Norrland Defence, 1990 (SwAF) Release (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios



Message


Skjold -> Norrland Defence, 1990 (SwAF) Release (10/20/2015 12:22:57 PM)

Norrland Defense, 1990 (SwAF)

[image]http://www.aef.se/Avionik/Bilder/JA37.jpg[/image]

Hello, i finally got this SwAF mission after many revisions to a point where i feel fairly confident that it is ready for beta release. This is meant to be a short (4 hours) action-packed misson with heavy use of air-to-air fighting and anti-ship strikes.

This is my first ever mission for Command, so i would appreciate constructive critism. Although i am no stranger of designing mission for other games and simulators i always think that feedback is the best teacher.

Description
Defense of Norrland and its strategically important F 21 Luleň Airbase and Luleň Harbour from a pre-emptive Soviet strike to prepare for a full blown invasion. Finland fell in recent weeks after a year of war against a vastly numerical superior foe while the outside world was looking on hoping to contain the conflict to the region. As it turns out that seemed to be foolish and naive!

Features
  • Models the Swedish doctrine of airforce dispersal to road bases.
  • Advanced weaponry is somewhat limited, outdated stockpiles will also be used.
  • Quick Turnaround is heavily featured due to it being a part of Swedish doctrine.
  • Most of the units on both sides should have their real names and locations.

    Download

    Beta 1 20th October 2015.
    Initial release.

    Changelog Beta 2 21st October 2015
  • Removed OOB from the mission description (not briefing)
  • Increased the number of available aircraft.
  • Fixed number of anti-ship missiles in magazines.
  • Fixed some attack aircraft not using outdated anti-ship missiles as intended.
  • Spread out the magazines around the airfield munition storage.
  • Added general tips to the player, to help with difficulty.

    Changelog Beta 3 22nd October 2015
  • Reduced number of enemy CAP.
  • Replaced Rovaniemi with a Single Unit Airfield.
  • Replaced Su-27S 1987-1991 with 1986 for usage of the R-27R.
  • Split up the initial strike package into two seperate ones.
  • Updated the briefing.
  • Adjusted scoring thresholds.

    Changelog Beta 4/Release Candidate 25th October 2015
  • Huge update to the briefing, now using the five paragraph format.
  • Various tweaks and fixes.
  • Moved four more aircraft to wartime road bases.
  • Ungrouped anti-air defenses.
  • Updated the mission to DB 440.
  • Added an event to stop A-50 escort mission in the event it gets downed.
  • Added Reference points & basic missions.
  • Added text pop-ups when strike packages are imminent.

    Changelog Release Version 26th October 2015
  • Added three more road bases.
  • Moved planes to new road bases.
  • Fixed Su-17 escorts.
  • Fixed wrong Viggen being used for recon squadron.
  • Updated briefing.

    Hope you enjoy it! Skjold




  • AlexGGGG -> RE: Norrland Defence, 1990 (SwAF) Beta (10/20/2015 9:51:47 PM)

    Nice one. However, I would like more anti-ship missiles, or more time. Because after the first antiship sortie I ran out of missiles of the initially loaded type, and changing to different loadout takes six hours (quick turnaround does not seem to work if you are changing the loadout).




    Mgellis -> RE: Norrland Defence, 1990 (SwAF) Beta (10/21/2015 2:08:00 AM)

    Tried it twice...got stomped on in both attempts. :)

    Lesson 1: As the scenario is currently written, simply relying on setting up missions and letting the AI run things is probably doomed to failure.

    Suggestion 1: Roughly one third of your aircraft are designated Maintenance/Unavailable. For a short scenario like this, you might dispense with those (except for a few kept for "flavor") UNLESS their role in the scenario is to be targets on the ground that need to be protected by the other aircraft. Seeing how badly the Swedes are getting beaten, maybe just make some of these available (perhaps with two hours remaining before they are actually ready to fly).

    Suggestion 2: Just for "realism" and "suspension of disbelief," you might want to rewrite the orders using the standard "five paragraph" format...

    http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/Leadersbook_information/leadersbook_items/sample-5-paragraph-operat-2.shtml <-- provides a sample

    So far, it looks like you have a good scenario concept. I'm interested to see the final version.

    I hope all this helps.








    Primarchx -> RE: Norrland Defence, 1990 (SwAF) Beta (10/21/2015 6:58:17 AM)

    I got my butt handed to me as well. Viggens with Skyflash/AIM-9L were no match for Flankers with Alamo-C/Archer, especially with AEW support.




    dox44 -> RE: Norrland Defence, 1990 (SwAF) Beta (10/21/2015 11:46:38 AM)

    i got killed too but i don't feel so bad after reading the previous 2 posts...




    Skjold -> RE: Norrland Defence, 1990 (SwAF) Beta (10/21/2015 3:56:44 PM)

    Interesting, i wondered if it was too hard becouse i had a positive kill (2 to 1 in air) ratio but thats also obviously with developer hindsight and knowing exactly what will happen. I will take a look at the general difficulty.


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: AlexGGGG

    Nice one. However, I would like more anti-ship missiles, or more time. Because after the first antiship sortie I ran out of missiles of the initially loaded type, and changing to different loadout takes six hours (quick turnaround does not seem to work if you are changing the loadout).


    Thanks, this is actually a bug that i thought i changed but never saved i guess. Will be fixed.


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Mgellis

    Tried it twice...got stomped on in both attempts. :)

    Lesson 1: As the scenario is currently written, simply relying on setting up missions and letting the AI run things is probably doomed to failure.

    Suggestion 1: Roughly one third of your aircraft are designated Maintenance/Unavailable. For a short scenario like this, you might dispense with those (except for a few kept for "flavor") UNLESS their role in the scenario is to be targets on the ground that need to be protected by the other aircraft. Seeing how badly the Swedes are getting beaten, maybe just make some of these available (perhaps with two hours remaining before they are actually ready to fly).

    Suggestion 2: Just for "realism" and "suspension of disbelief," you might want to rewrite the orders using the standard "five paragraph" format...

    http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/Leadersbook_information/leadersbook_items/sample-5-paragraph-operat-2.shtml <-- provides a sample

    So far, it looks like you have a good scenario concept. I'm interested to see the final version.

    I hope all this helps.



    Lesson 1: I always try to micro as much as possible, so yes i never play tested it this way and did not consider that the AI might be worse at handling the air-to-air fight then me. I micro groups of flight with the F3 waypoints button and having them ignore plotted course for attacking and attacking opportunity targets.

    Suggestion 1: Yes, they are basicly there for realism sakes, thats roughly from what i understand what u can expect to be grounded at any given time. I can probably decrease it slightly. That is also why the SF 37's are there as they belong to the intelligence squadron, but there is no point in flying around with camera recon planes.

    Suggestion 2: As i never served in the armed forces and only grew up around it i don't have the best idea of general military communication and briefings, i will take a look at it and try to improve it. What do you mean by "disbelief" however? The information given or the way it is given? I will wait to change this until i get some clarification.

    Uploading Beta 2 as we speak.








    Mgellis -> RE: Norrland Defence, 1990 (SwAF) Beta (10/21/2015 4:53:51 PM)

    Sorry, "suspension of disbelief" is a technical term used by people who talk about fiction, literature, etc. People know they're not actually commanding real naval units, or watching a real alien invasion when they watch an sf movie, etc. but they "suspend their disbelief" so they can enjoy the activity. I just try to make my orders sound like "the real thing" (with some changes for readability, etc.) so people can enjoy the scenario a bit more. Sorry if I was unclear.




    Skjold -> RE: Norrland Defence, 1990 (SwAF) Beta (10/21/2015 5:14:54 PM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Mgellis

    Sorry, "suspension of disbelief" is a technical term used by people who talk about fiction, literature, etc. People know they're not actually commanding real naval units, or watching a real alien invasion when they watch an sf movie, etc. but they "suspend their disbelief" so they can enjoy the activity. I just try to make my orders sound like "the real thing" (with some changes for readability, etc.) so people can enjoy the scenario a bit more. Sorry if I was unclear.


    Not at all, english is just not my native language. Thanks for the explanation




    Gunner98 -> RE: Norrland Defence, 1990 (SwAF) Beta (10/21/2015 11:58:56 PM)

    Also got my butt kicked, tried to set up missions - as Mgellis pointed out - not a good course of action. I think that a bit of micro and altitude management are in order here. Nice scenario concept.

    B




    Skjold -> RE: Norrland Defence, 1990 (SwAF) Beta (10/22/2015 12:20:06 AM)


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Gunner98

    Also got my butt kicked, tried to set up missions - as Mgellis pointed out - not a good course of action. I think that a bit of micro and altitude management are in order here. Nice scenario concept.

    B


    Hmm, something is seriously wrong here. I did a bunch of actual play tests before on a earlier DB but i just tried it again and i also got my ass kicked. I think that updating the DB version fixed some sort of bug with the Su-27S becouse now they actually use their range advantage much better.

    Will quickly rework it and playtest a new version before updating it here.




    Mgellis -> RE: Norrland Defence, 1990 (SwAF) Beta (10/22/2015 12:35:52 AM)

    One possible idea...

    If you, as the scenario designer, know how to beat the scenario, use the orders file or event messages as a way to give the player hints about how he or she should proceed. For example, your orders files can include things like this...

    SOVIET INTERCEPTORS LIKELY SUPERIOR TO YOUR OWN FORCES. MOST VIABLE STRATEGY MAY BE TO FOCUS ON DESTROYING SOVIET ATTACK A/C BEFORE THEY REACH THEIR TARGETS RATHER THAN ATTEMPTING TO GAIN AIR SUPERIORITY.

    ...or something like that.

    I hope this helps.








    Skjold -> RE: Norrland Defence, 1990 (SwAF) Beta (10/22/2015 3:05:52 AM)

    I now did a complete rework of the mission, changelog is in the first post. I also changed the Su-27S's to the 1986 version that primarily uses the R-27R instead of the R-27ER, this would simulate that they would want to save their new-ish high tech missiles for more important fights in the future.

    And good idea Mgellis, i might incorporate that in future missions.

    I would be very interested in any scores obtained if you finish this mission, thanks.




    Pergite! -> RE: Norrland Defence, 1990 (SwAF) Beta (10/22/2015 10:38:45 AM)

    Hi,

    I have not yet finished it. The scenario is running very slow on my computer and I belive I have encountered some kind of problem. I will try to update my game to the latest beta patch and try again.

    Some feedback so far,

    - Clearly state the ROE in the briefing. Are we at war? Can I fire the first shots? My first order was to send a pair of Viggen real low and real fast against the unprotected Mainstay. It worked out fine, but was it allowed?
    - You have miss-typed Hkp4 as Hkp3 in the briefing.
    - A Orbat of the enemy forces would be good to have. Surely the Swedes would have a good grasp of what aircraft and numbers of them that are stationed at each airbase. The same goes for the composition of the enemy naval force. This information would be crucial in planning a defence, calculating the most important targets, and ranges for different layers of defence given enemy stand-off A-G capabilities etc.





    subroc2 -> RE: Norrland Defence, 1990 (SwAF) Beta (10/22/2015 4:21:06 PM)

    I have only tried Beta 1, so i guess some things have already changed.

    First of all: Really nice to see more SWE missions, being a swede myself i mainly make swedish "scenarios". Rarely finishing any of my work...

    I would guess if Finland have already fallen, Sweden would be on atleast full peacetime readiness (swedish term "Givakt") and the SwAF would be dispersed to wartime bases. So maybe move some of the fighters to the other bases




    AlexGGGG -> RE: Norrland Defence, 1990 (SwAF) Beta (10/22/2015 7:56:24 PM)

    Can't really recall the scores, but I played the original (earliest beta) version two times, and both times got acceptably beaten. I found the difficulty OK - one cannot always win, there are situations where I start at disadvantage.




    Vici Supreme -> RE: Norrland Defence, 1990 (SwAF) Beta (10/23/2015 1:02:29 AM)

    Hey!

    Just started and noticed that the anti-air elements (RBS 70, RBS 77) have been grouped together. This has caused them to constantly circle around their station. I dissolved the group manually. This can by fixed by right-clicking on a unit and ordering them to hold position. You could as well just ungroup them.

    Just a thought...




    Skjold -> RE: Norrland Defence, 1990 (SwAF) Beta (10/23/2015 1:48:33 AM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: subroc2

    I have only tried Beta 1, so i guess some things have already changed.

    First of all: Really nice to see more SWE missions, being a swede myself i mainly make swedish "scenarios". Rarely finishing any of my work...

    I would guess if Finland have already fallen, Sweden would be on atleast full peacetime readiness (swedish term "Givakt") and the SwAF would be dispersed to wartime bases. So maybe move some of the fighters to the other bases



    I would HIGHLY recommend using Beta 3, and yeah i considered using more then two road bases but decided against it at the moment.

    @Supreme, yeah i'll ungroup them thanks.
    @Pergite, will fix that typo and ROE should be clear in the briefing.

    Edit1: I somehow deleted the ROE, re-added it.

    Edit2:
    @Pergite, also added an estimation of enemy forces in the area as requested.

    Edit3:
    @subcroc2, i will max out the existing two road bases capacity at least.




    Skjold -> RE: Norrland Defence, 1990 (SwAF) Beta (10/25/2015 2:13:25 PM)

    Release Candidate is out.

    Changelog Beta 4/Release Candidate 25th October 2015
  • Huge update to the briefing, now using the five paragraph format.
  • Various tweaks and fixes.
  • Moved four more aircraft to wartime road bases.
  • Ungrouped anti-air defenses.
  • Updated the mission to DB 440.
  • Added an event to stop A-50 escort mission in the event it gets downed.
  • Added Reference points & basic missions.
  • Added text pop-ups when strike packages are imminent.

    If no bugs are reported in the next few days and no great suggestions, i will submit this to the ready thread.
    I would love to hear from Mgellis or somebody who knows hows the briefings are supposed to look like if the current briefing is acceptable.

    Thanks, Skjold.




  • AndrewJ -> RE: Norrland Defence, 1990 (SwAF) Beta (10/26/2015 2:39:57 AM)

    Well, this is certainly an interesting scenario Skjold, thanks for writing it.

    I managed to keep my airbases intact, although the cost was high.

    I started by immediately sending 8 fighters hurtling across the Gulf of Bothnia on full burner, to hunt down the AEW plane over there before a major escort could build up. Two fighters curved north to fend off the Flankers, and six bored in on the target, killing it and one of the Flankers. Unfortunately this proved to be my own Charge of the Light Brigade, as the Viggens turned out to be horribly vulnerable to the SAM belt and fighters. With no chaff and no jammers they were almost defenceless, and all eight were shot down before they could make it to safety. I had hoped this would cripple the Russian's situational awareness, but unfortunately this wasn't the case. Their navy was radiating and using OTH radars, so this sacrifice had almost no effect on them at all. In retrospect it probably wasn't worth it in this situation.

    One thing this did do was pull some Flankers SE, and away from their attack planes, so I was able to handle the first incoming strike without too much more difficulty. The second strike went very well. Two groups of fighters flanked while another hung back in the middle. When the Su-27s went to deal with the side groups the center group was able to deal with the raid. Then, as the Flankers turned for home, I was able to follow up and shoot them down from the rear. I used the same tactic for the third and fourth raid, but they didn't go quite as well, and I lost seven more fighters when I had to get too close to the Su-27s. Fortunately, I was able to destroy all the attackers (with a little help from my HAWK), and all the enemy fighters were shot down on the way home. The Mig-23 raid was odd, in that the Migs seemed to hesitate and turn aside rather than pressing on (perhaps they were trying to engage my fighters?). For some reason the Su-17 raid launched without its escort, so they were easily shot down far out to sea.

    The naval situation went reasonably well. I was using my ASW helicopters as radar pickets to keep an eye on the Russian task force, and one accidentally found a sub when I ordered it to hover for a moment. The depth-charges worked! Scratch one SS. The second sub was detected by eye by a passing fighter, because the water was so shallow the sub was at periscope depth with its masts up and leaving a wake. It was torpedoed shortly thereafter. Both detections were pure luck, and not part of any plan of mine.

    The task group was a tougher target. I initially sent a flight of four Viggens to engage the southern ships, assuming they were frigates (Krivaks or something like that) that were too far away for the main task group to defend. Not so! Seven of eight missiles were shot down by SAMs, and the last one was gunned down by a CIWS. For the next strike my patrol boats sortied, and combined their efforts with four fighters using the old ASMs, to put a total of twenty missiles into the southern three ships. Moments later my two big ships and four more fighters fired a total of eight new missiles at each of the three front ships of the main task force, hoping that the southern strike would act as a decoy and soak up all the SAMs before the important targets were hit. I managed to get all three of the southern ships, which turned out to be worthless ASW patrol boats, but only hit (and sank) one of the Sovremennys. Of course, before my subsonic missiles arrived their Sunburns had destroyed all my brave missile boats - not one escaped. Two more waves of strikes sank the remaining Russian ships, which were finaly out of long-range SAMs, but not before one more blunder cost me one of my big ships. I had assumed that the salvo of Sunburns that destroyed my missile boats used all the SSMs the Russians had, forgetting that the SS-N-14s on the Krivaks had an anti-surface mode, so I didn't bother to retire my big ships after they had launched their missiles. Mistake... The Russians got into SS-N-14 range moments before my attack arrived. Their missiles passed my missiles, and since my ship had no AA defences worth mentioning it soon died.

    The Russian task group could have been a real problem if it had gotten into SAM range of my airbase. As it was, it was pressing my aircraft out of the ocean, making it more difficult to deal with the later raids. If it had moved forward at higher speed the situation would have been truly alarming, with a pair of high powered SAM sites parked under the approach path!





    Skjold -> RE: Norrland Defence, 1990 (SwAF) Beta (10/26/2015 10:25:29 AM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: AndrewJ

    Well, this is certainly an interesting scenario Skjold, thanks for writing it.



    Thanks for playing my scenario! That was an interesting read.

    I've checked both the MiG-23's (no reason for them to divert from target) and the Su-17's escorts should also work fine as both are well within the fuel limits of their respective airframes and are assigned correctly to their missions. I also did a play test to make sure that was the case, the MiG-23's functioned perfectly but the escorts did not, can't seem to figure out why but i messed with their payload and role and it should work now, thanks!




    frosen -> RE: Norrland Defence, 1990 (SwAF) Beta (7/24/2019 10:54:12 PM)

    Any chance you can repost your scenario? [:)] The link is unfortunately dead.




    Schr75 -> RE: Norrland Defence, 1990 (SwAF) Beta (7/25/2019 4:02:30 PM)


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: frosen

    Any chance you can repost your scenario? [:)] The link is unfortunately dead.


    Hi Frosen

    It┤s in the community scen pack.
    You can download it here:

    http://www.warfaresims.com/?page_id=1876

    S°ren




    frosen -> RE: Norrland Defence, 1990 (SwAF) Beta (7/25/2019 6:12:22 PM)


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Schr75


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: frosen

    Any chance you can repost your scenario? [:)] The link is unfortunately dead.


    Hi Frosen

    It┤s in the community scen pack.
    You can download it here:

    http://www.warfaresims.com/?page_id=1876

    S°ren


    Thanks! [:)]




    Lupson -> RE: Norrland Defence, 1990 (SwAF) Beta (9/8/2019 11:06:30 AM)

    Thank you for this scenario Skjold! I really enjoyed it.

    (Mild spoilers below!)

    I think I did pretty well, mainly through a lot of micromanagement of my JA37s. I did lose a total of 12 JA37s which honestly was a few too many, I attribute some of those losses to the AI making less than sensible choices while in "Engaged defensive" mode.

    Anyway, I tried to keep at least three flights of 2 or 4 JA37s in the air at any one time. Given that surge ops allows 3 really quick re-arm/re-fuels this was sustainable throughout the scenario for me. The big hasse is how to counter the AA-10 equipped Su-27s who can fire their missiles at approx. twice the distance of my Skyflash. Also, I think the Flankers had 4 or 6 AA-10s per plane while the JA37s just can carry two Skyflashes (Rb-71). However, by micromanaging my flights using the fact that the Flankers fire at maximum range. I let one flight approach and directly turning tai with lit afterburners once the Flankers fired. This usually works fine and by coordinating and redoing the above stunt (basically trading distance for missiles) with the other flights, I could pretty easily deplete the Su-27s of their long range missiles. The Skyflashes was however not very effective against the Su-27s, but could at least be used to make them go defensive and use some other flight to get closer for AIM-9L shots. I think my final tally was something like 8 Flankers killed for those 12 JA-37 - not a very favorable rate, but I also killed every single Fencer or Flogger that came our way. When the scenario concluded I still had plenty of JA37s left. However, a war of attrition with JA37s vs Flankers isn't likely to be sustainable for long.

    On the naval side, I started by losing one of my northern corvettes to a Fencer attack while the other one was damaged. For some reason the two Kilos just off the archipelago was surfaced or at periscope depth, so my Hkp4s helis dispatched those two easily using depth charges for the northern one and a torpedo for the southern one.

    As for the invasion fleet, I waited until I had all my anti-shipping planes ready, 6+4 AJ37s with RBS-15F and 4 AJ37 with Rb-04E. I coordinated so 6 planes attacked from the north, 4 from southwest, 4 from south and my three Penguin-equipped patrol boats launched their Penguins coordinated with the Viggens. A total of 40 anti-shipping missiles. The main group had really effective defences, their SAMs killing most of my missiles and their AAA also taking a heavy toll. The first assault sank two of the three small corvettes, one Krivak and one Sovremenny. One of the Soviet ships got off a salvo of their own anti-shipping missiles against my patrol boats, but JA37s nearby shot down most of their SSMs so only one of my patrol boats were lost.

    Given surge ops, after half an hour or so my 14 AJ37s were ready for another go at the remaining ships, who seemed to have depleted their stocks of SAMs. The expenditure page reported about 140 of those naval SAMs fired. While the FFG and DDD still shot down quite a few missiles during the second attack with their close-in defences, they were quite outmatched and all were sunk.

    I don't think this scenario was particularly difficult (think I had 340 points in the end), perhaps due to me exploiting the AIs tendency to fire AAMs at maximum distance and perhaps also since surge-ops maybe was introduced into the CMANO engine after this scenario was designed?

    I do however think it would be much more difficult if the Soviets would allocate more Su-27s and/or MiG-29s to establish air supremacy, maybe some long-range missiles at my key installations and if the surface group had had long-range SAMs I would be in much worse problems.




    Gunner98 -> RE: Norrland Defence, 1990 (SwAF) Beta (9/8/2019 12:53:50 PM)

    Nice AAR thanks - I haven't played this one in years.


    quote:

    it would be much more difficult if the Soviets would allocate more Su-27s and/or MiG-29s to establish air supremacy,


    Skjold - I think you could achieve the same effect by reducing the WRA range to about 1/2 way between the Skyflash range and AA-10 Max range. The player can use the same tactics but it will be more difficult to spoof the AI. Some MiG-29s would be reasonable by 1990 in the Baltic I think, and far more effective and survivable than Floggers.

    Might try this one again...




    Lupson -> RE: Norrland Defence, 1990 (SwAF) Beta (9/13/2019 2:42:28 PM)

    Thanks, happy you liked the AAR. And a huge thanks to you for the Northern Fury: H-Hour book. Recently bought it and I think it was really good, probably the best WW3 read since Red Storm Rising!

    Another suggestion for the scenario designer may be to include a few J32E Lansen for Offensive ECM. Could be useful both when attacking the ships (perhaps providing a few extra seconds to the ASM:s before being engaged by ship SAM-systems or theoretically to decrease the engagement distance for the Su-27s. I do however highly doubt that the early 70's (?) jammer tech on the J32E does much good vs relatively modern radars. I did some testing with the scenario in the ME and my findings about J32E jamming effectiveness were quite inconclusive. The ships (when switching sides) were clearly marked with JAMMED, but I could see no real difference in SAM efficiency or launch range. The ECM modeling in CMANO seems to be quite complex so I'm sure there's a lot of parameters affecting jamming efficiency.

    Also, a quick sidenote:

    IRL, AJ37s on anti-shipping strikes would fly in 4-ships where plane #4 often would carry an U22 / U22A jamming pod and a chaff/flare dispenser instead of Rb04E / RBS-15F. However, in CMANO the U22 pods are Defensive ECM pods so they are of no use except when trying to spoof incoming missiles trying to hit the carrying plane. AFAIK, the real U22 pods listened on a selectable radar band (settable in the cockpit) and when detecting radar energy on a frequency on the selected band, it would automatically try to jam that frequency. Only worked in a forward arc of maybe 60 degrees or so. I imagine fire control radars painting incoming missiles would "leak" radar energy past the painted missile(s) onto an approaching aircraft in the same heading. The U22 pod should in that case try to jam - which in my humble layman opinion would be a case of "Offensive ECM". (Note: Pretty much all my knowledge about the U22 jammer and the AJ37 comes from playing way too much DCS: AJS-37 Viggen)




    Page: [1]

    Valid CSS!




    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
    0.0390625