HAD question

[bob123]

How does the HAD know the location of non emitting radars (the green ones) since they are not emitting?

[razo]

They have emitted earlier and now are on Stand-by iirc

[Frederf]

A lot of emitters are pre-programmed from intel before the flight. In reality emitters discovered and stored that flight would have marginal positional accuracy.

[bob123]

Thats interesting. So a harm fired using the HAD on a green target that had been pre programmed would have a similar result to using the POS/EOM mode of the weapon itself?

[Dee-Jay]

IRL, HAD/HTS is not working like in the sim and is actually rather similar to the HAS POS mode. Tables, emitters types and locations are pre-programmed before the mission.

[tbuc]

@Dee-Jay:

IRL, HAD/HTS is not working like in the sim and is actually rather similar to the HAS POS mode. Tables, emitters types and locations are pre-programmed before the mission.

Don´t understand that, and I don´t think it is correct regarding the “locations” in regard to mobile batteries, Deejay. If that is the case for the F-16/HTS, mobile sources, whose position is not known a priori, would not be targetable. It is true that HARMs must be programable for emitter parameters, but location is used only for fixed SAMs (of course).

@Bob123: The HARM in real life offers a range of modes, which are used and named in different ways depending on the user. For example, compare the name of the modes and avioniocs associated to the HARM in the F-18C (NAVY) and the F-16C (USAF).
Prowlers (USMC), Growlers (US NAVY) and F-4Gs (USAF, not active anymore) are/were capable to program the HARM to specific source parameters while in the mission, due to dedicated avionics. The F-16 does not carry that. Nowadays, SEAD/DEAD dedicated platforms can even download emitters parameters from other assets (Rivet Joints,…) and use it to program the HARM during the mission.

[Dee-Jay]

HTS in BMS is a sort of super RWR. IRL, it works completely different than in BMS. HTS is not able to detect and engage mobile source as easily and quickly than in the game, and is not really made on that purpose.

It would be nice to enhance the realism a little bit one day because in BMS, currently, HTS is a super magic device.

[Blu3wolf]

problem is its way complex. the HTS works with a lot of complex data to work out things we take for granted in BMS. Not clear that it could be easily simulated, and the data on how it works is not (AFAIK) readily available. Some of the systems it relies on use each HTS in a flight of F-16s to determine range to an emitter through parallax error, for instance.

[Dee-Jay]

@Blu3wolf:

problem is its way complex. the HTS works with a lot of complex data to work out things we take for granted in BMS.

100%

Not clear that it could be easily simulated…

Of course not. But some stuff can be improved like the symbology (for instance removing the target box which do not exist IRL) and making it less working like an RWR (removing the differents seach/acquire/track status displayed which does not exist either.)

But of course, mimicking the exact behavior isn’t possible at all and wouldn’t be wise as it could be a sensitive area. I am also not talking about implenting the PT mode which would require a master ans several slaves and would be sensitive as well IMO.

Making all HAD mode using the same HUD symbology than HAS and preventing HAD symbols on MFDs to warn you when radar is searching, acquiring or tracking would be a very good first step.
Later … implementing the GEO pack could be (maybe?) another good step (but I do not know if really useful in the sim?)

[tbuc]

@Dee-Jay:

HTS in BMS is a sort of super RWR. IRL, it works completely different than in BMS. HTS is not able to detect and engage mobile source as easily and quickly than in the game, and is not really made on that purpose.

It would be nice to enhance the realism a little bit one day because in BMS, currently, HTS is a super magic device.

Do you have an unclassified source on that? Because everything I have read in my life about HTS, it was never mentioned that the engagement of mobile sources is so difficult as you wrote.

[tbuc]

@Dee-Jay:

100%

Of course not. But some stuff can be improved like the symbology (for instance removing the target box which do not exist IRL) and making it less working like an RWR (removing the differents seach/acquire/track status displayed which does not exist either.)

But of course, mimicking the exact behavior isn’t possible at all and wouldn’t be wise as it could be a sensitive area. I am also not talking about implenting the PT mode which would require a master ans several slaves and would be sensitive as well IMO.

Making all HAD mode using the same HUD symbology than HAS and preventing HAD symbols on MFDs to warn you when radar is searching, acquiring or tracking would be a very good first step.
Later … implementing the GEO pack could be (maybe?) another good step (but I do not know if really useful in the sim?)

I think it would be interesting to simulate correctly the capacities and modes of the different versions of AGM-88. That would allow to simulate correctly the employment of HARMs in ODS (Bravo version), Allied Force, etc…

[Blu3wolf]

It would be neat also to simulate SAM operators as well as SAMs.

[Dee-Jay]

@Blu3wolf:

It would be neat also to simulate SAM operators as well as SAMs.

+1 … And even in a higher priority.

[tbuc]

@Blu3wolf:

It would be neat also to simulate SAM operators as well as SAMs.

That is of course the number one in my wish list of all times. This requires a lot of work , I reckon. A much easier step towards realism in Falcon would be, imho, to simulate correctly the capabilities of the HARM. Today we have a generic HARM (C/D) version. We need a Bravo basic version for late 80s/early 90s and a C-version (with less precision than what we have now) to simulate old conflicts after ODS and before 2003/2004.