"sidekick" jammer
 

I've been using the perry and the subs lately in order to have some skills for when noone wants a human helo or P-3. I noticed under the specifications that something called a "sidekick" jammer is employed on the FFG-7 and is modelled in the game.

I went online to see what it is and the closest I came are 2 incidents in which FFG-7s were hit by Iraqi Exocet missiles. Knowing about the falkland debacle (no-offense to the british guys around) it's a miracle these ships survived. Anyway, after the second incident the ships were given these "sidekick" jammers I guess to help avert missiles.

I was wondering, it says the jammer is modelled in the game, but can it really throw off a missile? and if so, what chance does it have of doing so?

I know the game engine about as well as anyone, including some of the developers, and I can't say I know the answer to that question, although it is something that was on my mind just today.

So, unfortunately, the answer at this time is: we don't know.

Sorry.

Although, if it isn't implimented, I know exactly how I would impliment it for the LWAMI mod, so it WILL be in the game at some point.

Cheers,
David

oh well, just wondering.

Re: "sidekick" jammer
 

Yes, it would be nice to be able to represent jammers because it would mean that different missiles have different effectiveness against different platforms, independently modified from their radar signitures. It would act to the complexity to the game and compexity is always good :).. and heck its a large part of RL missile defense.

The electronics on the side of the radar panels are deticated jammers iirc ---------> http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../ddg-74-22.jpg

It just has to be figured out eventually... if your into modding you could always give modding the database or doctrine a try to see what you come up with.

Not to hijack your thread, but.... iirc the british ships took a worst turn because the constructions material was the lighter yet more fire prone aluminum construction that was considered more efficient but less survivable, where as the FFG was built of good old fashion steel less fire prone... iirc

Well, the jammer would explain why the US surface ships sound more like jets than boats.

Re: "sidekick" jammer
 

Accoring to this site: http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ship/ffg-7.htm, the superstructure of a FFG is good old aluminum. At the bottom of this page they discuss the increased damage of 2 FFG's due to this construction.

Re: "sidekick" jammer
 

Did some more digging..... actually what I wrote before is actually one of the greatest rumors and myths about the sheffield....

Its actually the OHP that has the aluminum superstructure (As BhN said) and the Sheffield actually had solid steel. Just the opposite of what I originally thought..... learn something new everyday.

Guess the Shieffield was just that unlucky and those FFGs just that fortunate.... or maybe the engineering is just better?

Its been a while since I read up on it but one of the major reasons the Sheffield was lost is because IIRC it only had 2 or 3 fire-fighting foam systems of which at least one was put out of action and adaquate damage control could not take place. Most of what you hear about Aluminum in the Falklands war comes from the Type 21 Frigates that were lost. They did use mostly (if not completly, I'm not sure) aluminum construction, and both were lost to fire and bomb damage. Of the 2 Oliver Hazzard Perry class frigates that were damaged in the Persian Gulf, only the USS Stark was struck by Exocet SSMs. The other ship, USS Samuel B. Roberts struck an Iranian mine in 1988 which prompted the USN to launch Operation Preying Mantis, which sunk one of the Iranian's British built frigates.