Peter Grining’s found a hole in the rules - offensive jammers. It’s a mess, and needs a complete rework. Here’s his question and the fixes: “6.7.6 Jamming refers to offensive and limited offensive jamming. The 4.1 Annexes still have standoff jamming as per the 1990-91 Annexes. For example, the An-12 Cub (page B-10) remarks: ‘reduce RHM hit chances by -20% and radar ranges to half within 60 nm. Has -15% defensive jamming suite.’ Does the Annex remark entry still apply? Or so, where does the 6.7.6 entry come into play?” My answer is simple: The revision to offensive jamming was never finished. It’s very confusing. Please make the following changes: Page 6-31 right hand column, last paragraph. Change “shielding all aircraft within a specified range” to “affecting all hostile radars within the radar horizon (see 6.7.6).” Page 6-34 left-hand column, first paragraph. Delete “, along with its range if it is an offensive pod” Page 6-34 left-hand column, second paragraph, replace: “If a unit has dual coverage, for example a fighter with a first-generation defensive ECM pod is also screened by an ECM aircraft with a second-generation offensive jammer, use the better countermeasure, in this case the second-generation set. ECM protection is not cumulative.” with: “If a unit has dual coverage, for example a fighter with a first-generation defensive ECM pod is also screened by an ECM aircraft with a second-generation offensive jammer, use both countermeasures, since offensive jamming affects radar detection range while defensive jamming affects weapon hit chances.” Page 6-34 right hand column, first paragraph of section 6.7.6 Jamming. In the first paragraph, change “Defensive jamming, designed to reduce weapon performance...” to “Deception jamming, designed to reduce weapon performance...” The Jammer rules need to be modified to include individual ratings (expressed as a percentage reduction) for each aircraft and offensive pod. The ERP of the jammer drives its effectiveness in reducing radar range, and there is too wide a variation in jammer strength to put it in a single table. Also, to simplify the calculations, the percentage reduction will be halved for phased array radars or if the radar is in a jamming sidelobe. These modifiers are cumulative. I know the real jamming model would compare the two radars and the distance, etc., etc., but let’s leave that for the computer game. We’re talking something simple for manual play. Page 6-35 left column, replace the first seven paragraphs, starting with: “They also interfere with enemy air intercept and fire control radars.... and ending with: “...Of note, this feature doesn’t help with the self-protection jammers. If a radar has this capability it will be listed in Annex J.” with: Limited offensive jammers are similar to offensive jammers, but only have a beam 20° wide ±10° to either side of the plane’s flight path both ahead and behind the plane (350°-010° and 170° - 190° relative). Their sidelobe extends ±60° to either side of the plane’s flight path ahead and behind (300° - 060° and 120° - 240° relative), and outside of this arc, they have no effect. Defensive jammers only protect the plane carrying them and may be mounted internally or as a pod. They have no effect on enemy search radars. Each offensive jammer has a reduction rating either in Annex B (for specialized aircraft) or for jamming pods (in Annex G2). This is the percent each radar within the jammer’s radar horizon is reduced. Halve the reduction for radars in the jammer’s sidelobe. Also halve the reduction for Phased array radars. They are more resistant to jamming, and will have this feature listed in the remarks column of Annex J1 or Annex L as appropriate. To find the reduced radar range, multiply the radar’s range by the appropriate modifier(s). Example The Aegis SPY-1 radar has an unjammed air search range against a Medium-sized target of 124 nm. If a Su-24MP Fencer F (Offensive Rating of 50%) was inside an Aegis ship’s radar horizon, the SPY-1 range would be reduced to 93 nm (the modified reduction is 25%). If the radar was in the jammer’s sidelobe, the reduction would be 12%, for a modified range of 109 nm).” Strength Ratings for offensive jammers are listed below. They will not have generation ratings in Annex G2. Add the following values to Annex B and Annex G2: Annex B - Aircraft: Tu-16PP Badger J (75%) An-12 Cub C&D (50%) Su-24MP Fencer F (50%) EA-6B w/3 ALQ-99 (50%) EA-6B with 5 ALQ-99 (75%) EF-111 Raven (60%) Annex G2 - Offensive Jamming Pods ALQ-176 - 121 kg (30%) Caiman - 500 kg (30%) Alligator - 550 kg (30%) EL/L-8202 - 200 kg (30%) BT Back to The Naval Sitrep #23 Table of Contents Back to Naval Sitrep List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 2002 by Larry Bond and Clash of Arms. This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history and related articles are available at http://www.magweb.com