Today I fired 20 amraams =(

[hitman]

Well heres a point: if we want totally realistic behavior, then EVERYTHING should be fixed. If an F-15 can successfully employ 2 ARM against 2 adversaries (with an AMRAAM) then those missiles should do something exactly, if not similar to, the real deal. If the AMRAAM loses its datalink, it goes maddog and guides on anything and everything, which it doesnt, and should have all axis' fixed correctly. If it can maneuver up, then the missile should track and engage targets that are above it. If the missile has the ability to be lofted, then the missile parameters should be fixed. If a rear aspect missile (D-Cythe corrected me on -10D) can track all aspects, then fix this function.

 

But on the same subject of fixing unrealistic behavior, we should take this a step further, such as injuries obtained through negative G flight. All unclassified NAV modes, combat modes, radar modes, etc...should be fixed, especially ECM, countermeasures, and (no one mentioned this before) radio frequency jamming. But as I say this, we are definately missing a huge aspect of the game. Where are the Prowlers? They were retired not too long ago, and yet we have the F-14 in-game. Where are the queers? How come the F-15 is current but the A-10 isnt? By that means, how come the Israeli F-15 cant carry ordnance or have an a2g submode (if their F-15's have this)?

 

All this talk about fixing the missile behavior seems to me a bit esoteric. One portion of the game has been completely overlooked or intentionally left out, and in theory, most SAM's would be the primary engagement system of enemy aircraft until those units are destroyed. A few air campaigns where fighters are most likely to do action would be HAVECAP, or BARCAP when SEAD aircraft are inbound.

 

Im not exactly sure of post soviet doctrine in a2a combat, but what I remember is when enemy and friendly aircraft are in an engagement zone over a battlefield and SAM's are in that specific theater, friendly fire is most likely going to happen unless said SAM sites are "weapons tight".

 

My point is that the missiles themselves arent the biggest concern of realism here, because realistically your probably not going to be using them until air dominance has been achieved and the other side wants it back.

[GGTharos]

But it could be better! So I would like to see the sim start forcing more realistic tactics in some respects. Can't do it for everything, we're missing a lot of apparatus ... but there are things that -can- be done, and -should- be done :)

 

Hitman: Like I said. There's a lot of stuff that is known nothing will be done about it. Does this mean that what can be done at the should be left at the mediocre level it is now? You are correct, but the whole point is that not everything can be fixed ... so let's at least get what we can.

 

And yes, actually, missiles ARE a huge issue. They are /the/ issue in BVR. When you're shooting some guy inside 6nm and he doesn't even bother dodging your shot, you -know- something's wrong. That's just not ok!

[golfsierra2]

Im not exactly sure of post soviet doctrine in a2a combat, but what I remember is when enemy and friendly aircraft are in an engagement zone over a battlefield and SAM's are in that specific theater, friendly fire is most likely going to happen unless said SAM sites are "weapons tight".

 

Your'e talking about own SAM (GBAD), of course ?!

 

Well, it depends on the ROE, GBAD self defense criteria and the ability of the command level controlling the GBAD forces for maintaining a high level of SA (Recognized Air Picture), if GBAD is working in centralized or decentralized mode of operations, intell situation, Air Raid Warnings, ECM environment and so on.

[hitman]

Well what I am saying is that outside the SAM engagement area, your air patrols would likely be trolling around, 2 F-15C's doing HAVECAP with the AWACS or F-15E's and J-STARS, until unfriendly units want to pick fights. US Navy doctrine involves flights of 2 AWACS E-2C escorted by 2 F/A-18's apiece (or something very similar) outside of the AEGIS class radar systems horizon. This is the only difference between a2g and seaborn missions, where the fighters have to pursue all targets before they get within launch parameters of their systems, while outside the SAM range of the ships.

 

Its hell of a lot different over a battlefield where you can hide a SAM anywhere, and have as many SAMS in theater as you want. Them fighters arent going anywhere near them SAM's unless they have a damn good reason to, and them SAM's arent going to engage a possibly friendly unless it has a damn good reason to do so. For example: a pair of flights of 4ship F-15's show up in the area with SEAD aircraft to clear a way, fighters are scrambled. What only the SAM operator may see, would be the B-1B penetrating low level to drop nukes on targets. That would most likely be the case today.

[tflash]

My point is that the missiles themselves arent the biggest concern of realism here, because realistically your probably not going to be using them until air dominance has been achieved and the other side wants it back.

 

First,

 

Simulation and training are a very huge part of RL military aviation

 

Second,

 

Not all of that simulation and training is about a complete air campaign. Not all exercises are Red Flag. You can perfectly fly a 2v2 mission IRL, just as you would do in Lockon. You could perfectly train for a BVR shot, as you do in Lockon.

 

BS will bring a hitherto unseen level of faithful avionics reproduction in Lockon, with 3D-clickable cockpits. Are you going to say it is not important, since the whole thing is unrealistic because there is no Prowler around?

 

Please let us cut this crap and stay with what is simple and understandable. GGTharos has suggested, in this but more elaborated in other threads, a modest improvement to radar missile behaviour. I hope this little improvement will be in BS. That is all.

 

The concept that a simulation is somewhat more or somewhat less realistic depending on features is very valid. The concept that simulation isn't real at all because it isn't the real thing just is not an interesting claim, it means nothing. The suggestion by GG and others does. It is a meaningful contribution.

[hitman]

I know it's a moot point, but I didn't quote you on it. It was a page back, I posted after Boneski after he replied to Ruggbutt.

I said this..

Quote:

How so?

You said...

Haha, busted. Sorry, but I just didn't want this thread degenerating into another flame-fest.

 

 

Just bustin' chops here, fun intended.

[hitman]

First,

 

Simulation and training are a very huge part of RL military aviation

 

Second,

 

Not all of that simulation and training is about a complete air campaign. Not all exercises are Red Flag. You can perfectly fly a 2v2 mission IRL, just as you would do in Lockon. You could perfectly train for a BVR shot, as you do in Lockon.

 

BS will bring a hitherto unseen level of faithful avionics reproduction in Lockon, with 3D-clickable cockpits. Are you going to say it is not important, since the whole thing is unrealistic because there is no Prowler around?

 

Please let us cut this crap and stay with what is simple and understandable. GGTharos has suggested, in this but more elaborated in other threads, a modest improvement to radar missile behaviour. I hope this little improvement will be in BS. That is all.

 

The concept that a simulation is somewhat more or somewhat less realistic depending on features is very valid. The concept that simulation isn't real at all because it isn't the real thing just is not an interesting claim, it means nothing. The suggestion by GG and others does. It is a meaningful contribution.

 

Dont get me wrong, I would love to see the missiles get upgraded or downgraded to proper levels, Im not saying anything otherwise. Yes I wholeheartedly agree that polits train for this as well. But since we're speaking realistically here, realistically its not going to happen except once in a blue moon. Do you really think that clickable pits are going to make a world of difference in this? This requires you to move your head away from where your head NEEDS to be during an intense situation. Thats not realistic, thats just plain dumb. Lack of SA gets ppl killed. Real pilots flip switches without even looking at them.

 

I merely made a point that everything that makes this game so unrealistic should be fixed to make it realistic. And you know what? I kind of like the idea of having jammer aircraft come inbound, break up the sound of that AWACS biotch who never shuts up when a bandit shows up on the scope. Having SEAD show up and blow the crap out of all the SAM's in theater so we COULD do some great BVR engagements (and thus move on to vulching, since that is the object of online missions) and ultimately, destroy the opfor base with big huge freakin' bombs. It would make it that more satisfying to chase down bombers and jammer a/c online, if you ask me.

[golfsierra2]

a pair of flights of 4ship F-15's show up in the area with SEAD aircraft to clear a way, fighters are scrambled. What only the SAM operator may see, would be the B-1B penetrating low level to drop nukes on targets. That would most likely be the case today.

Depends on the quality of the datalink picture that the SAM receives, provided there is a datalink at all. Relying on it's own sensors, a SAM ist a turkey to be shot by let's say Tornado ECR.

 

At sea, it's a total different thing. Nobody would dare to attack a TG with only some jets...

[hitman]

Correct me if I am wrong but don't most SAM sites have a form of datalink with AWACS type a/c? BTW...isnt that what BARCAP is meant for?

[nscode]

yes.. but not forever ;)

[centermass]

...

 

Nice signature. I'm in Texas, you should come to HL so we can see how you handle that Mig-29 vs my F-15.

 

Nothing like some good dogfighting fun. :thumbup:

 

Back on topic.

 

@ GG

All those things you talked about are indications of jamming, so you KNOW your being jammed. You handle jamming contacts differently than you would locked targets. All situations are too dynamic to try and solve here. Just have to handle them as they come at you.

________

DT175

Edited January 24, 2011 by centermass

[GGTharos]

... why are we back to jamming now? YOU might know YOU are being jammed, but your weapon systems might not. As a matter of fact, YOU might not notice either.

 

There's an F-15 kill by a B-52 because of exactly such a situation in real red flag.

[centermass]

Please point me to the source information for this event, it is very interesting to me.

 

And were back on it because you don't have BVR engagements without jamming. Jamming modeling is as important as missile modeling in that regard.

 

So if you have to engage then you would want to hide your altitude, speed, and aspect as long as possible. Alt is known in LOMAC, roughly if the target is in the HUD, not sure if this is accurate though.

 

In Falcon the vpilot is able to focus a strong beam on a jammer and burn through around 20 to 25 miles. Unfortunately this is not the case in LOMAC. From what I under stand the F-15 has a much stronger radar than the F-16 IRL.

________

Honda CBR125R

Edited January 24, 2011 by centermass

[GGTharos]

No, you wouldn't have to hide squat ... and I don't recall the source, you'll have to look for it - I do recall the details though.

 

And I -really- don't care about Falcon, ok? It's got jamming wrong, too ;)

 

As far as I'm concerned, your jammer may or may not help you, and that's modeled well enough as a random function since we don't know whose jammer is 'better' and whose radar is 'better' at cutting through jamming. There's no possibility of making the ECM model particularely more complex right now.

[centermass]

No, you wouldn't have to hide squat ... and I don't recall the source, you'll have to look for it - I do recall the details though.

 

Hiding your position if vital, like going radar off on a bandit that does not see you. He can't shoot what he does not know is there (WVR).

 

And I -really- don't care about Falcon, ok? It's got jamming wrong, too ;)

 

The point of the Falcon reference is to show how you can manipulate your radar to increase the strength/focus to aid in burn though.

 

How is the Falcon jamming wrong?

 

As far as I'm concerned, your jammer may or may not help you, and that's modeled well enough as a random function since we don't know whose jammer is 'better' and whose radar is 'better' at cutting through jamming. There's no possibility of making the ECM model particularely more complex right now.

 

Jamming is not random it is a science. The exact numbers to use, hopefully the most realistic model possible, are the problem of the game developers/researches to solve.

 

In order to have accurate BVR engagements you need accurate ECM (the best it can be).

 

Review the link I provided i the other post for more detailed information.

________

buy vaporizers

Edited January 24, 2011 by centermass

[GGTharos]

No, you're wrong here.

You -cannot- have 'accurate ECM' when you don't know which jammer implements what techniques, how it implements them, and how the opposing radar implements its ECCM to counter it. So yes, as far as we're concerned, and with it being described as a 'cat and mouse game', random is pretty much the way to go. There's no such thing as 'exact numbers' in the EW game.

 

And if you can't see how Falcon jamming is wrong, re-read what I just wrote above ;)

[D-Scythe]

 

The point of the Falcon reference is to show how you can manipulate your radar to increase the strength/focus to aid in burn though.

 

How is the Falcon jamming wrong?

 

Cause in reality, there really is no such thing as a "burn through range." In reality, the strength of your radar returns is almost always guaranteed to be weaker than the jammer's emissions.

 

The strength of EM waves vs. range drop off according to the 1/R^2 law - e.g. doubling the target's range would cut signal strength by 1/(2^2) = 1/4. A radar wave who has to travel to the target (one 1/R^2 loss) has to reflect off its surface and bounce back (another 1/R^2 loss). Therefore, the returning wave would be 1/R^2 x 1/R^2 = 1/R^4 as strong as when it was emitted. On the other hand, the jammer only has to travel from the target to the radar - that is, only one 1/R^2 loss.

 

Thus, the idea of burn-through at any significant range is questionable, since your radar has to obey the 1/R^4 rule while the enemy jammer only has to obey the 1/R^2 rule. So unless your radar is many times stronger than the target's jammer (and it isn't unless we're talking about SPY-1 Aegis radar here), chances are any burn-through would be negligible.

 

If you want the exact math, here is an example of a radar operating against a stand-off jammer 200 miles away.

 

 

You can see that even with the SOJ aircraft being 200 miles away, burn-through doesn't actually happen until 840 ft - negligible by modern engagement standards.

[centermass]

Regardless of who's technology you use the science is the same. So given the fact that most ECM and weapons tech is classified and were going on basic information the below is pretty solid and can be used in conjunction with other material to come up with a good model of ECM functionality.

 

The jammer in Falcon seems to be as good as the Jammer in LOMAC in that it hides your, altitude (Falcon Better than LOMAC unless LOMACs ability to put a target box on a jamming target is accurate), range, speed, and aspect. All important factors in your BVR missile shot.

 

Here is the meat of the link...

 

Defensive Electronic CounterMeasures

Jammers can be broadly divided into two categories, noise jammers and deception jammers. In either instance the jammer comprises a receiver which listens for threat radars, a processor to make decisions and a tunable transmitter. The transmitter is automatically tuned to the frequency of the hostile transmission and jams it by transmitting a commanded signal.

A noise jammer will transmit a signal much like electrical noise which results in the radar return (echo) from the aircraft being obscured and at range may cause the aircraft to disappear from the threat operator's scope. At closer range however considerable power is required to outshout the return from the jamming aircraft and distinct radial lines termed strobes will appear on the victim's scope. The operator will know he is being jammed and may attempt to tune the radar to a slightly different frequency which may or may not defeat the jammer (a technique used to defeat an ECM system is termed an Electronic Counter CounterMeasure or ECCM).

At some even closer range the victim radar will 'burn through' the jamming as the return becomes more powerful than the jamming transmission, the aircraft will then become distinguishable from the jamming.

A deception jammer doesn't attempt to conceal the presence of the aircraft but rather transmits signals very much like the real return to deceive the radar or its operator.

The number of deception jamming techniques is immense and every type of radar and specific design of a radar has some exploitable vulnerability.

Broadly, deception jammers can be divided into false target generators and track breakers.

A false target generator is usually employed against a track-while-scan surveillance radar with the objective of confusing the operator or saturating the tracking computer. It achieves this by transmitting false radar returns, usually delayed retransmitted versions of the radar's actual pulses. This creates the illusion of a whole formation of aircraft rather than the single real target which vastly complicates interpretation of the tactical situation. Because of the difficulty involved in generating credible false target signals this technique is often combined with noise jamming which degrades the performance of the victim radar so that the false targets are impossible to distinguish from the real target, if not concealing the real target completely.

Track breakers are usually employed against tracking radars in single target track mode, these are typically fire control radars associated with SAMs, AAMs and AAA. Track breaking techniques are therefore of major importance in tactical and strategic aircraft.

Track breakers attack the automatic tracking mechanism of the victim radar. If the threat is a pulsed radar a track breaker will usually transmit a 'cover pulse' at the same time as the return pulse. This masks the return and the victim tracking mechanism is then allowed to lock on to the cover pulse rather than the weaker real return. The jammer has then seduced the tracking mechanism and can, within limits, move the target about its real position and typically turn it off to break lock.

The target will often be made to erratically jitter which makes it impossible to accurately guide a missile or fire a gun at the target.

This is termed gate stealing and can be applied in various ways to many diverse radar types (angle/range/velocity gate walk-off/pull-off/stealing) including Continuous Wave (CW, ie non-pulsed radar, often used in fire control illuminators for SAMs) radars (FM-CW ranging).

Other track breaking techniques disrupt the angular tracking of the target by attacking the antenna scan mechanism. Conical scan radars (common in missile seekers and AAA) can be jammed by rapidly varying the amplitude of the jamming signal at a rate close to the rotation rate of the antenna, this will drive the antenna wildly off target and is termed Amplitude Modulation or AM ECM.

Monopulse radars are notoriously difficult to jam and require more cunning techniques such as cross eye jamming. A cross eye jammer employs two deception repeaters which retransmit the impinging radar signal with set time delays. By situating the transmitting antennas at the extremities of the aircraft (eg out on the wings) and manipulating the time delays, the cross-eye jammer distorts the shape (and hence perceived direction) of the returned echo (wavefront). A monopulse track ing system aligns itself with the direction of the incoming return from the target and is thus driven off the target.

ECM equipment is usually carried internally although podded jammers are available for older aircraft or as a supplement to an internal system where required by a specific threat. Tactical aircraft which must grapple with threats at close quarters rely primarily on track breaking ECM to penetrate terminal defences and equipment such as the Sanders ALQ-126B carried by the F-18A is typical of this class. The ALQ-126 family of jammers succeeded the earlier USN standard ALQ-100 jammers and is carried by the A-6, EA-6, A-7, F-14 and F-18. The B model provides E, F, G, H, I/J band coverage and implements several techniques effective against pulse mode and conical scanning radars. Delivering over 1 kw of jam power per band in pulse mode the 126B can be operated autonomously or tied in with an ALR-45F/67 RWR. In a high threat environment the ALQ-126 would be supplemented with a Northrop ALQ-162 Compass Sail/Clockwise continuous wave jammer which is effective against CW threats such as the SA-6 Gainful family of semi-active radar guided SAMs.

Deep penetration aircraft carry more extensive systems with noise jamming capability against radar (ALQ-94/F-111, ALQ-155/ALT-2B/B-52, ALQ-161, B-1B), missile tracking downlinks (B-52) and false target generating capability (ALQ-122/B-52).

________

Kawasaki MT1

Edited January 24, 2011 by centermass

[centermass]

...

 

That is true, but finding a fighter sized AC at 100NM is luck in the first place LOL.

 

That jammer also jams friendly AC's radar too if using the same frequency.

 

So we got friendlies jamming enemy and enemy jamming friendlies so no one can get a BVR lock, which I'm all for if it's realistic.

 

Looks like WVR engagements are going to be the common fight.

 

There are always going to be specialty AC that provide an advantage in EW.

 

What if that SOJ AC is not there? Does a fighter have a jammer strong enough to block burn through? Maybe, but maybe not. Some jammers are directional, emitting more power 12 and 6 O'clock while not as much on the 3/9 line.

 

Hopefully the devs will be able to come to a solution to balance resources to research missile and ECM technology and be able to provide the highest realism possible.

________

medical marijuana dispensary

Edited January 24, 2011 by centermass

[Boneski]

I'm not sure what you problem is but you shouldn't assume to think that you know the first thing about me, son. I want the game to be realistic so all of a sudden I wanna join the Air Force? Someone needs to work on their reasoning skills. ;)

 

I'm quite happy where I am owning my own businessl. I game because I like it, it's an escape. I like my tactical FPS to resemble the real deal, just like I do my flight sims.

 

Now I don't assume to know exactly what it's like to be a fighter pilot, and I would hope that you don't either. I mean, what exactly do you know about Russian aircraft or weaponry? Since WWII our Air Force hasn't taken on any power with roughly equal capability nor equal numbers. Since you're the expert, tell me how "poorly" the Russians would do with equal numbers of a/c and assets. I appreciate your flag waving and the "F15 pwns everything in the sky" mentality but face a few facts, the F15 has never gone up against Russian front line fighters with highly trained pilots. In fact, all it's kills are in the Middle east against Syrian, Iranian and other third world country pilots. The '15 may indeed be the best thing since sliced bread and our pilots may be the best in the world, but you don't really know a thing about the reality, do you?

 

There are plenty more of us here that want this sim to be as realistic as possible. Deal with it.

 

Bro take it easy.... and don't worry about what I do. Just have fun playing your sim.

[Mugatu]

Where does the 1000 watt figure come form for a self protection jammer btw?

 

and also "Airborne Pulse Doppler Radar" equation your quoting does not take into account main lobe and side lobe gain, see attached (sorry for the colour):

 

Both burn through and look through are very real.

 

Cause in reality, there really is no such thing as a "burn through range." In reality, the strength of your radar returns is almost always guaranteed to be weaker than the jammer's emissions.

 

The strength of EM waves vs. range drop off according to the 1/R^2 law - e.g. doubling the target's range would cut signal strength by 1/(2^2) = 1/4. A radar wave who has to travel to the target (one 1/R^2 loss) has to reflect off its surface and bounce back (another 1/R^2 loss). Therefore, the returning wave would be 1/R^2 x 1/R^2 = 1/R^4 as strong as when it was emitted. On the other hand, the jammer only has to travel from the target to the radar - that is, only one 1/R^2 loss.

 

Thus, the idea of burn-through at any significant range is questionable, since your radar has to obey the 1/R^4 rule while the enemy jammer only has to obey the 1/R^2 rule. So unless your radar is many times stronger than the target's jammer (and it isn't unless we're talking about SPY-1 Aegis radar here), chances are any burn-through would be negligible.

 

If you want the exact math, here is an example of a radar operating against a stand-off jammer 200 miles away.

 

 

You can see that even with the SOJ aircraft being 200 miles away, burn-through doesn't actually happen until 840 ft - negligible by modern engagement standards.

[D-Scythe]

Where does the 1000 watt figure come form for a self protection jammer btw?

 

and also "Airborne Pulse Doppler Radar" equation your quoting does not take into account main lobe and side lobe gain, see attached (sorry for the colour):

 

Both burn through and look through are very real.

 

I'm sorry, but can you explain why sidelobe and mainlobe gain needs to be taken into account?

 

http://www.earth2.net/parts/mugu/burnthru.pdf

[golfsierra2]

I'm sorry, but can you explain why sidelobe and mainlobe gain needs to be taken into account?

 

http://www.earth2.net/parts/mugu/burnthru.pdf

 

I think that the total energy of jamming signals received by the radar set defines the actual burn through range. By this, the amount of energy received through the side lobes may have a negative effect, if the side lobes are not effectively blanked out.

 

About the 1000 Watts figure:

 

The size of the transmitter (in Watts) depends on the frequency bandwith that you intent to jam. If it's narrow (only a few KHz), the full energy will be concentrated on this small band, resulting in a much stronger jam signal which equals a close burn through range. If you have to jam a big bandwith (let's say a full GHz), the amount of jamming energy left for each single frequency is very small, thus reducing the jamming effectiveness and resulting in a long burn through range.

 

For a small bandwith with only few frequencies (to just target at one specific radar system), 100-200 Watt would be way enough. For a wide range of frequencies covering a large bandwith, even 1000 Watts is not so impressive anymore.

[markriley]

Range

 

My initial concern with the 120 and the aim7 is range. Sure it needs to be effective once it nears the target, but it has to be able to reach out as far as it is supposed to be able to for starters. here are the ranges IRL compared to the sim:

 

120 A&B 30-45 miles (50-70 km), sim limits to 30 miles (50km)

Aim-7, 44 miles (70km) , sim limits to 28 miles (45km) ---way off here--

 

 

The 120b was available in 1994 and the 120c in 1996, so depending on the time period that lock-on covers, the available missles for russian and US jets should match up to equal time period limits.

 

So is lockon showing max range or effictive missle range?

 

I watched a training video for lockon demonstraiting TWS multiple target kills. The targets were all locked and then the voice over says "now we will wait a bit longer till range is about 8 miles for good PK" Paraphrase there, but you get the piont. Needless to say the targets were transports, if they were fighters, the 15 wouldnt be in the sky at 8 miles from the enemy.

The ranges on the russian missles far exceed the range of the US missles in lockon. While this may be the case IRL for some missles, the range for the US missles has been cut short and needs to be fixed.

Sorry if this has been brought out in depth durring this thread, but I only read about the first 10 pages and the last 2-3 pages before I got in bed last night.

[RvEYoda]

Cause in reality, there really is no such thing as a "burn through range." In reality, the strength of your radar returns is almost always guaranteed to be weaker than the jammer's emissions.

 

The strength of EM waves vs. range drop off according to the 1/R^2 law - e.g. doubling the target's range would cut signal strength by 1/(2^2) = 1/4. A radar wave who has to travel to the target (one 1/R^2 loss) has to reflect off its surface and bounce back (another 1/R^2 loss). Therefore, the returning wave would be 1/R^2 x 1/R^2 = 1/R^4 as strong as when it was emitted. On the other hand, the jammer only has to travel from the target to the radar - that is, only one 1/R^2 loss.

 

Thus, the idea of burn-through at any significant range is questionable, since your radar has to obey the 1/R^4 rule while the enemy jammer only has to obey the 1/R^2 rule. So unless your radar is many times stronger than the target's jammer (and it isn't unless we're talking about SPY-1 Aegis radar here), chances are any burn-through would be negligible.

 

If you want the exact math, here is an example of a radar operating against a stand-off jammer 200 miles away.

 

 

You can see that even with the SOJ aircraft being 200 miles away, burn-through doesn't actually happen until 840 ft - negligible by modern engagement standards.

 

These calculations would be a pretty rough simplification I take it, somewhat ok if you deal with some types of jammers. Perhaps the solutions here would be somewhat accurate in 30-50% of the cases?

 

Better than nothing ofc though.

 

Please define all constants also so we understand what is what here :D

I really wish to understand the math, but right now I dont even know the names of the constants!

EDIT: My bad, it said noise jammer.