ECM in Lock On Vs F4 - Realism question...

[GGTharos]

Nono, I mean chaff and flares :)

[Pilotasso]

Which aircraft is carrying towed decoys?:o

 

As far as I know the Typhoon does, so do a number of other aircraft but I cant remenber (rafale?)

[EvilBivol-1]

Now that this discussion is back, I've got a quick question. SK, I remember reading through your lengthy arguments that eventually deduced the "myth" of burn-through. Can I ask you for a short and simple explanation of just what is the verdict on this? I ask because I've got a short handout from the Air National Guard that mentions "burn-through" in one of the bulleted points about EW. We also keep bringing it up here. So, obviously the concept is real. Is it just insignificant? Or very limited in application? What's the deal?

[SwingKid]

I ask because I've got a short handout from the Air National Guard that mentions "burn-through" in one of the bulleted points about EW. We also keep bringing it up here. So, obviously the concept is real. Is it just insignificant? Or very limited in application? What's the deal?

 

The caption under the image in post #26 gives a hint - "burn-through" can be tactically significant when the jamming is in the victim radar's side-lobes.

 

For example, in Lock On, we can get an azimuth-only lock on a target even if it is using ECM. This involves aiming your radar antenna directly at the target. You know the bearing to the target, you just don't know its range.

 

If jamming is entering the antenna sidelobes, on the other hand - not only can you not tell the range to the target, but you can't even tell the bearing. No matter which way you point your radar, jamming power looks like it's coming from that direction (when really it's coming from the side). This can "white out" your radar display (as opposed to the nice, easily-locked vertical band we have now in Lock On).

 

This sidelobe jamming is what gets "burned through". Eventually, as the range closes, the jamming on the sidelobes can't compete with the signals being received in the radar antenna's real direction of focus. This allows you to break out the target bearing "vertical band" from the rest of the noise on your radar display, and fire weapons in the correct direction.

 

But that is Vietnam-era stuff. Modern phased array radars have special techniques for suppressing sidelobe jamming, so we don't generally see any sidelobe jamming at all in our sims, but rather only the nice clean vertical strobe on the correct bearing to the target. That part of the jamming, on the main beam, should practically never "burn through".

 

Can you quote the context of the ANG article? Is it talking about "burnthrough" accomplished by older radars like SA-2, SA-3?

 

-SK

[SUBS17]

As far as I know the Typhoon does, so do a number of other aircraft but I cant remenber (rafale?)

 

I'm refering to lockon.:D

[Yellonet]

*snip*...so we don't generally see any sidelobe jamming at all in our sims, but rather only the nice clean vertical strobe on the correct bearing to the target. That part of the jamming, on the main beam, should practically never "burn through".

 

Can you quote the context of the ANG article? Is it talking about "burnthrough" accomplished by older radars like SA-2, SA-3?

 

-SK

So what you are saying is that the range denial jamming in LockOn should not be burned through as easily (long range) as it is now?

If so that should be easy enough to change for the next patch (1.2? :().

[raptorman]

If so that should be easy enough to change for the next patch (1.2? :().

 

That would depend on how the burnthrough range is calculated. If it just depends on a variable that could be easily changed, yes, if it's calculated using complex algorithms (sp?), it won't be that easy to change.

[GGTharos]

It burns through at the same range for all aircraft. It doesn't seem particularely complex.

 

On the other hand, there are no real ECCM methods implemented in LOMAC either, and burn-through is a substitute for those IMHO.

[Yellonet]

That would depend on how the burnthrough range is calculated. If it just depends on a variable that could be easily changed, yes, if it's calculated using complex algorithms (sp?), it won't be that easy to change.

Well the algorithms shouldn't be the problem but rather the data that is fed to them.. change the data and the algorithm should give a more realistic result.

[Yellonet]

It burns through at the same range for all aircraft. It doesn't seem particularely complex.

 

On the other hand, there are no real ECCM methods implemented in LOMAC either, and burn-through is a substitute for those IMHO.

A not so good compromise if you ask me :icon_neut

[raptorman]

Well the algorithms shouldn't be the problem but rather the data that is fed to them.. change the data and the algorithm should give a more realistic result.

 

To me it seems the data now is as accurate as possible, but the results aren't, so you can indeed change the data and with trial and error checks to see if the results are like they should be, or, what would seem more logical to me, make a correct algorithm.

[Yellonet]

To me it seems the data now is as accurate as possible, but the results aren't, so you can indeed change the data and with trial and error checks to see if the results are like they should be, or, what would seem more logical to me, make a correct algorithm.

Well I don't know how they made this game so...

[raptorman]

Well I don't know how they made this game so...

 

Me neither, therefor the "to me it seems" :)

[Yellonet]

Me neither, therefor the "to me it seems" :)

Gotcha ;)

[SUBS17]

A not so good compromise if you ask me :icon_neut

 

Well that depends on which way you look at it, in both lockon and F4 the effect is essentially the same. To model the more complex aspects of this would obviously require either TopSecret data which ain't going to happen or a good guess. Either way the results would be the same, the player isn't going to notice or feel these effects in his radar other than losing lock or taking longer to acquire a lock.

[SwingKid]

To model the more complex aspects of this would obviously require either TopSecret data

 

Not true.

 

-SK

[crazyleggs]

SK is correct. There is plenty of unclas literature out there on ECM and ECCM theory and techniques.

 

The problem is identifying the ECM techniques each different jammer uses. Same can be said for ECCM techniques for each radar. Good luck finding unclas info on the ALQ-135's ECM techniques, which ones are employed when and how they affect certain radars. All that real and accurate info is at least SECRET in nature.

 

We can guess all we want but that's exactly what these sims are; guesses. That said, if ED had the time and resources, they could get into more generic ECM techniques such as blinking noise, amplitude modulation, cover pulses, range and velocity gates stealing, etc...

 

Bringing in those techniques would really affect gameplay. Theoretically you would take away the long sticks and would be fighting WVR all the time. ED has to and will have to balance between gameplay and simulation.

[MBot]

This is all very interesting, but I have problems to include the whole ECM/ECCM subject into the picture of airwar. Perhaps two question could help me on this:

 

1. How much interaction does the pilot have with his ECM/ECCM gear ? Can he manualy select jamming methodes, adjust frequencies and work the system or is the whole jammer buisines simply an on/off switch from the pilots point of view, with all the details beeing dealt within the system ? How about on more sophisticated dual seat airplanes with more complex ECM systems like the F-15E or Tornado ( the WSO has to do 'something' at last ) ?

 

2. How much do the different jamming techniques affect the tactics of airwar. What will effectivly change from the players point of view with the introduction of all those jamming and ECCM techniques ?

 

 

I have so far gained the impression that much of the Electronic Warfare in the context of fighter aircraft happens deep inside the avionic system, with ECCM countering ECM technique countered by ECM etc. And the pilot doesn't take much notice of it at all but only takes notice of the conclusive output on his radar scope ( dedection yes/no, range unknown/known ). Is this a fundamentaly wrong view of the subject ?

[GGTharos]

1. Pretty automated from the looks of it. The 'bigger' planes where the crew DOES somethign with the jammer are thigns like teh EA-6, EF-111, etc. Also big bombers like B-52 and B-1B AFAIK.

 

2. A lot. Some work against some types of radars and missiles, some don't. You better have the right stuff. You would see various jamming techniques possibly manifest differently - ie. a range gate stealer might make it look like your target's suddenly flying away at very high speed, or just drop STT. An angles jammer might produce a horizontal jammer line, or white out your scope.

You will also have to use specific techniques to defeat the jammer in some way - ie. there's a triangulation method for the F-15C's radar that can be used to estimate the range of the jammming craft, for example, and this procedure requires the execution of a specific flight pattern for a few seconds.

 

That sort of thing.

[Force_Feedback]

This is all very interesting, but I have problems to include the whole ECM/ECCM subject into the picture of airwar. Perhaps two question could help me on this:

 

1. How much interaction does the pilot have with his ECM/ECCM gear ? Can he manualy select jamming methodes, adjust frequencies and work the system or is the whole jammer buisines simply an on/off switch from the pilots point of view, with all the details beeing dealt within the system ?

 

Yes, there are different jamming modes on the mig and su-27(k), I guess the ALQ-131 and the internal jammer of the f15c have them as well. There are modes to "pre warm ECM" (to put it in standby mode, ie the jammer will compute all the incoming signals, in preparation of a jamming session. This took like 3 seconds on ecm systems in the eighties).

 

Then you can select what kind of radar you want to be jammed (or all of them at once), ie a SAM Search radar, a naval radar, an AWACS radar, or a fighter radar. There are some more modes concerning the transmission patterns or something similar, but I forgot about them. I'll try to search for some info regarding those.

[crazyleggs]

1. How much interaction does the pilot have with his ECM/ECCM gear ? Can he manually select jamming methods, adjust frequencies and work the system or is the whole jammer business simply an on/off switch from the pilots point of view, with all the details being dealt within the system ? How about on more sophisticated dual seat airplanes with more complex ECM systems like the F-15E or Tornado ( the WSO has to do 'something' at last ) ?

 

Good question. On most airframes, it's a selection of program and on/off switch. The pilot and WSOs are WAY too busy to figure out jamming methods, freqs, etc. Thankfully there are engineers who figure out all the black magic stuff. The system knows that when the aircraft is being targeted by an APG-XX in STT it should use XX technique. No thinking required by the operator. Just like Maverick said "if you think out there, you're dead!" ;)

 

2. How much do the different jamming techniques affect the tactics of airwar. What will effectively change from the players point of view with the introduction of all those jamming and ECCM techniques ?

 

Theoretically, your SPJ should take away or at least lower the Pk of any BVR and radar SAM shot against you. Having an escort and/or stand off jammer is a force multiplier.

 

If ED modeled some of the generic ECM techniques, as a player you could see multiple false targets, no targets at all, no burn through, instant break locks and incorrect data in STT for example. In multiplayer, it could make things even harder than they are now.

 

I have so far gained the impression that much of the Electronic Warfare in the context of fighter aircraft happens deep inside the avionic system, with ECCM countering ECM technique countered by ECM etc. And the pilot doesn't take much notice of it at all but only takes notice of the conclusive output on his radar scope ( detection yes/no, range unknown/known ). Is this a fundamentally wrong view of the subject ?

 

Pretty much bang on but as pilots and WSOs get more exposure to ECM, they learn very quickly to recognise it and to tactically employ their aircraft to get around it.

[Force_Feedback]

Ok, from the Su-27 (kn) manual:

 

(Sorry for the dodgy translation, but it's late, and teh gool old brain is resisting any attempty to think logically)

 

The station (ecm pods) creates: (the following types of jamming)

 

-Radar jamming system (ECM) with uninterrupted or quasi-interrupted transmission, working in the "search and lock mode with tracking"

-Radar jamming system (ECM) with uninterrupted or quasi-interrupted transmission, working in "tracking mode"

-Radar jamming system (ECM) with impulse transmissions, working in locking mode

-Radar jamming system (ECM) with impulse transmissions, working in tracking mode

-Jamming system for "flickering" jamming of Radars and missile seeker heads when flying planes in a pair (one jammer covers 2 planes in formation)

-Jamming system to jam missile seeker heads

-Re-aiming of missile seeker head to underlining surface (water or ground), when flying from 50 to 500 meters. (don't think that's moddeled in lomac :p)

 

-Jamming in the following quarters: azimuth +- 60 degrees "location angle" 30 degrees Forward and rear hemisphere.

 

 

Getting too late for me, and got lots of stuff to do, tomorrow, I'll translate the part where it describes how to operate the system.

[GGTharos]

-Re-aiming of missile seeker head to underlining surface (water or ground), when flying from 50 to 500 meters. (don't think that's moddeled in lomac :p)

 

This is ground-bounce.

[SwingKid]

Bringing in those techniques would really affect gameplay. Theoretically you would take away the long sticks and would be fighting WVR all the time.

 

Yes, this is my dream... Just like Vietnam, and Falcon 3.0...

 

Imagine, modern day "Il-2", where we actually get to see each others' amazing 3D models and aircraft skins from the cockpit, instead of just external-view forum screenshots... All thanks to ECM.

 

I'd rep you again! but it won't let me; seems I've already repped everybody in sight. It's the thought that counts? :)

 

-SK

[MBot]

Yes, this is my dream... Just like Vietnam, and Falcon 3.0...

 

Imagine, modern day "Il-2", where we actually get to see each others' amazing 3D models and aircraft skins from the cockpit, instead of just external-view forum screenshots... All thanks to ECM.

 

Now we just need rear aspect heaters. Hey wait, we will get rear aspect heaters :)