the capability would be in the weapon itself.
I hope that isn’t a stupid question, though it sounds like one.
-
Very interesting indeed. Another question I have for BMS is this:
If I use HTS to fire at long range (30-20NM), and the radar is green when I lock it up and fire, if the radar comes on will the HARM detect it in flight and lock onto it if fired using HTS??
Of course PB mode would be best for preemptive launch but I wonder if HTS is just as good for preemptive shots as well.
I wouldn’t hang my hat on it but i think the HARM will indeed guide if the radar comes online after your shot.
-
@Master:
I wouldn’t hang my hat on it but i think the HARM will indeed guide if the radar comes online after your shot.
Kool, I’ll give it a shot and see what happens.
-
See page 15 here: https://www.dsei.co.uk/__media/libraries/west-theatre/Lt-Col-Robert-Russell.pdf
One funny mishap: Tornados were not used in the GDR, that would have been MiG-29 :uham:
The eastern GDR ceased to exist in 1990, right would be FRG or just Germany. -
Although pair triangulation and other features might be a challenge to code for our BMS HAD, at least i think we need the S symbols to be replaced with the proper alphabetic symbols, like in the RWR (for known search radars).
-
One thing one needs to remember is that the HTS is not as capable as the old F-4Gs were in the SAM finding&classifying job. The accuracy and coverage of the early HTS was in the past publically criticised when it was initially introduced. One might guess that each release improved its power and capabilities, but even nowadays with the R7, HTS carrying aircraft works together (=data exchange via link) with the rivet joints to pinpoint and classify emitters in the battlefield.
Yoda, triangulation is indeed an overkill. BMS simulates, not emulates things, isn’t it? One could simulate this “data-link” with the Rivet Joints etc by giving all required features to the HTS in BMS. There is a problem, however, of bringing all toys and weapons in the F-16 to last standards and versions: the era compatiblity. Such hardcoded HTS (or other avionics) would be no match in other eras against other SAMs etc. This has been (partially) already happening in BMS since 4.32 when you are attacking with JSOWs, Laser INS/GPS and MIL weapons enemy systems that simply could not defend themselves. The SAM AI coded in 4.34 was a huge step to mitigate part of the problem though. IMO, one needs to “move” all parts together (weapons, precision, avionics, AI, IADS capabilties) to the last/same standards or open the avionics for community editing/collaboration.
-
One thing one needs to remember is that the HTS is not as capable as the old F-4Gs were in the SAM finding&classifying job. The accuracy and coverage of the early HTS was in the past publically criticised when it was initially introduced. One might guess that each release improved its power and capabilities, but even nowadays with the R7, HTS carrying aircraft works together (=data exchange via link) with the rivet joints to pinpoint and classify emitters in the battlefield.
Yoda, triangulation is indeed an overkill. BMS simulates, not emulates things, isn’t it? One could simulate this “data-link” with the Rivet Joints etc by giving all required features to the HTS in BMS. There is a problem, however, of bringing all toys and weapons in the F-16 to last standards and versions: the era compatiblity. Such hardcoded HTS (or other avionics) would be no match in other eras against other SAMs etc. This has been (partially) already happening in BMS since 4.32 when you are attacking with JSOWs, Laser INS/GPS and MIL weapons enemy systems that simply could not defend themselves. The SAM AI coded in 4.34 was a huge step to mitigate part of the problem though. IMO, one needs to “move” all parts together (weapons, precision, avionics, AI, IADS capabilties) to the last/same standards or open the avionics for community editing/collaboration.
Thats why they gave us the avionics configurator. You can make it so that earlier versions of the HTS stay the same as now and newer ones provide you with bullseye and SPI integration for PGM delivery accuracy. But to be honest, they devs have expressed many times how they wont touch systems without open source documents, so i dont see any of those features being implemented. And to be frank, i am happy with the HTS as it is, i just assume i/we have ranged all detected radars.
-
@Master:
Thats why they gave us the avionics configurator. You can make it so that earlier versions of the HTS stay the same as now and newer ones provide you with bullseye and SPI integration for PGM delivery accuracy. But to be honest, they devs have expressed many times how they wont touch systems without open source documents, so i dont see any of those features being implemented. And to be frank, i am happy with the HTS as it is, i just assume i/we have ranged all detected radars.
Hi, Yoda,
where in the Air.Con. do you see HTS settings? All I can find is the RWR selection. -
Hi, Yoda,
where in the Air.Con. do you see HTS settings? All I can find is the RWR selection.Oh no, you misunderstand. I was referring to the highly hypothetical possibility of adding HTS options (depending on version) to the Avionics Configurator. Currently there are none.