VERY BIG BUGS WITH 1.12a

[UNISOLD]

Dear developers of Lock on:

 

Every time that you take out a patch to the pilots of F-15C you don't punish it worse.

Or you stop to create patches that the only thing that you make is to destroy more the game, or to make one once and for all that it works.

From the exit of the version 1.1 have not made a patch in conditions, and the only one that has worked well (the 1.02), and very little time was.

If you have the shame of charging us for each expensión, to have the shame of making it well.

 

The bug:

 

1º) All the ecm in any way of radar of F-15c appears as enemies.

 

2º) In 80% of the occasions the contacts friends like enemies appear in the radar, when your partner takes a Russian airplane.

It is impossible to combat under these conditions, It is as flying blindly.

 

3º) Had not they repaired the contacts ghosts when it was served?.I answer them, not!!!!.

And don't think that it is a problem of my machine or of a faulty installation that there is him prove everything.

 

 

In my squadron we are tired of your incompetence, I suppose that they will be aware that this situation foments the piracy.

Personally, I will think myself acquiring their version Black Shark, Likewise, I will recommend my people the same thing.

 

Repair this situation, since we has us quite tired!!!...

[ФрогФут]

1º) All the ecm in any way of radar of F-15c appears as enemies.

And how do you think the radar will know, who that is, if ECM is on?

[GGTharos]

According to real fighter pilots, IFF works to sort the problem out. That's what I hear.

[tflash]

It is possible that IFF sorts it out, but of course on condition that all coalition aircraft have compatible systems and updated to same standard, have had proper integration training etc. AND in any case CAOC and Awacs would carefully separate these flights to minimize the risk of blue-on-blue. You cannot decide to make a coalition with Ukraine at once, take the air together and get into a furball and having IFF sorting everything out.

 

Realism does mean indeed there is extra risk if your coalition partners fly the same gear as the enemy and you're not prepared for it.

[SwingKid]

According to real fighter pilots, IFF works to sort the problem out.

 

This from the same guys who shot down two Blackhawks?

 

-SK

[UNISOLD]

Dear tflash:

 

The IFF system this is independent signal to depending on the army,If not F-16 of the different armies of the world could not be distinguished, therefore, he has to be possible to make a coalition with anyone.

I am a Sam operary, and the IFF frecuency is independent in each army.

[tflash]

You are certainly right about the frequency, but not on the data encryption. The reason why new NATO members had to upgrade all their IFF gear is precisely this: the IFF equipment has to be able to code/decode to the latest operational standards, or do I see this wrong?

[GGTharos]

This from the same guys who shot down two Blackhawks?

 

-SK

 

Snide remarks don't help. Maybe those helos didn't have IFF running? IIRC wasn't it an AWACS that vectored the 15's in, IE, the IFF was NOT running?

[Kula66]

I thought one of the pilots visual ID one as a Hind?

[D-Scythe]

Snide remarks don't help. Maybe those helos didn't have IFF running? IIRC wasn't it an AWACS that vectored the 15's in, IE, the IFF was NOT running?

 

That's what I heard too. The Blackhawks didn't have their IFF running.

[GGTharos]

I thought one of the pilots visual ID one as a Hind?

 

 

Yep ... and they both got busted for not doing the VID properly.

[tflash]

So the most reliable IFF isn't the Mark I Eyeball after all? In the press releases on the Iris-T for Eurofighter they stress the point that it will become the primary weapon for Eurofighter, "given the need for visual identification in today's air-to-air combat" ... they seem rather sceptical about IFF?

[Kula66]

I thought the idea was to have 2 different confirmations ... so AWAC and IFF or visual AND something ... one sensor wasn't enough.

 

IR sensors are passive ... BIG plus ... also I guess the range of IR/Camera sensors is growing to match BVR weapons.

[SwingKid]

Snide remarks don't help. Maybe those helos didn't have IFF running? IIRC wasn't it an AWACS that vectored the 15's in, IE, the IFF was NOT running?

 

Ok fair enough, let's discuss the physics then.

 

IFF frequency is about 1 GHz, radar frequency is about 10 GHz.

For the same antenna size, therefore, IFF has about 1/10 the angular resolution of the radar beam.

So, if the friendly and enemy aircraft are close enough together, and there are ECM signals mixed together with IFF signals, then the IFF interrogator can't physically resolve them as separate, up to about 1/10th the distance that the radar can resolve them as separate.

So, how does the IFF interrogator filter out one, but not the other? (i.e. determine which target the ECMs and IFF replies are coming from)

 

-SK

[Rhen]

Ok fair enough, let's discuss the physics then.

 

IFF frequency is about 1 GHz, radar frequency is about 10 GHz.

For the same antenna size, therefore, IFF has about 1/10 the angular resolution of the radar beam.

So, if the friendly and enemy aircraft are close enough together, and there are ECM signals mixed together with IFF signals, then the IFF interrogator can't physically resolve them as separate, up to about 1/10th the distance that the radar can resolve them as separate.

So, how does the IFF interrogator filter out one, but not the other? (i.e. determine which target the ECMs and IFF replies are coming from)

 

-SK

 

Quite correct, if two targets - one friendly and one enemy who's jamming are within close proximity, interrogating IFF of the friendly will cause the enemy to appear as friendly as long as they can't be resolved.

 

Realize also that IFF is a little like Mode C. NATO has modes 1, 2, 3 (mode c), and 4. Each of these can be interrogated and responded to independently of other methods of threat identification.

 

With regard to the blackhawk shoot down, one of the pilots was my contemporary. In his defense, the blackhawks were flying off of a flight plan (hence AWACS didn't know about them despite being a flight listed on the ATO), the F-15s did not pick up a signal from the blackhawks after attempts to interrogate the blackhawks mode4 (the blackhawk mode 1 was incorrect or not inserted), they got picked up by the F-15s radar and the AWACS confirmed their presence. Unfortunately got vid'd incorrectly because the F-15s kept their speed up and safe distance from them to prevent at least a guns hit from the hind.

This is a Hind

 

 

You make the call at 450knots, when the AWACS isn't calling them friendly either.

[Prophet_169th]

Very good case.

 

Though I was only National Guard anti-armor, and we didnt drill often, I know regular duty probably studies VID more often.

 

There are key differences that should be looked for in the VID. I would think in this case, the cockpit is the key identifying feature.

 

Not my place to judge tho.

[RedAssAg05]

Also (to continue an academic discussion), where the Blackhawks that were shot down DAPs, SpecOps, or a different role? Not all -60s fly with pylons attached...which would be another profile difference.

[Bravo020]

Number and position of rotors is usually quite a major VID. Hind = 5 + 3 with tail rotor on the left hand side. Black Hawk = 4 + 4 with tail rotor on the right hand side. (If I see it correctly).

 

Then again, there could of course be variants (left hand / right hand drive ;-)??).

[SwingKid]

Sorry guys, I didn't mean to change the topic. GG was correct, I was being "snide" to express doubts about IFF capability in an ECM environment, and it turned out in very poor taste. Not good style. My apologies, especially to Rhen.

 

Someone should decrease my rep for this..

 

-SK

[GGTharos]

I think it brought up some important questions again though SK ... on one hand, I've got pilots swearing up and down that you 'will know what you're shooting at long before you take the shot' and that IFF works well enough (ie. IFF will still ID the fiendly jammer as friendly, potentially the secret-mode IFF may even divulge exact position) and so on and so forth, and at the same time mask an enemy and oh ... you get the idea.

 

No straight answers, probably because parts of these things are classified.

[Brit_Radar_Dude]

Rhen - NATO has modes 1, 2, 3 (mode c), and 4. Each of these can be interrogated and responded to independently of other methods of threat identification.

True but slightly off the mark in that the whole world uses Modes 1, 2, 3 and C, none of these modes are in any way secret or encrypted. In a serious conflict against a non-trivial foe, the first thing a pilot will do when he gets in his jet is switch off Modes 1, 2, 3 and C. Look on left hand side panel of your A-10 cockpit in lockon and you can just see that there are individual switches to inhibit replying to each Mode.

 

 

Only Mode 4 is encrypted and in a very simple way really. It is used by NATO and a bunch of friendly countries, but the technology dates back to the 1950's. It is long overdue for replacement but there are thousands of platforms that would need upgrading - both the transponders (black box on the plane/ship etc that replies to the interrogation) and the radars that generate the interrogation. Hence the introduction of a replacement system has been delayed and delayed....

 

 

Swingkid - I was being "snide" to express doubts about IFF capability in an ECM environment

Well actually I kinda agree with you. IFF capability can be degraded by jamming although I would not expect fighter sized aircraft to be carrying the type of ECM equipment to do it.

 

What folks need to understand is that IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) is a poor choice of name. If we are talking about a Mode 4 only environment (which in the context of a conflict in the LOMAC world is realistic), then it really is Identification Friend or "someone else" where someone else means

1) a friend whose transponder is faulty or switched off

2) a friend who has the wrong encryption code (eg. yesterday's code)

3) a friend whose replies to us are affected by Mode 4 jamming

4) a civilian aircraft that has no Mode 4 capability

5) the enemy

[crazyleggs]

With regard to the blackhawk shoot down, one of the pilots was my contemporary. In his defense, the blackhawks were flying off of a flight plan (hence AWACS didn't know about them despite being a flight listed on the ATO), the F-15s did not pick up a signal from the blackhawks after attempts to interrogate the blackhawks mode4 (the blackhawk mode 1 was incorrect or not inserted), they got picked up by the F-15s radar and the AWACS confirmed their presence. Unfortunately got vid'd incorrectly because the F-15s kept their speed up and safe distance from them to prevent at least a guns hit from the hind.

 

You make the call at 450knots, when the AWACS isn't calling them friendly either.

 

Quite correct. Making a VId looking down, outside the perceived WEZ and with a big speed diferential is not easy. Not all pilot are recce kings either.

 

Number and position of rotors is usually quite a major VID. Hind = 5 + 3 with tail rotor on the left hand side. Black Hawk = 4 + 4 with tail rotor on the right hand side. (If I see it correctly).

 

Then again, there could of course be variants (left hand / right hand drive ;-)??).

 

Maybe on static display but not in flight. You have to see this from the pilot's point of view.

 

I think it brought up some important questions again though SK ... on one hand, I've got pilots swearing up and down that you 'will know what you're shooting at long before you take the shot' and that IFF works well enough (ie. IFF will still ID the fiendly jammer as friendly, potentially the secret-mode IFF may even divulge exact position) and so on and so forth, and at the same time mask an enemy and oh ... you get the idea.

 

No straight answers, probably because parts of these things are classified.

 

Well I hope that is the case every time they shoot. Truth is that long range shots taken in a hostile electronic environment are rarely possible. Radar and IFF alone are not enough to break out targets supported by ECM. This is when data fusion kicks in (EO/IR, GCI, AWACS and Data Link) and resolves your targetting ambiguities.

 

On the IFF and ECM front, unless you are 1v1 against a friendly aircraft that is jamming and is replying with the correct Mode 4, there is no way you can corrolate a jamming strobe on your radar with IFF. LOMAC has it right. Unless you know the point of origin of the target is hostile territory and/or you've got Russian data link, you cannot determine whether the ECM is friendly or not.

[Rhen]

@Britradardude. Actually it's quite accurate. The ATO designates what we will squawk for the different modes. While you are correct that Modes 1,2,3 are available for all military assets, these codes are input IAW the ATO. We can then interrogate mode 1 and find out what base the aircraft is from, mode 2 for it's type/mission, mode 4 for - as you say - "identification friend or ?".

 

It's actually IFF/SIF - Identification Friend-or-Foe/Selective Identification Feature. We interrogate each of the modes to determine WHAT the aircraft is doing, WHERE it's from, and whether it has proper Mode 4 ID. The Blackhawks use of Mode 1 would have enabled the F-15s to determine where the copter was from and where in the ATO to find it's info, which could've been looked up by the AWACS.

 

When the other modes (other than mode 4) are not programmed correctly or lacks all the ATO programmed IFF/SIF modes, we use the code word SPADES since that contact does NOT exhibt the modes and codes for ID, as in this case.

[Kula66]

You make the call at 450knots, when the AWACS isn't calling them friendly either.

 

Its an easy call for arm chair pilots (like me) ... but in RL about a million times harder! And someone is going to die!

[Brit_Radar_Dude]

Rhen - I think we are on the same page, the underlying cause of these unfortunate incidents is usually procedural and not the fault of the technology.

I always have to remind people that leaving a message on an answering machine, sending me a text message or an E-Mail is not guaranteed to get the message to me.