[UPDATED DB v445] Database Request

Take command of air and naval assets from post-WW2 to the near future in tactical and operational scale, complete with historical and hypothetical scenarios and an integrated scenario editor.

Moderator: MOD_Command

Nightwatch
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2015 6:45 am

RE: Database Request

Post by Nightwatch »

Possibly related, can anyone id the thing from the pictures? (sry for hijacking the thread)
Attachments
unkownwload.jpg
unkownwload.jpg (4.21 MiB) Viewed 31 times
anxiousbob
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 4:10 pm

RE: Database Request

Post by anxiousbob »

mikmykWS
Posts: 7185
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 4:34 pm

RE: Database Request

Post by mikmykWS »

ORIGINAL: Nightwatch

Possibly related, can anyone id the thing from the pictures? (sry for hijacking the thread)

Interesting. Have no idea what that might be.

Mike
mikmykWS
Posts: 7185
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 4:34 pm

RE: Database Request

Post by mikmykWS »


No sorry
Nightwatch
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2015 6:45 am

RE: Database Request

Post by Nightwatch »

Hm i think anxiousbob is correct.

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/suu20.jpg
It has the same holes in the back.

mikmykWS
Posts: 7185
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 4:34 pm

RE: Database Request

Post by mikmykWS »

ORIGINAL: Nightwatch

Hm i think anxiousbob is correct.

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/suu20.jpg
It has the same holes in the back.


Yeah agreed. Not sure what I was thinking[:)]
DWReese
Posts: 1879
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Miami, Florida

RE: Database Request

Post by DWReese »

I don't know anything about the nomenclature of the F-16I with regard to what it can carry, or how many weapons it can carry.

I did do some research that said that Israeli F-16s (it did not specifically say F-16I) carries ATALD decoys, instead of TALDS, or ITALDS. I had never heard of an ATALD. When you Google ATALD, it takes you immediately to the TALD pages. So, it would appear that the ATALDS are obviously similar to TALDS. Perhaps they aren't as good, I don't know. In any case, I don't know how may that an F-16 or an F-16I could carry. Perhaps some of you can advise me on that.

One other interesting bit about this situation indicates that as of November, 2015, Israel was attempting to acquire MALDs, but had not done so as of that time. The MALDs appear much smaller, but from what I have seen is that they can do the same thing as the ATALDS, or the ITALDS, but are apparently smaller.

I hope that this helps.
Nightwatch
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2015 6:45 am

RE: Database Request

Post by Nightwatch »

Regarding TALD/ITALD/ATALD/MALD. I personally dont believe the IAF uses exactly the same weapon as the US. So no ADM-141 in IAF service (and therefore not pictures of it). I believe they use the Delilah missile family to carry whatever tech necessary to field a decent decoy.
Its no big secret, the Delilah is much more than just a loitering air launched cruise missile in fact i can be pretty much anything from ARM to ADM if required.

Check out this quote from an impressive article on the history of Delilah on the official iaf website:
Different generations of a weapon often receive different names. For example, the first two generations of Rafael's Shafrir air-to-air missile were known as the Shafrir 1 and 2, whereas the next three generations were known as the Python 3, 4 and 5. However, for Delilah missiles this is not the case. Primarily for security reasons, it was decided that all of the missiles in the Delilah family would have the same name, not even appended with a generation number. However, the Delilah which the Air Force received in the nineties is not the same that it receives today, despite the fact that their external appearance is almost identical. The differences between different models of the Delilah are in fact so fundamental that they can be seen as totally different kinds of missile, despite their shared name. Thus, IMI help the IAF distinguish between the different models by marking the production number. For example, the missiles marked "block 30", "block 40" and so on.

For obvious reasons we cannot go into the details of the differences between the various generations of Delilah missile, but we can say that they were adapted for delivery by different aircraft. Whilst the missile was originally fitted for launch by the Phantom, it has since also been fitted to, amongst others, the Super Phantom, the F-16C/D and the F-16I.
http://www.iaf.org.il/5642-35312-en/IAF.aspx

It makes much sense. Delilah looks very similar to the ADM-141C, i wouldnt be surprised if they have pretty much the same internal layout anyway. If the Delilah is adaptable easy enough, there is no reason to field another system.

Also keep in mind, the Israeli defense industry very different than what they have in the US or other western countries. Mot of the big players are state owned companies (IAI, IMI, Rafael) with extremely close ties to the IDF. In fact its probably pretty much impossible to distinguish between the army and some defense company on the ground. The idea that israeli defense firm have technology that the IDF doesnt use in some variation is pretty far fetched in my opinion.


Nightwatch
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2015 6:45 am

RE: Database Request

Post by Nightwatch »

ORIGINAL: DWReese

I don't know anything about the nomenclature of the F-16I with regard to what it can carry, or how many weapons it can carry.

I did do some research that said that Israeli F-16s (it did not specifically say F-16I) carries ATALD decoys, instead of TALDS, or ITALDS. I had never heard of an ATALD. When you Google ATALD, it takes you immediately to the TALD pages. So, it would appear that the ATALDS are obviously similar to TALDS. Perhaps they aren't as good, I don't know. In any case, I don't know how may that an F-16 or an F-16I could carry. Perhaps some of you can advise me on that.

ATALD = Advanced TALD
Its just the newest version.

http://www.imi-israel.com/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=65734
One other interesting bit about this situation indicates that as of November, 2015, Israel was attempting to acquire MALDs, but had not done so as of that time. The MALDs appear much smaller, but from what I have seen is that they can do the same thing as the ATALDS, or the ITALDS, but are apparently smaller.

I hope that this helps.
Doenst mean much. They purchase lots of system in the US because they can pay for them with FMF funds.


DWReese
Posts: 1879
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Miami, Florida

RE: Database Request

Post by DWReese »

it has since also been fitted to, amongst others, the Super Phantom, the F-16C/D and the F-16I

Delilah looks very similar to the ADM-141C, i wouldnt be surprised if they have pretty much the same internal layout anyway


Thank so much for your valuable input. I just have two questions remaining:

1. In terms of playing CMANO, what would be the difference (if any) in the performance of a Delilah DECOY and the ITALD, or the ATALD? Would it be noticeable at all?

2. Finally, you indicated that the Delilah could be carried by the F-16I. How many could they carry, and what would be the normal loadout for a SEAD mission?

Thanks again.
mikmykWS
Posts: 7185
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 4:34 pm

RE: Database Request

Post by mikmykWS »

ORIGINAL: DWReese

it has since also been fitted to, amongst others, the Super Phantom, the F-16C/D and the F-16I

Delilah looks very similar to the ADM-141C, i wouldnt be surprised if they have pretty much the same internal layout anyway


Thank so much for your valuable input. I just have two questions remaining:

1. In terms of playing CMANO, what would be the difference (if any) in the performance of a Delilah DECOY and the ITALD, or the ATALD? Would it be noticeable at all?

2. Finally, you indicated that the Delilah could be carried by the F-16I. How many could they carry, and what would be the normal loadout for a SEAD mission?

Thanks again.


I think I've given this enough time. If you do find something in the future please do let us know. I'll keep an eye out and if I find something will add or ask Rag too.

Thanks!

Mike
Nightwatch
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2015 6:45 am

RE: Database Request

Post by Nightwatch »

ORIGINAL: DWReese

it has since also been fitted to, amongst others, the Super Phantom, the F-16C/D and the F-16I

Delilah looks very similar to the ADM-141C, i wouldnt be surprised if they have pretty much the same internal layout anyway


Thank so much for your valuable input. I just have two questions remaining:

1. In terms of playing CMANO, what would be the difference (if any) in the performance of a Delilah DECOY and the ITALD, or the ATALD? Would it be noticeable at all?

2. Finally, you indicated that the Delilah could be carried by the F-16I. How many could they carry, and what would be the normal loadout for a SEAD mission?

Thanks again.

1) Who knows. I think IMI just provides the IAF with tailored solutions against specific threats when the need arises.
Check out this article on the cooperation between the defense industry and the military in Israel.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 88245.html

2) Five Delilahs should be the theoretical maximum, two each on the inner wing pylons, one under the belly. But the IAF uses external fuel tanks most of the time, so custom loadout is two Delilahs.
Alternatively one Deliah on one wing, some bomb (JDAM, SPICE) on the other.


DWReese
Posts: 1879
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Miami, Florida

RE: Database Request

Post by DWReese »

Thank you so much for the valuable information.
jimcarravall
Posts: 642
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:11 am

RE: Database Request

Post by jimcarravall »

ORIGINAL: DWReese

it has since also been fitted to, amongst others, the Super Phantom, the F-16C/D and the F-16I

Delilah looks very similar to the ADM-141C, i wouldnt be surprised if they have pretty much the same internal layout anyway


Thank so much for your valuable input. I just have two questions remaining:

1. In terms of playing CMANO, what would be the difference (if any) in the performance of a Delilah DECOY and the ITALD, or the ATALD? Would it be noticeable at all?

The key is the linkages between the design for production and whatever licensing is used to produce the equipment. Brunswick, a US company, was the originator of the design in behalf of the US Air Force back in the 70s, but the Air Force did not put resulting design into production. The Israelis decided the design was viable for its operations, and entered into an agreement with Brunswick to first produce the Samson, and later to migrated it into the Delilah. Samson caught the eye of the Navy, which contracted with Brunswick for the ADM 141 series which covers both a Samson and Delilah capability.

IMI-Brunswick is a licensing agreement between the Israeli Military Industries and Brunswick to produce the Brunswick-designed decoys for Israeli use, meaning Brunswick does the design and IMI licenses with the prime to support design development, perform integration and do the production of that design.

Each military has its own tactical requirements governing how it deploys and operates the decoys in combat, but the outer shell and flight performance characteristics should be the same for those designs used as an unpowered drone or as a powered drone.

2. Finally, you indicated that the Delilah could be carried by the F-16I. How many could they carry, and what would be the normal loadout for a SEAD mission?

Thanks again.

The issue is the pylon design, and it appears that one drone can occupy one pylon in flight based on what was mounted for testing on the original pictures you provided. The key for evaluating this regardless is the attaching end of the pylon and not the aircraft to which the pylon is attached. A Navy Sidewinders shouldn't attach any differently to a pylon than an Air Force Sidewinder regardless of whether that pylon is beneath the wing of an F/A 18 or an F-16. The same would apply to the interface for drones carried by F/A 18s or F-16s.
Take care,

jim
ComDev
Posts: 3116
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 1:20 pm
Contact:

RE: Database Request

Post by ComDev »

So what's the conclusion on this?

What decoys are used, on what plaforms, from which years? And stats on the various versions of the decoys?

Thanks [8D]
Image

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!
ComDev
Posts: 3116
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 1:20 pm
Contact:

RE: Database Request

Post by ComDev »

Never mind, made some mods.

Added Delilah, and fitted it to F-4E from 1995, and the Phantom 2000. Also added it to F-16D Blk 30/40 from 1995 onwards. And also F-16I. The Delilah-AL is already in the database and is now fitted to F-16Ds and -16Is from 2006 onwards.

The system supposedly has man-in-the-loop guidance which explains why (supposedly) only two-seaters have the system.

Still no real details on the system through. So guessimation is our friend [8D] Any ideas on what datalink pod is used? Same as for Popeye?
Image

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!
DWReese
Posts: 1879
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Miami, Florida

RE: Database Request

Post by DWReese »

Ragnar,

Thanks so much for the addition. It's perfect.

Doug
Nightwatch
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2015 6:45 am

RE: Database Request

Post by Nightwatch »

Any ideas on what datalink pod is used? Same as for Popeye?

Oddly enough, it looks like they control it with Rafaels SKYSHIELD Pod. Check out the attached picture. Its from Raanan Weiss, 'F-16I Sufa in IAF service'. According to him the Delilah is controlled via a 'Rafael produced data-link transceiver pod positioned under the fuselage centerline pylon'.
If you look up the pod online its not just a datalink transceiver but a full blown EW jamming pod.
http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SIP_S ... /8/958.pdf

Another example:
http://www.gettyimages.de/detail/foto/a ... /181828535

However, i dont think they need the pod the employ Delilah, just to fire it in full control mode or something. There are many pictures of F-16s with Delilahs but without the pod afterall.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... e_side.jpg)

The last time i checked no Israeli fighter aircraft had a Popeye loadout in CMANO. I think its a no brainer that they have this capability but i have no picture to prove it (only US F-16s with Have Naps...)


Attachments
delpod.jpg
delpod.jpg (949.39 KiB) Viewed 2 times
ComDev
Posts: 3116
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 1:20 pm
Contact:

RE: Database Request

Post by ComDev »

Interesting [8D]

Are you sure the pod is dual-role, and that the a/c just isn't carrying the Skyshield pod for EW? What about the other two pods? LANTIRN nav and Litening? Is it 100% certain the Litening-like pod is in fact Litening?
Image

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!
Nightwatch
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2015 6:45 am

RE: Database Request

Post by Nightwatch »

All i can say is that Raanan Weiss refers to the Skyshield Pod as the 'Rafael produced data-link transceiver pod' used to control Delilah.
I dont know if he is he is correct, but i see no reason not to trust him. The book has very detailed photos, he obviously had access to active squadrons.

I dont think the two pods are anything other than Lantrin and Litening (see attached comparison). They look exactly like they are supposed to look, nothing special about it
Attachments
f16is.jpg
f16is.jpg (1.64 MiB) Viewed 2 times
Post Reply

Return to “Command: Modern Operations series”