Threat Guide
-
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 ? Iāll 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 āfalse positiveā . Itās ok , my ECM light doesnāt 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 didnāt saw the differences before ,because I didānt made such kind of systematic tests .
The number under C or F is the amount of additionnal C or F . 1 means āyesā , ā0ā 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 , letās 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 āFantasmagoriaā : Donāt work .
SAPSAN-5 Working .
I couldnāt find the name of the Mig29 internal ECM suite yet (probably again a classified stuff , hard to find ā¦) . 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 . Iāll add infos time to time .
cheers,
-
Hi TeeSquare,
Todayās 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 ā¦
-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 ā¦
-
Hi !
Could I send you a pm ? I may have found something useful ā¦
-
-
āThe Vaultā 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 TeeSquareā¦. Your TG is a must! Couldnāt 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
-
Thank for the information, I guess itās easier to make a complete exchange in the EFB.
We will publish soonā¦. -
Hi Tee-Square .
Hereās ādatasā to fine tune your Vault !
S-31E2 KOLS IRST : For the Mig 29 A and S . Still not sure for other variants , Iāll check this .
cheers,
-
A must. Thanks !
-
Thank you TeeSquare for your hard work putting and netting all this together!:p