GGTharos Posted January 27, 2005 Author Posted January 27, 2005 This isn't really a very good answer to my question SK, as the Patriot battery wasn't oeprating under the same sort of circumstances AFAIK, or perhaps it was being operated by poorly trained personnel (something I heard form one of the Patriot operators on frugal's) but either way - very different circumstances IMHO, and not really comparable. I thought you were referring to the ability to shoot ARMs down - whereas in this case, I really -doubt- the Patriot operators expected an ARM to head their way, while the Serbian operators worked with the exact opposite assumption. Yeah, I know. I was sort of hoping to hook you into this line of argument. :wink: It's the same argument why I think Russian RWRs should give a lock warning when detecting Patriot radar emissions, despite that Western RWRs might not. As I interpreted mirv's statement, whether it signals a "lock" or not is a function of the RWR, and how it is programmed to interpret that threat, not the threat radar itself. I think it's only natural that Russian RWRs would handle the situation differently than friendly RWRs, just as it's only natural the PAC-3 did not shut down when faced with HARM. It's not evidence of incapabilities, but rather just that friendly forces don't see each other as threats. -SK Okay, but, are you saying then just detecting the Patriot and at the right signal strength the RWR would issue an alarm? (ie. you're too close, bub, move out!) ... I'd agree with this ... right now it issues the alarm way way too early (or specifically, the in-game patriot likes to lock things up from 80nm away ... kinda ridiculous) ... but still ... no launch warning IMHO - or if so, then everyone gets it. ;) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
SwingKid Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 In some official report in AFM, it was stated that in the incident where a PAC 3 shot down a Tornado striker in Iraqi Freedom, the operators thought it was an anti-radiation missile. Man, this story just gets weirder every day... -SK
GGTharos Posted January 27, 2005 Author Posted January 27, 2005 IIRC I heard the Tornado was egressing with IFF equipment off (probably to prevent detection by enemy passive RF equipment) and it was NOT FOLLOWING IT'S ASSIGNED EGRESS ROUTE which prompted the Patriot operators to assume it was hostile. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
SwingKid Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 Okay, but, are you saying then just detecting the Patriot and at the right signal strength the RWR would issue an alarm? (ie. you're too close, bub, move out!) ... I'd agree with this ... right now it issues the alarm way way too early (or specifically, the in-game patriot likes to lock things up from 80nm away ... kinda ridiculous) ... but still ... no launch warning IMHO - or if so, then everyone gets it. ;) Let's discuss Lock On modelling again after v1.1 is released. Some changes have already been made to this, so it makes more sense to discuss what needs improvement in 1.1 instead of 1.02. -SK
GGTharos Posted January 27, 2005 Author Posted January 27, 2005 Okay SK, (im)patiently awaiting releast of 1.1 then! ;) Thanks for the info snippet. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Brit_Radar_Dude Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 IFF equipment off (probably to prevent detection by enemy passive RF equipment) Aaaah, now I can say "don't have a clue" too :D JUST KIDDING. IFF equipment only sends out a signal when it is challenged by an interrogation pulse, so any Iraqi passive RF system would not do anything. The usual ATC modes of 1, 2, 3/A, C were probably switched off by pilots on missions so that Iraqi ATC radars couldnt interrogate the transponder. However the pilot would not switch off Mode 4. This mode is encrypted and as the Iraqi's would not know the code of the day, they could not fool the transponder into replying. Since you only interrogate an unknown target once or twice to determine it is friendly or not, any reply the Iraqis might have heard from the occasional Allied Mode 4 interrogation of the transponder would not help them. Look extreme left in A-10 cockpit and zoom in , you can see the IFF control panel. There are seperate switches for switching ON/OUT for each of (left to right) Mode 4, Mode 1, Mode 2, Mode 3/A, Mode C When I was working at Raytheon, we heard scuttlebutt that the IFF on that a/c went U/S during the mission, hence no replies to Allied challenges. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Sorry Death, you lose! It was Professor Plum....
GGTharos Posted January 27, 2005 Author Posted January 27, 2005 Either way, I heard there was a problem with the IFF equipment ;) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
GGTharos Posted February 6, 2005 Author Posted February 6, 2005 http://www.f-111.net/CarloKopp/AGM-88.htm Some interesting information here. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Fjordmonkey Posted February 6, 2005 Posted February 6, 2005 Any chance of seeing the NASAMS-system ingame? Although the system is only in use by the RNoAF, it should present a challenge to go up against. A bit of background: The NASAMS-system is the basis of the CLAWS-system that the USMC uses. http://www.deagel.com/pandora/?p=pm00229001 Here's a bit more info. Regards Fjordmonkey Clustermunitions is just another way of saying that you don't like someone. I used to like people, then people ruined that for me.
Recommended Posts