Why does the Finnish F/A-18C Have better ECM?

User avatar
Mike
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 11971
Joined: Thu 20 Feb 2014 01:09
Location: Virginia, United States of America
Contact:

Re: Why does the Finnish F/A-18C Have better ECM?

Postby Mike » Thu 16 Mar 2017 01:27

Adarius wrote:
molnibalage wrote:Pure stupidity. FIN has better ASF then US Navy. This is the flavour of WG.


Which is caused by the fact that Finland purchased their F-18C equipped with the AN/ALQ-165 self-protection system. The US Navy had previously cancelled their procurement of the system and only later bought a small number of them. From a game perspective Finland lucked out with the timing of their purchase and the mechanics of the game as this now give them 10 % extra in ECM while the EW aircrafts that would support a US Navy F/A-18C aircraft are not represented in the game as they fly somewhere off the map.



Adarius wrote:
Mike wrote:To the topic? No, not really. To what you said? Much more so.


My statement was specifically about F/A-18C versus Finnish F-18C and their ECM equipment. The F/A-18E/F was developed later and a completely different can of worms as it entered service in another millennium and was mostly equipped with even better ECM equipment.


Which was a reply to what Moni said, quoted above. But at least you actually use F/A unlike most of the other LOSERS on this forum!
Image
Courtesy of KattiValk

Seryn
Sergeant Major of the Army
Posts: 360
Joined: Mon 5 Dec 2016 06:00
Contact:

Re: Why does the Finnish F/A-18C Have better ECM?

Postby Seryn » Thu 16 Mar 2017 01:51

Mike wrote:
Adarius wrote:
molnibalage wrote:Pure stupidity. FIN has better ASF then US Navy. This is the flavour of WG.


Which is caused by the fact that Finland purchased their F-18C equipped with the AN/ALQ-165 self-protection system. The US Navy had previously cancelled their procurement of the system and only later bought a small number of them. From a game perspective Finland lucked out with the timing of their purchase and the mechanics of the game as this now give them 10 % extra in ECM while the EW aircrafts that would support a US Navy F/A-18C aircraft are not represented in the game as they fly somewhere off the map.



Adarius wrote:
Mike wrote:To the topic? No, not really. To what you said? Much more so.


My statement was specifically about F/A-18C versus Finnish F-18C and their ECM equipment. The F/A-18E/F was developed later and a completely different can of worms as it entered service in another millennium and was mostly equipped with even better ECM equipment.


Which was a reply to what Moni said, quoted above. But at least you actually use F/A unlike most of the other LOSERS on this forum!


I use Bullpup and Sk-60 as my ATGM planes.

Oktoberfest
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed 23 Oct 2013 09:01
Contact:

Re: Why does the Finnish F/A-18C Have better ECM?

Postby Oktoberfest » Thu 16 Mar 2017 14:27

Comrade_Bane wrote:Finnish has 50% ECM
American has 40% ECM

Lemme guess: "Flavour"


You guessed wrong. Because P2W.

User avatar
Partibrejker
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 327
Joined: Sun 22 Feb 2015 22:14
Location: Elektronska Industrija, Yugoslavia
Contact:

Re: Why does the Finnish F/A-18C Have better ECM?

Postby Partibrejker » Thu 16 Mar 2017 14:29

Oktoberfest wrote:
Comrade_Bane wrote:Finnish has 50% ECM
American has 40% ECM

Lemme guess: "Flavour"


You guessed wrong. Because P2W.


if it was p2w you would get normal amount of them at "useful" training, not a single one :)
Spoiler : :

User avatar
wargamer1985
Brigadier
Posts: 3298
Joined: Sat 4 May 2013 00:36
Contact:

Re: Why does the Finnish F/A-18C Have better ECM?

Postby wargamer1985 » Thu 16 Mar 2017 18:25

Mike wrote:
Adarius wrote:
Mike wrote:
Fixed.


The commonality between F/A-18C/D and F/A-18E/F is impressive, but I do not think the F/A-18E/F is relevant to the topic of this thread which is about C version.


To the topic? No, not really. To what you said? Much more so.

Actually, part of what Mike is saying here ties into my statement. The US Navy didn't stop procuring the AN/ALQ-165 because of a lack of funding, but rather due to a shift of focus to the promising Super Hornet (we had presented our proof of concepts to potential buyers in the Fall of 1991). Really, it was seen as a costly and unnecessary move to field advanced countermeasures on an aircraft that was to be replaced by a next-generation successor, especially since these soon-to-be-F/A-18E/Fs would be the leading edge of US Naval air power, and as a result needing the countermeasures and investment far more than the F/A-18C or other Legacy Hornets did. If we wanted to be realistic, theoretically the F/A-18E/F would replace the roles of the F/A-18C and be the top-tier USMC and USN air superiority fighter.

Also, the AN/ALQ-165, decent as a system as it was, does not make a Legacy F/A-18C equivalent to the countermeasure capabilities of an F/A-18E Block I, as not only does the F/A-18E have superior ECM systems integrated under the hood (and plenty of room for expansion, which is part of the reason why the F/A-18E/F's fuselage is so large, because we built the aircraft to last and serve for many generations, and not to simply act as an interim program which many confuse it to be) but it also had many radar-reduction methods (see the geometry of the intakes, for example) and thermal-dampening measures in order to reduce the effectiveness of IR systems against the F/A-18E/F (after all, the F414-GE-400 was a larger and more powerful engine, which as a consequence, generated more thermal pollution, and so we integrated a few methods to reduce these emissions equal to, and in some cases, lower than the thermal emissions of the Legacy lineage) not to mention a more subtle radar array in the form of a air frame-integrated APG-73 on the Block I aircraft, and a APG-79 on the Block II+. All of these attributes make a countermeasure comparison between a modified F/A-18C and a F/A-18E/F null and void, and as such the Finnish Hornet should not have ECM in the same league as the Super Hornet.
APPLY TO THE GLORIOUS CULT OF THE WARHAWK! LIBERATING NAZIS SINCE 1939!
Image

Seryn
Sergeant Major of the Army
Posts: 360
Joined: Mon 5 Dec 2016 06:00
Contact:

Re: Why does the Finnish F/A-18C Have better ECM?

Postby Seryn » Thu 16 Mar 2017 18:45

Partibrejker wrote:
Oktoberfest wrote:
Comrade_Bane wrote:Finnish has 50% ECM
American has 40% ECM

Lemme guess: "Flavour"


You guessed wrong. Because P2W.


if it was p2w you would get normal amount of them at "useful" training, not a single one :)


Like the L-19, which can be conpared to the F-18C

Adarius
Corporal
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed 28 Dec 2016 12:46
Contact:

Re: Why does the Finnish F/A-18C Have better ECM?

Postby Adarius » Thu 16 Mar 2017 21:18

wargamer1985 wrote:Also, the AN/ALQ-165, decent as a system as it was, does not make a Legacy F/A-18C equivalent to the countermeasure capabilities of an F/A-18E Block I, as not only does the F/A-18E have superior ECM systems integrated under the hood (and plenty of room for expansion, which is part of the reason why the F/A-18E/F's fuselage is so large, because we built the aircraft to last and serve for many generations, and not to simply act as an interim program which many confuse it to be) but it also had many radar-reduction methods (see the geometry of the intakes, for example) and thermal-dampening measures in order to reduce the effectiveness of IR systems against the F/A-18E/F (after all, the F414-GE-400 was a larger and more powerful engine, which as a consequence, generated more thermal pollution, and so we integrated a few methods to reduce these emissions equal to, and in some cases, lower than the thermal emissions of the Legacy lineage) not to mention a more subtle radar array in the form of a air frame-integrated APG-73 on the Block I aircraft, and a APG-79 on the Block II+. All of these attributes make a countermeasure comparison between a modified F/A-18C and a F/A-18E/F null and void, and as such the Finnish Hornet should not have ECM in the same league as the Super Hornet.


There is absolutely no argument against the F/A-18E/F having a better real-life ECM than F-18C. But it did not reach IOC until 2001 and is hidden away under the tab for stuff Eugen rather not think about. So it is outside of my area of caring. Wargame stats are often tied to game balance (or lack thereof) but the topic of real-life justifications was what the OP was interested in and the An/ALQ-165 is the justification available.

Somewhat cynically you could say that depending on what the game designer want they can either put the F-18C ECM to 40 % or 50 % and still claim real life justification. Either "it is better so +10 %" or "its not significant so no difference". If anyone care about the navy tab they can then do the same thing there for the Super Hornet.

User avatar
wargamer1985
Brigadier
Posts: 3298
Joined: Sat 4 May 2013 00:36
Contact:

Re: Why does the Finnish F/A-18C Have better ECM?

Postby wargamer1985 » Thu 16 Mar 2017 23:43

Adarius wrote:
wargamer1985 wrote:Also, the AN/ALQ-165, decent as a system as it was, does not make a Legacy F/A-18C equivalent to the countermeasure capabilities of an F/A-18E Block I, as not only does the F/A-18E have superior ECM systems integrated under the hood (and plenty of room for expansion, which is part of the reason why the F/A-18E/F's fuselage is so large, because we built the aircraft to last and serve for many generations, and not to simply act as an interim program which many confuse it to be) but it also had many radar-reduction methods (see the geometry of the intakes, for example) and thermal-dampening measures in order to reduce the effectiveness of IR systems against the F/A-18E/F (after all, the F414-GE-400 was a larger and more powerful engine, which as a consequence, generated more thermal pollution, and so we integrated a few methods to reduce these emissions equal to, and in some cases, lower than the thermal emissions of the Legacy lineage) not to mention a more subtle radar array in the form of a air frame-integrated APG-73 on the Block I aircraft, and a APG-79 on the Block II+. All of these attributes make a countermeasure comparison between a modified F/A-18C and a F/A-18E/F null and void, and as such the Finnish Hornet should not have ECM in the same league as the Super Hornet.


There is absolutely no argument against the F/A-18E/F having a better real-life ECM than F-18C. But it did not reach IOC until 2001 and is hidden away under the tab for stuff Eugen rather not think about. So it is outside of my area of caring. Wargame stats are often tied to game balance (or lack thereof) but the topic of real-life justifications was what the OP was interested in and the An/ALQ-165 is the justification available.

Its first test flight took place circa 1994, and prototype designs were available far earlier than that. One of the reasons it is in game is because the Super Hornet program was delayed with less budget than it was originally promised under the threat of the USSR, meaning that in a Cold War gone hot scenario as is represented in game, the Super Hornet would likely have rolled off the production line at a far earlier time period. That is why the craft is in game and not regulated to the land of complete and utter unicorns like the T-90S, ATACMS, or Ka-52 is.
APPLY TO THE GLORIOUS CULT OF THE WARHAWK! LIBERATING NAZIS SINCE 1939!
Image

shnowitzer
Specialist
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon 23 May 2016 19:53
Contact:

Re: Why does the Finnish F/A-18C Have better ECM?

Postby shnowitzer » Fri 17 Mar 2017 19:47

Cuz it's from the future

User avatar
Tiera
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2330
Joined: Tue 28 Aug 2012 00:08
Contact:

Re: Why does the Finnish F/A-18C Have better ECM?

Postby Tiera » Sat 18 Mar 2017 17:01

shnowitzer wrote:Cuz it's from the future

Last time I checked, 1995 was still in timeframe: http://areena.yle.fi/1-3625491

From the FDF thread:
"By the 80's, USA no longer had a problem in selling arms to Finland, but instead actively tried to promote some nato countries into doing so as well. in 1989 the USA was offering Finland both the latest F-16 blk. 40/42, as well as the newly designed F-18C and modern armament. The decision to buy was made in 1992 partially due to the other competitors, Mirage 2000 and Jas Gripen being still in prototype/design phase and partially due to USA marketing it as the cheapest and most effective option. The D-models were flown straight from USA to Finland, and the C models built locally."
Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: another505 and 38 guests