Threat Guide
-
I collected the data over a few years and while versions of BMS changed. I tried to go back and make as many things as consistent as possible but may have missed some items. If I remember correctly, I started saying Int ECM if it was internal. If I just say Yes then it has it but I didn’t know what it was called or may not have gone back to it to make it consistent with the other aircraft that I added later on. If I could find the names of the components then I would list them. If the name is in grey then I found a source that said it had that component but it was not put into BMS.
It looks like I started listing it as CMDS/ ECM so Yes/ Yes would be that it has both. If I only said Yes, then I probably meant both but didn’t go back and fix it to Yes/ Yes.
The best way to fill in the blanks and double check me is to make a TE and fly that particular aircraft with no externals to see if it dumps chaff and flare out the back and if it can use ECM. Then check the load out screen and see if there is an external pod of some sort and test it again.
I am regularly adding red marks to The Vault and will update it from time to time.
-
fly that particular aircraft with no externals to see if it dumps chaff and flare out the back and if it can use ECM. Then check the load out screen and see if there is an external pod of some sort and test it again.
It’s exactly what I was doing , when I decided to ask you this question .
I’m working with the Mig 29 , and its little red light in front of the pit is perfect to test the ECM pods : You see if it’s working without having to move your eyes (and I love this button ) .
Doing so , I noticed some pods seemed not to be working (TGP or ECM ) . For example , the L-068 -EDIT : all right L-o86B - ) (I must made a typo but I havent looked yet to correct ; please forgive ) don’t work , while the SPASAN-5 is OK .
So I was thinking to test them one by one …. and write a list or even ask to BMS to cross check me .
I’m not telling this to denigrate FBMS or whatever . I LOVE this sim .
Only little things I noticed and decided to correct for my own . Your work helped me a lot to fine tune my plane, and help me , that’s all . Some pilot here called it a “Bible” . Yeah, Idk but indeed YOU HAVE to study it ! Clear, simple , direct , well done . Good work .
You must have put a lot of time doing it .
:
-
If I ever see or read a valuable info about ECM suite names, for AC with only “yes” , and if you are interested , I will let you know to help to fill some blanks and make your VAULT again more perfect
Best regards
-EDIT- oh , I missed the line where you talked me to crosscheck you . OK , it will be with pleasure !
-
Thanks for bringing this up. I usually go back and look these things over when it gets brought to my attention. I noticed that several of the opfor AC need to be updated with the ECM info.
-
I made some test s . It was extremely interesting to do , while being simple . I think it will be useful only for newbies(like me , but now I am a little less ) , but it will be good for an update .
I made my test with the Mig 29 A , -EDIT : so this infos may be valuable only on this variant ? I’ll try later. 4.34 U4 ver -
I chose her because she is fitted with Chaffs30 and flares30(F) internally , but is not Jamming(J) capable . I made a try without any ECM pod to avoid “false positive” . It’s ok , my ECM light doesn’t illuminate without the proper ECM pod .
I found out that the ECM pods in BMS seemed to be divided in 2 categories : Jammer Only POD , and C/F only .
J provides Jamming , but no additionnal C/F , while C/F provide a substancial amount of C and F , but no Jamming .
J pods and C/F pods can be loaded together in a plane -EDIT: (if the good HP are available in the current AC , of course)- so the plane can be protected in all the threat spectra : your plane is J capable , and gained a huge boost in C/F capabilities . Very useful for dangerous areas . I already tried this , but I didn’t saw the differences before ,because I did’nt made such kind of systematic tests .
The number under C or F is the amount of additionnal C or F . 1 means “yes” , “0” means nothing.
For this test , I only concentrated my time on what i think are the less used ECM and TGP , as I assumed(maybe I am wrong ? ) that the Western Electronic Warfare devices are widely used by the pilots of this forum . If there was issues , i bet you will be aware as soon as detected /
All right , now , let’s go :
A/ ECM PODS
J / C / F
Sorbitsya ; 1 ; 0 ; 0
SPS 141 ; 1 ; 0 ; 0
SPS141 MGWE 1 ; 0 ; 0
BOZ(all variants) 0 ; + 30 ; + 60
Matra Phimat 0 ; +60 ; +60
Cerberus(all variants) 1 ; 0 ; 0
B/TGP PODS
L-o86B “Fantasmagoria” : Don’t work .
SAPSAN-5 Working .
I couldn’t find the name of the Mig29 internal ECM suite yet (probably again a classified stuff , hard to find …) . Will update if I am lucky one day .
Best regards,
-
I found the name of the ECM suite, for the MiG 29S
" L-203BE Gardenyia-1" ECM system .
I hope this helps . I’ll add infos time to time .
cheers,
-
Hi TeeSquare,
Today’s infos : MiG 29
passive countermeasures system : featuring BVP-30-26 chaff/flare dispensers
As far as I understand, this should be the name of the internal C/F dispenser for all the MiG 29 variants, but I will need a cross-check by anyone for this info to be validated .
-EDIT- probably a valid info , I found it several times now .Regards,
-
Got it !!!
SO-69 type K-11E ECM JAMMER
For the MiG 29 variants that are fitted with an internal Jammer ; so should be relevant for MiG 29 S , M and latter derivatives(domestic and exports) :SMT , OVT …
-EDIT : I spoke a bit too fast :
" SO-69 is an ATC/SIF transponder, nothing to do with ECM. Standard MiG-29s (9.12) had no ECM, 9.13 had the Gardeniya jammer. SMT may use the Kedr internal system or the KS-418 external jamming pod.
Kedr is the name of the whole suit including L-150 RWR, KS-418K DRFM EXCM pod and chaff/flare dispensers "Need to confirm/infirm this info, but seems quite solid …
-
Hi !
Could I send you a pm ? I may have found something useful …
-
-
“The Vault” has been updated for BMS 4.35 dated 12/20/20 and can be downloaded from the link on the first post in this thread.
Several items were updated in the threat guide but every item was not checked again. I focused on things that I knew had changed and caught other things as I worked. I hope that you all find this threat guide useful.
-
Downloaded !
Many thanks !
-
Thank you!
-
Thank you, also for the fast replay!
-
Thanks for updating the document. It is very useful.
We are also working on an update for the EFB and want to implement some parts of your document like in the already published version of the EFB. Can you give us a changelog or something else so that we can compare the versions?
Otherwise we have to compare it page by page and that will be cost a lot off time.
BG
Keule -
Thanks TeeSquare…. Your TG is a must! Couldn’t survive without it.
-
Thanks a lot ! For SP users like me with little time this is an awesome addition and very appreciated. Thanks a bunch man !
-
Many thanks
-
Thanks for updating the document. It is very useful.
We are also working on an update for the EFB and want to implement some parts of your document like in the already published version of the EFB. Can you give us a changelog or something else so that we can compare the versions?
Otherwise we have to compare it page by page and that will be cost a lot off time.
BG
KeuleA lot of things changed. Too many specific things too list all of them. Generally the following things changed:
Cover sheet
Table of contents
Info on radar changes, lobes
Number of targets for SAMs
Checked several SAMs again some ranges changed
Revised several Sam ratings for countermeasures
Added Odd Group
Added Hawk search radars
Updated several CMDS/ ECM listings on AC
Added J-11
RWR symbol changes for AC 27, 29, 30
Checked IR values all AA Missiles
Added PL-10 and 12
Updated All tables
Added ship section -
I do not understand why is marked so high G level for SA-4. It has one of the weakest turning capability in the game. Even the SA-2 is better.
I also do not understand the low G value against the SA-8. It has one of the best turning missile among Cold War SAMs.
ZU-23-2 is not Shilka. Somehow it also got this name in the doc not only the ZSU-23-4