Integrated Air Defense System

Indeed.

If only ED had the budget of more well known AAA games with the same manpower to scale (i mean a relatively simple game like your average Call of Duty has something like 350 developers working on it)...

I wish ED had the Rockstar numbers..

950+ million budget and 1000+ employees for RDR and RDR2

It is not only about money...

Indeed.

If only ED had the budget of more well known AAA games with the same manpower to scale (i mean a relatively simple game like your average Call of Duty has something like 350 developers working on it)...

Money is always a factor, sure, but even with money, you can't guarantee skills. Simulation programming vs. action shooter programming is not the same, and quality simulation coders are not waiting around to be picked up by a studio who can afford them. Sure that you can buy them out of their current jobs, but there are not many coders with related skills.

With the right amount of money and a willingness, one could raise them through many years of training though.

There is a sim that runs purely on the efforts of volunteers with zero budget that already has an amazing IADS.... just saying...

Not quite

There is a sim that runs purely on the efforts of volunteers with zero budget that already has an amazing IADS.... just saying...

...but lacks in many other aspects. No need to discuss "others". Not allowed anyway.

Hi,

I am part of a long running Virtual squadron in Australia we are not hard core and certainly know little of actual real world tactics, but we do try to take the sim seriously. My comments were aimed at wondering how you take on an integrated system that would comprise of long and short range systems and EW that are sharing target information and tactics. Currently taking on an SA-10 with Harms and using 4 of our squadron popping up and firing from different points on the compass means we have probably a low to medium chance of getting a hit, as the big SA10 missile is (in the Sim at least) incredibly good at shooting down HARMs that would have the radar cross section of a seagull. :-)

(Yes I’m sure there are many anecdotes of how I’m doing it wrong and SA-10”s are so easy to kill, but in northern Iran when the terrain is flat it can be tricky)

 

But, I now imagine this combined with a 100 -200 kilometre SA-5 umbrella protecting the SA-10 and sharing target information. And yes that seems scary and daunting, kind of like when we were attacking them SA-10 with the Harriers Sidearm because that was the only western anti-radiation missile.

You felt like you brought a knife to a gunfight. :-)

I’m happy to get some constructive ideas around this and hopefully we will get some longer range weapons and functional jamming platforms from ED to balance the fight a bit?

 

I don’t have an answer which was why I asked the question.

Sadly (for anyone going up against an SA-10) - this is pretty much true to reality. And the double digit SAMs are one of the primary drivers for why the B-2, F-22 and the F-35 exist. Most scenarios I've seen show a 4th Gen strike package, even with EW and SEAD, don't fare all that well. About the best way to defeat an S-300/400 is to lob enough HARMs and other standoff weapons at it until you run the battery out of missiles. If/when this gets implemented in DCS - it's going to both be amazing but also very frustrating for most players. Plan to get shot down a lot. Just saying.

SA-5 threat should not be a big deal against aware fighters. It's not great against maneuverable fighters and does NOT have very good low altitude capability.

Sadly (for anyone going up against an SA-10) - this is pretty much true to reality. And the double digit SAMs are one of the primary drivers for why the B-2, F-22 and the F-35 exist. Most scenarios I've seen show a 4th Gen strike package, even with EW and SEAD, don't fare all that well. About the best way to defeat an S-300/400 is to lob enough HARMs and other standoff weapons at it until you run the battery out of missiles. If/when this gets implemented in DCS - it's going to both be amazing but also very frustrating for most players. Plan to get shot down a lot. Just saying.

 

SA-5 threat should not be a big deal against aware fighters. It's not great against maneuverable fighters and does NOT have very good low altitude capability.

This. Right now, it's far too easy to take out an SA-10 or SA-11 site with a flight of Hornets lobbing HARMs. The majority of missions and mission designers don't implement a "defense-in-depth" concept, where the SA-10 is covered by numerous other systems. There's a reason why they're also called "area denial systems". This currently requires a lot of scripting and setting up by the user and will hopefully change in the future.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=248394

we'll see if Ed does anything (I have my doubts) but this is just the 5V55R the 48N6 is not only slightly faster but also is SAGG and shouldn't trigger a full RWR warning when launched. The biggest problem with SAM's right now is not necessarily the AI -not that saying that it needs to be fixed or is very limited - but what's the point if the missiles have less than half the range they should and less than half of the maneuvering performance?

This. Right now, it's far too easy to take out an SA-10 or SA-11 site with a flight of Hornets lobbing HARMs. The majority of missions and mission designers don't implement a "defense-in-depth" concept, where the SA-10 is covered by numerous other systems. There's a reason why they're also called "area denial systems". This currently requires a lot of scripting and setting up by the user and will hopefully change in the future.

Yup...

Sadly (for anyone going up against an SA-10) - this is pretty much true to reality. And the double digit SAMs are one of the primary drivers for why the B-2, F-22 and the F-35 exist. Most scenarios I've seen show a 4th Gen strike package, even with EW and SEAD, don't fare all that well. About the best way to defeat an S-300/400 is to lob enough HARMs and other standoff weapons at it until you run the battery out of missiles. If/when this gets implemented in DCS - it's going to both be amazing but also very frustrating for most players. Plan to get shot down a lot. Just saying.

 

SA-5 threat should not be a big deal against aware fighters. It's not great against maneuverable fighters and does NOT have very good low altitude capability.

Agreed, signature reduction technologies were one way to leapfrog ahead of the IADS enviroment and allow it to be defeated in detail. At least for a time. Modern IADS have ways of dealing with stealth aircraft.

From a DCS standpoint the SA10 will also be protected by SA15's/SA19's as well and likely other shorad's not to mention various Migs being vectored in on you. SA-5 isn't much of a threat to modern fighters.

For the OP that was lobbing HARM's at the SA10 and loosing guys, that seems about right. HARM's have a terrible track record against modern mobile SAMS (see Allied Force). They are fairly good against static sites though (see iraq 1/2). The real answer is that there would be Jamming, strike, and weasel packages going after a suspected SA10 site. Of course any decent SAM commander would likely have a nice decoy site waiting for them, and then locate that in a nice kill box. Of course the blufor intel guys would suspect its a decoy, brief everyone on that, and they would still probably go into the kill box and try to kill it or at a minimum try to send in decoys to get them to turn on their FCS and then try to kill them.

The HARM success rate has most likely more to do with the lack of discipline of the iraqi operators than with the HARM itself. Had they followed the emission doctrine that was taught to them, they wouldn't have been sitting ducks.

HARM has been too effective in PC simulators due to the simplicity of the AI. The other sim started already improved on this aspect and hopefully DCS will make the whole SEAD scene a completely new dimension

Well at least on my end shooting harms to EWR sites in DCS is like using a shotgun. Really low PK.

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

Well at least on my end shooting harms to EWR sites in DCS is like using a shotgun. Really low PK.

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

HARMs are a little weird lately, regarding fuzing. They'll often explode right before reaching the target. This is sometimes enough to get a mission kill but some other times it does zero or next to zero damage to the target.

AFAIK, the HARM uses a laser proximity fuze and/or a contact fuze IRL, but I have no idea if the above behavior is correct.

HARMs are a little weird lately, regarding fuzing. They'll often explode right before reaching the target. This is sometimes enough to get a mission kill but some other times it does zero or next to zero damage to the target.

 

AFAIK, the HARM uses a laser proximity fuze and/or a contact fuze IRL, but I have no idea if the above behavior is correct.

yeah its a bummer, also because half a year ago they worked perfectly

What about various NATO SEAD, offensive jamming and ELINT aircraft ? (F-4G Wild Weasel/ EA-6B Prowler/ EF-18G Growler/ EF-111 Raven/ RC-135 River Joint...)

Because a super-smart IADS without the tools designed to fight it would be boring pretty fast. :smilewink:

What about various NATO SEAD, offensive jamming and ELINT aircraft ? (F-4G Wild Weasel/ EA-6B Prowler/ EF-18G Growler/ EF-111 Raven/ RC-135 River Joint...)

 

 

 

Because a super-smart IADS without the tools designed to fight it would be boring pretty fast. :smilewink:

Its interesting to see how ED would model the ECM as you said. Isnt it classified most of them?

Its interesting to see how ED would model the ECM as you said. Isnt it classified most of them?

Real world ECM is classified...yes. But what happens inside your computer has nothing to do with how real ECM works. In the Real world ECM detects a radio signal and decides how to counter it using radio signals...how it's done in real life is magic.

In a simulator it's completely different...the program says

"there is a signal at point X"

"is the Signal at point X a signal I want to JAM? Yes/no."

Yes - display jamming indication in cockpit. Remove radar contact from radar screen of jammed aircraft and replace with #

No - Continue to display radar contact.

Obviously this is way over simplified and a lot of programming...math is hard...but you get the Gist. The key word is simulating. Could we have dedicated Electronic Warfare Aircraft? Sure. You just write their code so they are "better" at jamming than regular fighters...Or write the code of the fighters to react differently if being jammed by an EA-6B vs an F-15.

There's nothing classified about that.

Real world ECM is classified...yes. But what happens inside your computer has nothing to do with how real ECM works. In the Real world ECM detects a radio signal and decides how to counter it using radio signals...how it's done in real life is magic.

 

In a simulator it's completely different...the program says

 

"there is a signal at point X"

 

"is the Signal at point X a signal I want to JAM? Yes/no."

 

Yes - display jamming indication in cockpit. Remove radar contact from radar screen of jammed aircraft and replace with #

 

No - Continue to display radar contact.

 

Obviously this is way over simplified and a lot of programming...math is hard...but you get the Gist. The key word is simulating. Could we have dedicated Electronic Warfare Aircraft? Sure. You just write their code so they are "better" at jamming than regular fighters...Or write the code of the fighters to react differently if being jammed by an EA-6B vs an F-15.

 

There's nothing classified about that.

I thought that the purpose of an advanced ECM is to create a fake but believable target. The methods of doing that are most likely classified.

But simulating your own way of creating fake targets is possible - problem is, that maybe the contracts prevent ED implementing something like this only they can say.

Gesendet von meinem VOG-L29 mit Tapatalk

The actual inner workings are classified as is their true effectiveness except for Vietnam era stuff (to an extent that is). But the methods employed and in general and how they work aren't. You could get a reasonable simulation of an ECM environment from what we know. Although you would have to make a few assumptions here and there.

If you want to know more look up EW 101 and 102 by David Adamy (hint look for them with your browser set to look for russian websites) and "Electronic Warfare Fundamentals"(first link). These three sources will give you pretty good understanding of how ECM works.

I thought that the purpose of an advanced ECM is to create a fake but believable target. The methods of doing that are most likely classified.

Not in the broad strokes of how its done. On the detailed hardware side sure. You can literally buy textbooks on how this is done. Stuff like noise jamming is easy enough to understand, but the various deception techniques are pretty easy to understand as well.

One oversimplified example, repeater jamming or range gate stealing: the pod copies the enemy radar pulses and returns them at a slightly different time/power, and therefore creates 2 different targets, and now here is the clever bit, it starts by returning the pulses exactly the same way, and then slowly introduces a delay, and it uses a higher power return. What the enemy tracking radar ends up tracking is the stronger set of pulses that are set to be a few hundred meters (or more) from where your plane is. So that mean ol missile ends up blowing up quite a distance from your plane. Over time there were of course ECCM techniques developed to counter this.

Now the technical details of how this is done IRL, well yeah thats not for general consumption. But you literally don't need to know any/many details to model it in DCS. Because all the sim will do is if this is on, the missile will explode 300m away.

I thought that the purpose of an advanced ECM is to create a fake but believable target. The methods of doing that are most likely classified.

Again...in the real world sure...But in the DCS "World" there is nothing classified about code that says...

"If airplane X is is using ECM...Move its radar return in the aircraft being jammed 1,000 feet to the left." "

Methods are classified...but were not simulating the methods...were simulating the Procedures and results.

Perhaps a better example is the F-117. We can put an F-117 in the game and give it an RCS of .0001. If you fly an F-18 right up behind it...it wont see it. Not because of the Faceted design of the aircraft or the RAM materiel on the prototype...But because the code says...its not there.

Conversely change the code to read 1.0 and an F-15 500 miles away could see it easily. again because the code says it cane be seen.

It that why some missiles can't be seen by anything?

..

It that why some missiles can't be seen by anything?

 

 

..

Not sure which missiles you are talking about but presumably yes.

There's nothing classified about it. If you want a fake target you can:

- Use cross-eyed jamming (difficult, generally not used)

- Bounce your jamming signal off of something (terrain, chaff, towed decoy)

- Jam in range

- Jam in angles

- Abuse the radar gain for a range-gate pull-off

The purpose of advanced ECM is to reduce enemy SA and weapon Pk, not 'make false targets' - that's just what happens and it tends to attack either the display or the automation.

SPJs (ECM typically equipped on fighters) will attempt to do things to break lock - ie. jam in range and angles at the same time or take advantage of how certain radars work and try to walk them 'off' the target using a range-gate pull-off etc.

Stand-off ECM attempts to reduce radar gain flat out, thus reducing detection ranges - it may also fill the scope with false targets, depending on the type of ECM that it is although unlike radars of old, it'll only do so along a specific azimuth these days.

I thought that the purpose of an advanced ECM is to create a fake but believable target. The methods of doing that are most likely classified.

There's nothing classified about it. If you want a fake target you can:

 

- Use cross-eyed jamming (difficult, generally not used)

- Bounce your jamming signal off of something (terrain, chaff, towed decoy)

- Jam in range

- Jam in angles

- Abuse the radar gain for a range-gate pull-off

 

The purpose of advanced ECM is to reduce enemy SA and weapon Pk, not 'make false targets' - that's just what happens and it tends to attack either the display or the automation.

 

SPJs (ECM typically equipped on fighters) will attempt to do things to break lock - ie. jam in range and angles at the same time or take advantage of how certain radars work and try to walk them 'off' the target using a range-gate pull-off etc.

 

Stand-off ECM attempts to reduce radar gain flat out, thus reducing detection ranges - it may also fill the scope with false targets, depending on the type of ECM that it is although unlike radars of old, it'll only do so along a specific azimuth these days.

The other half of the equation is that ECCM techniques in modern radars can make some of these "less" effective.