EW ratings

[Suhiir]

The other day I decided cross-reference the EW ratings of aircraft by date.

Did you know:
The Russians invented EW for aircraft first. (Russian OOB# 137 - US OOB# 148)
The MiG-27 is every bit as stealthy, EW wise, as the F-4D when both were introduced. (Russian OOB# 156 - US OOB# 137)
The Su-24M, 1981, is superior to anything in the US inventory but the Wild Weasel, 1983, and F-117 until 1984. (Russian OOB# 147 - US OOB# 142/144)
The Su-25SM, Su34, and Su-47 are superior to everything but the F-117, B-1, B-2, and F-22. (Russian OOB# 957/891/170 - US OOB# 579/374/947/595)
The B-52, all variants, is superior to all but one US Wild Weasel. (the best WW has the same EW)
The F-22 is every bit as stealthy, EW wise, as the F-117. (US OOB# 595 - US OOB# 579)
The US never bothered to improve the A-10. (same EW rating from 1977-2020)
The F-111F, 1989, is only a marginal improvement (EW 5) over the F-111A, 1969 (EW 3). (US OOB# 578 - US OOB# 594)
The F-16A is every bit as stealthy, EW wise, as the Wild Weasel of the same date. (US OOB# 143 - US OOB# 141)
The F-16A is the only F-16 variant less vulnerable then the F-35. (US OOB# 143 - US OOB# 920)
The F-15E is every more stealthy, EW wise, then the F-35. (US OOB# 156 - US OOB# 920)
All Russian aircraft introduced after 1999 are superior to the F-35 which won't be available till 2016. (Russian OOB# 981/957/242/958/891 - US OOB# 920)


AIRCRAFT - USA
Dates---Unit#--Name--EW Rating
08/058-12/084 148 F-105 Thud 3
01/060-12/120 429 B-52 BUFF 10
01/063-12/066 136 F-4C Phantom II 3
01/067-12/087 139 F-4E Phantom II 4
01/068-12/074 149 F-105 Wild Weasel 4
10/069-12/074 594 F-111A Aardvark 3
01/070-12/078 150 A-7D Corsair II 3
01/072-12/082 141 F-4 Wild Weasel 7
01/075-12/083 137 F-4D Phantom II 5
01/077-12/120 151 A-10 Warthog 4
01/077-12/087 140 F-4E Phantom II 5
01/079-12/083 143 F-16A Falcon 7
01/083-12/105 142 F-4 Wild Weasel 9
01/083-12/108 579 F-117 Nighthawk 20
01/084-12/120 144 F-16C Falcon 8
01/088-12/120 201 F-16D Falcon 8
01/088-12/120 156 F-15E Eagle 9
01/089-12/096 578 F-111F Aardvark 5
01/090-12/120 374 B-1 16
01/098-12/120 577 F-4 Wild Weasel 10
01/099-12/120 947 B-2 24
01/102-12/120 569 F-16D Wild Weasel 10
12/102-12/120 561 F-15E Eagle 10
01/104-12/120 595 F-22 Raptor 20
01/116-12/120 920 F-35A JSF 8


AIRCRAFT - Russia
Dates---Unit#--Name--EW Rating
03/055-12/075 137 MiG-19 1
01/059-12/071 149 Su-7B 1
01/060-12/074 139 MiG-21F 1
01/066-12/089 151 Su-7BLK 2
01/070-12/078 135 MiG-17F 2
01/070-12/090 152 Su-17 3
01/072-12/086 140 MiG-21bis 2
01/073-12/120 535 Su-24 4
01/075-12/084 156 MiG-27 5
01/076-12/089 145 MiG-23ML 4
01/081-12/120 147 Su-24M 8
08/083-12/100 161 MiG-29 4
01/084-12/098 357 Su-27 5
01/084-12/110 146 MiG-23MLD 5
01/084-12/120 954 Su-25 5
01/087-12/120 947 MiG-29 7
01/091-12/120 171 Su-25T 7
01/091-12/120 358 Su-27 7
01/092-12/120 235 MiG-29S 8
01/099-12/120 981 MiG-31BM 9
01/099-12/120 957 Su-25SM 10
01/106-12/120 242 Su-30M 9
01/106-12/120 958 Su-27SM 9
01/108-12/120 891 Su-34 11
01/119-12/120 170 Su-47 12



After learning all these things about aircraft I got curious about air defense weapons.
While of course the US doesn't put nearly the emphasis on air defence the Russians do...

Did you know:
The US never has developed an AA-Gun as good as the 1961 ZSU-23-4. (US OOS# 50/234/256 - Russian OOB# 402)
US AA-Gun EW took a step backwards in 1969 and never has recovered. (US OOB# 50/234/256)
The US never bothered to improve the Stinger since it was developed in 1982. (Same ratings between 1982-2020)
The Igla-1 has superior accuracy to the Stinger and was developed a year earlier. (Russian OOB# 409 - US OOB# 80)
US Area SAM EW took a step backwards in 1969 and didn't recover till 1973. (US OOB# 235/238/053)
Many Russian SAMs are superior to the Patriot in terms of EW, radar, or accuracy; and in some cases all three. (Russian OOB# 293/289/294/612/900/901/414 - US OOB# 54)
It took the US till 1973 to develop radar as good as the Russians had in 1966. (US OOB# 53 - Russian OOB# 420)
But new Russian radars in 1973 again reigned supreme until 1989. (Russian OOB# 613 - US OOB# 54)
However in 1993 Russian radar again outperformed the US. (Russian OOB# 900 - US OOB# 54)


FLAK & SAM - USA
Dates---Unit#--Name--EW/Radar/Acc
08/059-12/072 235 HAWK SAM 5/100/100
01/066-05/082 079 Redeye MPAD 2/-/70
01/067-12/093 050 M163 Vulcan 4/100/19
01/069-12/079 234 M167 Vulcan 1/100/19
01/069-12/075 238 M727 HAWK 2/100/100
01/069-12/096 049 M48 Chaparral 2/-/90
01/073-12/088 053 I-HAWK SAM 7/105/140
01/080-12/094 256 M167 Vulcan 2/100/19
06/082-12/120 080 Stinger MPAD 3/-/100
01/089-12/120 051 Avenger HMMWV 3/-/100
01/089-12/120 054 Patriot SAM 9/120/140
11/097-12/110 052 M2A2 Linebacker 3/-/100


FLAK & SAM - Russia
Dates---Unit#--Name--EW/Radar/Acc
01/057-12/062 290 S-75 Dvina 3/100/40
01/061-12/092 402 ZSU-23-4 4/100/20
01/066-12/076 420 57mm S60 2/105/18
01/067-12/071 292 Krug A 4/105/140
01/067-12/073 283 Kub 5/105/140
01/068-12/077 281 Strela-1 1/-/70
01/068-12/092 410 Strela-2 MPAD 1/-/50
01/070-12/091 285 Strela-1M 2/-/70
01/072-12/075 280 Osa 6/100/80
01/073-12/100 613 Kub M1 5/110/140
01/074-12/110 411 Strela-3 MPAD 2/-/80
01/075-12/080 284 Osa-AK 6/105/80
01/076-12/092 282 Strela-10SV 2/-/100
01/078-12/095 293 S-300PT 6/110/160
01/078-12/120 222 Osa-AKM 7/110/100
01/079-12/110 286 Strela-10M 3/-/100
01/080-12/083 289 Buk 6/110/160
01/081-12/120 409 Igla-1 MPAD 3/-/118
01/082-12/105 405 2S6 Tunguska 8/110/100
01/082-12/120 294 S-300PS 8/120/160
01/083-12/110 612 Buk M1 7/110/160
01/085-12/120 412 Igla MPAD 3/-/118
01/086-12/115 288 Tor 8/110/120
01/089-12/120 287 Strela-10M3 4/-/100
01/091-12/120 338 Tor M1 9/115/120
01/093-12/120 900 S-300PM 9/125/180
01/097-12/120 901 S-300PM2 10/130/180
01/101-12/120 797 SU-23-2M3 5/-/22
01/104-12/120 823 2S6 Tunguska M1 9/120/100
03/110-12/120 414 Pantsyr-S1 9/125/170

[DRG]

Interesting comparisons.

Now lose the smartass and present info like an adult and I might start paying attention

Don

[Marcello]

The Russians invented EW for aircraft first. (Russian OOB# 137 - US OOB# 148

It is not EW in general of course, more like a (very) crude represantation of the capabilities of the single aircrafts. The Mig-19 (or at least some versions) had a Sirena-2 RWR. Dunno what was the first USAF fighter bomber to mount something similar but I would not be surprised if it was actually the F-105. I would believe that SAC bombers such as the B-47 had a fairly sophisticated EW suite even before that date, but they are not relevant to the game.
In general it is a mistake to assume that since the US was overall more advanced and wealthier the USSR would be lagging behind in the application of every single technology and piece of equipment, one might note they were the first to put a satellite in orbit.

[Suhiir]

If I lost the attitude I wouldn't be near as much fun to bash.

[DRG]

If that post had of come from a noob I would have given them an infraction and a "time out" so I *AM" cutting you some slack......this time. Not again.

If you need examples of how to present information that is helpful in correcting an OOB there are plenty of them on the forums. That post was not.

Smarten up.

Don

[Suhiir]

In the past I've tried presenting information and suggestions on how to use it. I've tried presenting just the information and no suggestions. This time I thought I'd add a bit of humor to it.

Apparently none of these methods is acceptable.

All I can suggest is, if you don't like the information provided don't use it.

[DRG]

WTF are you talking about ??..... I've used a lot of the info you have provided when it's presented properly ......apparently you have forgotten there are no USA aircraft in USMC any longer and I know the list is longer than that

The "humor" wasn't "funny" . It was just sarcastic BS

Do tell.... was there something near and dear to your heart that you posted and we overlooked while dealing with everthing else we deal with ever release ???

Don

[Suhiir]

Yes you have, and I very much appreciate that.

As to the humor, some folks find Benny Hill humorous, some find him annoying.

I could quote your replies to some of the subjects I've brought up but that would be counter productive. I know we all have bad days and sensitive subjects, but sometimes you respond as if what I've said is some sort of personal attack on you.

#####################

I approach this forum from the perspective of an Intel Analyst.

Intel types rarely get to tell a commander what they want to hear, their job is to tell the commander what they need to know to make the best decisions possible.

They also provide suggestions how information could be used. But they are not the commander, they cannot, and should not, decide what (if anything) is used or how.

Is the information they provide always timely, accurate, valid, useful, and what the commander wants to hear – THEY WISH! But that doesn't make the information in and of itself any more, or less, useful.

Analysts do the best job they can, but they're human so they make mistakes (sometimes colossal ones).

You, Don, are the Commander, we provide you with information you use, or not, to make the final decisions.

[AMX]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

Yes you have, and I very much appreciate that.

As to the humor, some folks find Benny Hill humorous, some find him annoying.

I could quote your replies to some of the subjects I've brought up but that would be counter productive. I know we all have bad days and sensitive subjects, but sometimes you respond as if what I've said is some sort of personal attack on you.

Er, Suhiir?
You were making fun of Don's work.
That is an insult.

[DRG]

I just got to this charming little post on my to-do list and I have to say it's just as annoying to read now as it was then. I suspect that any " Intel Analyst"that handed in a report like this would find that nobody but them see the "humor" and their days as an analysis would soon end

In that spirit I will say this

DID YOU KNOW...

That the US OOB has 13 available weapon slots left
That the US OOB has 12 available unit slots left

That's a hard limit. It's not going to change and we are not going to create a separate OOB for air units or any of the other ideas that have been floated. In a pinch there could be units removed and amalgamated but there are limits. What this means is we have to weight the value of any new addition and while EW ratings of the aircraft will be reviewed things like Stingers simply cannot be. The best we can do with Stingers is compromise ( which nobody likes but that's tough ) because to add all of the stinger improvements into the game and re-arrange the units that use them so that they are in service at the correct times would use virtually all of the remaining unit slots so that's not going to happen. The A-10s are another good example.

-- Did you know.....The US never bothered to improve the A-10. (same EW rating from 1977-2020)

( yep...just as annoying to read now as it was 6 months ago )

The only way to upgrade the A-10s EW is to add more of them ( not going to happen... no room ) or change the start dates so you don't get most of them in 1977 and that creates other problems


When most of these rating were put in place a number of different OOB designers were working on them all at once and although we did try to maintain consistency it's just impossible for a project this size and the last few years have been dedicated to trying to sort out inconsistencies where one nation "got ahead" of others simply because of "human error" ( or whatever you want to call it )

At the time we did not have software to check across all OOB's for similar units that may have differing stats. We do now and we are working to improve that to allow direct OOB editing but that's still in the development stage but I remain hopeful that we can actually start to be pro active with OOB work instead of re-active but we will continue to be limited by the unit , formation and weapon totals that exist now and therefore there will need to be compromises made but everyone needs to be aware ( as we are aware ) that if a problem is pointed out in a piece of equipment the only way to avoid another "error report" down the road is to investigate every other unit in every other oob that is the same as the first one and that takes time

Here's little factiod for those of you who may wonder why we haven't "fixed" all the "errors"

There are over 48,000 ( forty eight THOUSAND ) units in MBT and WW2 combined ( 12237 in ww2 and 36057 in MBT )

To put that in perspective if you were to review every unit ( units only...... not weapons, not formations ).......just every unit in both games and spent one ( 1 ) minute checking that unit you would be done checking after working over 33 days... 24 hours a day , 7 days a week

Do the math yourself

12237 + 36057 = 48294

48294 minutes = 804.9 hours

804.9 hours = 33.5375 days

Put into the perspective of a normal full time job with a 40 hour work week 8 hours per day ( 35 if you figure in lunch, coffee and bathroom breaks ) that number of units .........remember one minute per unit only.......... that would be just a touch under 23 week work...toss in a nice little vacation to refresh and rejuvenate and it's just about a half years full time work....... and that's only units and only 1 minute to get it all right and that only checks one unit at a time and pre-supposes that you have an encyclopedic knowledge of every other unit in the game and doesn't allow for any cross checking.......

It's a big job and we are trying to get it to the point where we are not swamped with "error" reports or requests for changes that simply cannot be done......or reports like the first post on this thread that wasn't appreciated then or now.

Don