My Projects (EricJ)

[+daddyairplanes 9,698]

well, FB generates the leads. and some good pics for aircraft types

when you got a specific thing to look up,  its alway Google

[+EricJ 4,094]

Yup and I'm trying to be pollitic in saying that I've been skinning for 24 or so years, Googling isn't a new concept my friend. I may not use it as much as some people, but I do use it, only when doing things that interest me (and bookmarking the USN official site for photos on occasion). So while I don't research as much as some people, I do know how to do it.

Edited July 14 by EricJ

[+daddyairplanes 9,698]

ok oof. wasnt suggesting you dont know how to google

a majority of my online experience anywhere is something pops on FB, im then on google seeing what the hell theyre talking about. could be a new missile, could be who died now or lost a piece of their ear. i didnt mean to imply anything

lets just agree the new missile's lookin good in game

[+EricJ 4,094]

Ahh okay, my bad on misinterpreting you then.

[+EricJ 4,094]

Not my video, but a test of dtmdragon's AIM-174B:

 

[+EricJ 4,094]

Here's a quick and dirty test. and firing and hitting the target wasn't too hard really. But here's a quick video of me shooting down a target drone with the missile by dtmdragon.

 

Edited July 29 by EricJ

[+EricJ 4,094]

After some soul-searching and a quick Google search, the Growler to the best of my knowledge doesn't have an internal jammer like the rest of the Super Hornets. Which is fine, so I decided to remove it and make the player depend on the pods, which apparently work (or as best as they can). That means that jamming a radar is at best what it is. I don't know the performance of the real system unfortunately (and no, I won't ask because they won't tell me anyway) against an SA-10 radar. This short video shows the effectiveness and the range at 10,000ft of it detecting me and strobing me:

 

[+EricJ 4,094]

Just as a note, I'm going to have to up the power of the pods a bit, to give it some reasonable amount of oomph to jam radars. The target is the SA-10 radar, as that's the most powerful. Given that it's a pod I need to keep it "realistic" because it's a pod, I may stick with the 190.0 value that I have now. It gave some more power and increased the amount of power from the last video, but not much. I'll post a video later on, but wanted to get it out there, but that may be as far as realism of the power of the pod at least. I don't know if the game increases with more than one pod (I'm using the USN standard configuration, three pods, two tanks, and two HARMs), but from what I see, probably not.

[+EricJ 4,094]

Well, I found out that the max value (pretty sure) is a power of 200.0 for the jammer pods. I cranked it up to 250.00 and the jammer didn't do anything, so I'm guessing 200 as it did work fine. Not as well as it should maybe, but it jams to a certain distance, then the radar overpowers it and can be locked up. What's interesting is that the F/A-18F that uses the new values, can get closer to the radar (SA-10 was used) than with the pods. So it looks like that the internal jammers work better than the pods. Maybe because of the ability to produce more power, I don't know, but that's TK's and Co.'s reasoning I suppose within the game environment. And given again that I don't know how effective jammers are in the real world, it's just speculation on my part on what the pods should do when carried by aircraft. Note that I'm just using the ALQ-99s for the Growler, the inbuilt ones for testing, again a typical configuration with three pods, two tanks, and two HARMs. So it is what it is with the Growler on the game front.

[+EricJ 4,094]

Here's what the internal jammer on an F/A-18EF will look like for Block II and IIIs. I reduced the power of the internal jammer and it coincides with the Growler. I don't know why I can't make the jammers more powerful on the Growler (I would think to provide EW protection, it would have to have the power to do so, even in game) as I think I'm at "max" value for the podded jammers. Anyway here's the test value on my personal jet against the SA-10 Radar. I forgot who made it, but overall this is what the internal jammer will do. It seems fairly reasonable for a fighter to have that effect (If I didn't jam it would have locked me up as soon as I took off from the carrier, so it does work, just not how it used to in previous videos and iterations of the coding and the like).

 

[+EricJ 4,094]

Here is the current (new) setting for the Super Hornets, Block II and III:

[ECM]
ReferenceName=AN/ALQ-214v5
SystemType=ECM_JAMMER
JammerType=DUAL_MODE
JammerStrength=100.0
MinFreq=2.0
MaxFreq=20.0
CanJamCW=TRUE
MinExtentPosition=-0.404,-2.859,0.608
MaxExtentPosition=0.404,-0.824,1.018

And updated ALQ99G pod

ALQ99G.7z

[+EricJ 4,094]

Also the adjusted ALQ-99- H and L versions.

Weapons.7z

[+Coupi 4,318]

Hi ! Interesting news about the current SH evolution ! 

https://www.twz.com/air/ea-18g-growlers-with-new-jamming-pods-onboard-carrier-heading-to-middle-east

[+EricJ 4,094]

I brought up the request to GKABS and should be done. Overall it'll be just as powerful as the ALQ-99s given game limitations.

[AcariaPlainum 33]

On 14.7.2024 at 1:43 AM, daddyairplanes said:

the need would be there

but AIM-260 has the same dimensions as AIM-120, so it can integrate with the Raptor easier. which means better ranger through chemical engineering (more powerful propellant)

ther might be some issue with that and the tendency of a carrier aircraft to be flung off of and slam into decks all day long. but who knows. im just noticing all the updates for the last two years concern the Air Force, and now this.

Not from what i have heard they are planning a a bigger diameter with foldable fins

I have also heard scramjet meteor style

[+daddyairplanes 9,698]

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/lrew.htm

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/Air-Force-Developing-AMRAAM-Replacement-to-Counter-China/

and i heard nose thrusters (rockets) and similar dimensions to integrate into the 22 and 35s weapons bays. as well as a flight profile like the retired Phoenix (rapid acceleration to max speed, rapid climb to max altitude, then downhill coasting to target)

bigger diameter and fins (even folding) would affect its ability to fit into the comparitively tight weps bays

[+EricJ 4,094]

Yeah suffice to say that the AIM-260 isn't properly defined as of right now either, so there's a lot of conjecture, but I do agree with DA, as the weapon needs to fit in the weapon bays for the F-35. But again it's conjecture as of now so we'll see what goes on with the program.

[simonmiller416 1,197]

For these professional modern "electronic warfare" birds, I usually choose to give them a very high value to ensure that they really work when they should work.After all, the electronic warfare in SF2 is extremely simplified (although I think other games and even DCS are not more detailed, after all, electronic warfare is the most confidential information of several major countries)
I think the jamming strength here depends on the search/tracking strength of the enemy radar. It will be obviously effective when the former value is larger than the latter, so I have been thinking about unifying the "strength standard" in the game according to different radars, but it is obviously very troublesome.

What do you think? (Just want to see your opinions, not asking for)

 

As for the AIM-260, perhaps all we can do is wait. I have been searching for information as much as possible in the few months this year, and at most I found a "suspected" test launch of JATM in 2019, and some inventory issues mentioned in budget documents,the rests are pretty much guessworks.Truly a top secret project.

Edited 21 hours ago by simonmiller416

[+EricJ 4,094]

6 hours ago, simonmiller416 said:

For these professional modern "electronic warfare" birds, I usually choose to give them a very high value to ensure that they really work when they should work.After all, the electronic warfare in SF2 is extremely simplified (although I think other games and even DCS are not more detailed, after all, electronic warfare is the most confidential information of several major countries)
I think the jamming strength here depends on the search/tracking strength of the enemy radar. It will be obviously effective when the former value is larger than the latter, so I have been thinking about unifying the "strength standard" in the game according to different radars, but it is obviously very troublesome.

What do you think? (Just want to see your opinions, not asking for)

 

As for the AIM-260, perhaps all we can do is wait. I have been searching for information as much as possible in the few months this year, and at most I found a "suspected" test launch of JATM in 2019, and some inventory issues mentioned in budget documents,the rests are pretty much guessworks.Truly a top secret project.

Yeah I agree, and as you said, SF2 electronic warfare is what it is, and frankly it depends on the radar being suppressed, and other factors. Overall I think it's okay for a game of this caliber, and I'm sure even DCS people have their issues as well, given the murky environment of classifcation and performance in general. A Growler EWO mainly said "It depends" on how things work, so there's a nugget of info to digest. Overall I think that we deal with the game's limitations as we have to, because not to start up the beaten path of SF2 support, we gotta work with what we got.

As for the AIM-260, I think that's just a murky subject until more open source info comes out.

[+daddyairplanes 9,698]

10 hours ago, simonmiller416 said:

As for the AIM-260, perhaps all we can do is wait. I have been searching for information as much as possible in the few months this year, and at most I found a "suspected" test launch of JATM in 2019, and some inventory issues mentioned in budget documents,the rests are pretty much guessworks.Truly a top secret project.

well the USAF is building new secure ammo bunkers for them at Hill

theyre getting the type of attention nukes get so yeah, i think itll be awhile before we know much.