amalahama

Right now, harm seeker in the hornet implementation can magically see and instantaneously update all air defences in its fov. This is somewhat unrealistic, since harm seeker needs to sweep through its fov like a radar would do, and that takes a significant amount of time. That's why there are filtering and azimuth limiting options, just to make the sweep faster. The difference however, and this is my own guess, is that in the hornet the CLC can store harm contacts and make the math to present them with regards to missile boresight in each moment, so it's not a static image. But not sure about this one

I think this is basically correct, although APKWS has some sort of MIL-STD connector that may be used to change laser codes on the fly, for what it would require some sort of minor SW upgrade in the a/c. I guess this operational delta has been given to the Charlies, albeit not being strictly neccesary

I think actually Legacy Hornets weren't part of the urgent request package to implement them.

Small request, could O/S (offset) waypoints be pushed up in the list? Apart of being an useful tool, not too difficult to implement, it's actually required in one of the Raven 1 missions.

Is there any other JDAM delivery modes available in the Hornet apart from Manual Release?

Anyway, Harm doesn't loft IRL except in PB mode, at least version C that is modelled in game, and it needs to be fixed

That's actually really interesting, I wasn't aware of this. Is there any video where it hints the process in real life?

If you could create more than one SEQ (not avail at the moment), you could have a SEQ2 with allyour markpoints in order to have all them visible in the HSI.

Not really. You can't build a SEQ out of Markpoints. Hence my question. Of course I can note coordinates in a piece of papers and manually create the WP but I'm looking forward to a potentially more convenient method, maybe not yet modeled but available in the real jet.

Can we upgrade markpoints to waypoints?

What makes you wonder that I THINK and not that I KNOW? ;) And I'm pretty sure ED is very knowledgeable about how HARM works and doesn't need your nor my lectures

Right now, only Viggen models the different "pecularities" of degraded bombing modes. Being honest, it shouldn't be a big change between AGR assisted and DTED assisted CCIP/AUTO, and more degraded modes like ralt, baro etc. are probably very rarely used, so the usefulness in game is doubtful compared with the pain of implementing them, but it would be a nice addition for sure.

Prove me wrong. Only SP mode interfaces with the RWR, which dump target azimuth and type to the missile before launch. But TOO mode is purely what the missile sensor sees, with the support of the HARM CLC computer in the aircraft to translate the raw signal into the TOO mode we have.

You identified the main problems very well cofcorpse, the rest it's just philosophical discussions No you are wrong. TOO is HARM as a sensor mode, it uses the RWR for nothing. a/c RWR antennas have fan beam radiation patterns and don't resolve well in elevation, whilst using comparison methods (in amplitude, phase, doppler difference etc.) for providing an acceptable azimuth solution. Only most advanced systems (e.g. ESM) with interpherometers can give *some* elevation info, normally with way less accuracy that in azimuth. The cool thing about the HARM though is that is equipped with a dish antenna on a gimbal, with a relatively thin pencil beam radiation pattern. The good thing about this config is that it provides same good (or bad) accuracy in all angles; the bad thing is that it needs to sweep in elevation and azimuth mechanically to provide a picture, which is time consuming.

It would be cool if, with no AGR available, aiming methods actually change their source of info, like it's modelled in the Viggen.

Man at least threat rings and custom zones should be a must

Not really, otherwise you would get the same interface in the f16, but you don't.

I don't know what DOA accuracy in HARM is. But what I know is that for 1º or less you definitively need an interferometer, which is largely unavailable for a missile head: https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/2016/03/02/rwresm-and-passive-geolocation/ Aircraft RWRs, which I would assume havemore sophisticated antennas and T/R modules than a missile, have DOAs around 5º, for example SAAB Gripen DASS system has 7º accuracy according to the manufacturer https://saab.com/globalassets/commercial/air/electronic-warfare/radar-warning-receivers/bow/bow-product-sheet.pdf So, even 2º RMS DOA accuracy for the HARM seems optimistic, if you ask me Regards

And without interferometry, expect HARM angular errors to be in the sense of 2°. That means, at 25 nm, a 1.5 nm diameter circle of uncertainty. Right now the TD is deadly spot on

Current JDAM mechanics are quite basic in the A-10C: Only MAN release mode and no way to define terminal parameters (and therefore no IZAR). It would be nice to see a more complete implementation as the existing (WIP) in the Hornet for example. The GBU-38 has become paramount in latest campaigns and it deserves some quiality love

That's absolutely not how TOO mode works

Yeah, still I've decided to leave my message to make visible my absolute failure and my deserved public embarrassement

Cool thanks! I missed this one

I doubt will get an official statement from ED but with some luck maybe somone with direct knowledge on the missile will shed some light on the issue.

I agree with QuiGon, At least, not all emitters should pop up instantaniously in the Hornet, since each wipe would use different frequency. Hence the filter option to improve search speed when the emitter type is known, right now is pointless. Anyway HARM in Hornet is still heavy WIP so maybe TOO mechanization includes these nuances in the next pach