Harm Attack Display colour codes
-
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front quadrant , that should be 360:4=90 only degrees FOV forward , but the text is kinda old 2005ish , so it could be outdated with some newer block upgrade version till today.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front quadrant , that should be 360:4=90 only degrees FOV forward , but the text is kinda old 2005ish , so it could be outdated with some newer block upgrade version till today.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.