ALQ-131 with AIM-9s

[PhantomHans]

Any chance we could get the ALQ-131 on an inboard pylon together with AIM-9s on the rails?

Or, if were certain the 131 couldnt be used with missiles, an older generation jamming pod like ALQ-119, ALQ-101, ALQ-87, compatible with Sidewinders?

 

The Combat Tree modification made it possible to run ECM pods on both inboard pylons together with Sidewinders.

During Vietnam this was typically one ALQ-87 and one ALQ-101 during air to air missions.

 

I seem to recall that this was also passed on to other jets outside the E series in various upgrade programs but I'm not totally sure about that.

[ben_der]

Looking at the 1986 Flight Manual the following Pods are allowed on Station 4 and 6:
ALQ-71
ALQ-72
ALQ-87
ALQ-101
ALQ-119
ALQ-131

AIM-9B/E/J/N/P on the Station 2 & 8 Launcher Rails (both inboard and outboard) are allowed for these Pods:
ALQ-71
ALQ-72
ALQ-87

AIM-9B/E/J/N/P on the Station 2 Inboard Launcher Rail and Station 8 Outboard Launcher Rail:
ALQ-101


IIRC reasoning to allow the ALQ-131 on Station 2 & 8 was the absence of the other Pods.
With the 3" Spacer on the Sidewinder Launcher Rail I reckon it's not clearing the Pod enough hence it wasn't an allowed loadout.
 

[Dragon1-1]

Well, then the course is clear: we need those other pods.  

AFAIK, the early ALQs were simple noise jammers, there were also "special" variants that used all four antennas specifically to jam SA-2 guidance signals. As far as I could find, the -71 was 90W, the -72 upped that to 100W, and the -87 was 160W. Also, they had to be used in pairs (either on a single aircraft or on two in one flight): one with "even" antennas, and the other with "odd" antennas. From what I gathered, the bands would be separated into even and odd ones so that the pod doesn't essentially jam itself.

The ALQ-101 was a deception jammer, and it had a lot of versions. The very late one with long body and a gondola is an "all-band" version, presumably equivalent to a long body ALQ-119. Earlier versions without a gondola would be more limited, and the first version with the short body was probably limited to jamming high band radars.

[Zabuzard]

Iirc the plan was to add one or two of the older pods as well. Especially the ones often used during the Vietnam periods.

Note though that in DCS (currently) you can only say "jamming on/off". So you unfortunately cant model the details and "strength" of the jammer pod.

[Dragon1-1]

ED mentioned they want to improve on that at some point, but I guess just having different visuals for the older pods would be fine for now. All the pods I mentioned were used in Vietnam, except the newer variants of ALQ-101, so it'd be great if you could get them all modeled at least visually. It'll be good to have for later, especially when ED decides to improve jamming. The way jammers worked in Vietnam is pretty well documented, since it was mostly simple noise jamming, either to disrupt radar or missile guidance signals specifically for the SA-2. Of course, there's also the problem that we don't have the right SA-2 (or an appropriate Fan Song to go with it). 

[SgtPappy]

13 hours ago, Zabuzard said:

Iirc the plan was to add one or two of the older pods as well. Especially the ones often used during the Vietnam periods.

Note though that in DCS (currently) you can only say "jamming on/off". So you unfortunately cant model the details and "strength" of the jammer pod.
 

+1 for ALQ-101 and ALQ-119!

[Volator]

2 hours ago, SgtPappy said:

+1 for ALQ-101 and ALQ-119!

+2

Never mind if it's just jammer on/off in DCS, it is sufficient in this sort of simulation. Having a visually authentic GAF 1970s/1980s jammer under my F-4 would be great.

[PhantomHans]

18 hours ago, Zabuzard said:

Note though that in DCS (currently) you can only say "jamming on/off". So you unfortunately cant model the details and "strength" of the jammer pod.

If this is the current state of affairs, which I understand to currently be true, then I would once again request for the temporary allowance of AIM-9 together with ALQ-131.

It may present a VISUAL discrepancy, however it would better model the capabilities and experience of flying the jet with the restrictions that we currently have in DCS.

 

If and/or when the ALQ-71/72/87/101 series pods get added, I would request at that time for the temporary allowance of AIM-9's with ALQ-131 to be removed as redundant.

[Blaze1]

On 4/3/2025 at 11:44 AM, Dragon1-1 said:

Well, then the course is clear: we need those other pods.  

AFAIK, the early ALQs were simple noise jammers, there were also "special" variants that used all four antennas specifically to jam SA-2 guidance signals. As far as I could find, the -71 was 90W, the -72 upped that to 100W, and the -87 was 160W. Also, they had to be used in pairs (either on a single aircraft or on two in one flight): one with "even" antennas, and the other with "odd" antennas. From what I gathered, the bands would be separated into even and odd ones so that the pod doesn't essentially jam itself.

The ALQ-101 was a deception jammer, and it had a lot of versions. The very late one with long body and a gondola is an "all-band" version, presumably equivalent to a long body ALQ-119. Earlier versions without a gondola would be more limited, and the first version with the short body was probably limited to jamming high band radars.

Just a slight correction/addition.  The AN/ALQ-101-8 & -10 at least, had noise jamming capabilities.

[Dragon1-1]

That's what I'd expect, given that noise jamming is rather simple to implement. However, we'd need to verify whether earlier pods in the series had it. ALQ-101 was the predecessor of the -119 that we have, so I'd expect the later version to have a broadly similar functionality.