SgtPappy

Yeah the F/A-18 recent ECM update gives me some hope that there may be an ECM/ECCM update eventually. Though I've got my fingers crossed, I surely don't want to be the conductor for that hype train just yet!

As mentioned earlier, the missile guidance logic/API whatever you want to call it appears to have coincided with this bug's emergence at least when it comes to the AIM-120's, AIM-7's etc. but not the R-77, R-27ER which were not affected by the guidance update. Since this bug only happens when the jammers blink (causing the affected missiles to go from HoJ to losing lock completely even at very short WVR combat), it makes sense to make the manually-blinked jammers (i.e. Mirage 2000, F-14, and F/A-18 now?) to be unable to blink at any rate that would affect the missiles. This would be the 15 sec warmup time was done to the FC3 planes' ECM which prevented another lock-related bug back in the day and that worked as intended. However I think the problem may not be completely solved and I'm just thinking out loud here: I would think if the 15 sec warmup is implemented, the jammer will trash one missile upon turning off (so whatever missile is on the way will lose lock) but 15 sec later, any other missile on the way will likely hit whether the jammer turns on or not. However some missiles can be launched past 15 sec TTI, and those ones will be affected if the jammer then turns off again. Maybe the warmup time should be longer? Or maybe I've got something backwards.

Actually as I understand, the reason it was actually never noticed before in addition to what yaga mentioned is that this bug did not come into effect until the missile API update which was last year I think. EDIT: and now I read above that the Hornets can do this too, further adding to the FF modules that can do this. The intercept geometry of the AIM-120's, AIM-7 and AIM-54s all changed and maybe even a few more missiles were affected. I can't remember. At any rate, I tested this a bit (my original thread here) and found that indeed, some missiles were NOT affected at all and these happened to not get the API update as I understand (i.e. R-27ER, correct me if I'm wrong). Since that time, I saw 1 guy in an F-14B simply fly hot, wagging side to side with some chaff and his jammer on spoof all my AIM-7s launched from 8, 6 and 4 nm. The tracks and videos provided in my old post then show my testing online with a buddy and the AMRAAMs.

Is evidence still being collected? I have this flashing issue on every map whenever there's smoke from an aircraft explosion. I've been flying almost exclusively jets. It's been happening since as long as I can remember, but it's true that it seems to happen more often when there are clouds.. honestly I've lost track. I've tried turning of MSAA as some have pointed out but it hasn't worked. Here are some clips: Right when he gets hit around 3:18 - 3:19, there's a flash (slightly older version of OB on Syria): My graphics settings (I'm using an RX580, 16G RAM, windows 10 x64):

I've had something like this happen to me once where I lost lock a target (M2k) in my F-15 for the rest of the fight and he got shot down. We messaged each other in the chat and he thought I killed him but then I checked the tacview and my AIM-7MH hit from something like ~15 nm near sea level even though I turned away at one point while terrain masking. Need to find the tacview later if I still have it. I've only observed it once unfortunately, cannot reproduce so far.

It might be a lot more involved than we think, hard to tell unless we were the ones actually working on the code.

I'm not 100% sure if this is a bug or is currently simply a limitation. I do not remember any missile flying towards a last known position during any patch. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Interesting discussion. Is there public knowledge out there stating what frequencies the AMRAAM uses? If using the high end of the X-band or even Ku band, it will achieve finer res cell resolution in sacrifice for higher signal attenuation (not as much of a concern if the active range is pretty close). More advanced modern systems might even be performing FFT's to analyze the spectrum of the return and reject the wide bandwidth that chaff returns at very close ranges, thereby rejecting chaff more. Any one have good sources for these possible CCM techniques?

I can confirm that steady jamming transmission in the F-15 does not have the same effect.

Well that's not exactly correct. Gaming inherently has limitations so one would need to work within those limitations to have the desired effect. The assumption here is that the missiles cannot lose lock or do other unintentional maneuvers at close range on a hot target. If that is fulfilled, what does it matter if the Blackbox workings aren't known to the player? ECM today is limited and is so classified that it would be difficult to implement, but ED is working on it regardless. After all we can't feel real blackouts at 9G while sitting in our gaming chair so the blackout we have in the game is manufactured to simulate that within limitations of the game and today's commercially available technology.

This is interesting and I'm not surprised it is actually quite a simple message. Good to know. All we know is that is experimentally shown that a target with blinking ECM that is dropping chaff coincides with missiles missing at that target. The inner workings aren't known well but these appear to be cause and effect.

Thanks dundun. It's nice to see that the bug i reported originally is getting lots of attention. I thank ED for the missiles API updates which makes their intercept geometry far more realistic and challenging to trash. It does seem however this bug is related to said update unfortunately. Though a lot is classified for jammers, it is unlikely that what we're seeing today is the intent especially since the missiles are affected all the way to Rmin when one would expect jamming to be effective primarily at BVR ranges.

This is the same bug I've reported in This thread where I tested it online and it is unfortunately difficult to fight anyone in the F-14 as a result. R-77 and R-27ER are unaffected by this bug. It happens with the F-14 since the jammer automatically blinks unlike the other jammers but is otherwise the same as the other jammers. The issue appears to be all the missiles which have had a recent API update which still affects them past burn through. Of course it happens vs AI as well but AI missiles and countermeasures work differently. EDIT: I found that the R-27R is affected but the ER is not. I'll have to look at OP's tracks after work.

Good work, Hummingbird, Captain_Dalan and Victory205!

I think this needs to be in everyone's heads before they post an angry retort. I am no exception. As HB has said many times, we are all passionate and sometimes it comes out as angry. Still I think sometimes it's easy to see things like sarcasm and direct insults which is definitely not productive and sometimes pop up which in the grand scheme of things aren't justified for something as "trivial" as our hobby. We are playing a game after all - a masterpiece and work of art but no need to rage over a game.

Ah you're right, sorry, ECM is all I think about these days You did however quote DCS Fighter Pilot above who is complaining about 1 chaff with beaming which is probably not too accurate. Without sufficient clutter, (ground or chaff), beaming shouldn't do a thing for a valid lock since lock-on sets up range, azimuth and in PD radars, Doppler gates. The Tomcat will use Pulse mode when its Doppler mode loses sufficient return. Clutter outside these gates will be rejected which is why you need to introduce clutter into your res cell by being very close to the ground while beaming and/or introducing chaff. The issue here IIRC, is that some people are having the issue where a simple beam and 1 chaff pop will break AIM-54 lock within visual range, even far from ground clutter (which needs to be only tens of metres away from a plane, not thousands of feet looking down).

While you are correct, there is much more to this than you imply. Most people in these forums already know this. For one thing, the resolution cell size is a big factor in whether the chaff will truly shift the RCS centroid by enough to create the angle tracking error needed to break lock. As you get closer, the resolution cell becomes smaller and it becomes less likely for chaff to expand in time while within the same cell as the aircraft for the radar lock to see the chaff return as a part of the aircraft return. Furthermore, the closer you get, the easier it is to come out of the notch since the defending aircraft more quickly has an angle off the attacking radar to no longer offer a below minimum Doppler return. In this case, even old radars will attempt to look for you again by scanning in the direction of your last known trajectory to pick you up once there is strong enough of a return. This is why it is necessary to maneuver, so as to throw off any predictive scan. Finally, though DCS does not model this directly, newer radars (like those in the AIM-120 most likely, I'd be surprised if not) can perform chaff rejection using things like FFT's to discern the wide broadband return that chaff gives among other techniques that lead to better CCM. In game, this is modeled by simple chaff rejection probability. So while it is *possible* that something like an AIM-54A is very similar to the analog AWG-9 which, according to reputable sources does not have such FFT capability or fine azimuth resolution and therefore has worse CCM, it is also not extremely likely that a single bundle of chaff will shift the RCS centroid by enough at close ranges to force a break-lock per the reasons above. For what it's worth, I have been unable to spoof an AIM-54A with 1 piece of chaff in the beam in recent tests - maybe only others are having this issue. I always have to pull at least 5G while in the beaming plane and popping more than 1 piece of chaff (maybe only 3 or 4).

I'll take this opportunity to shove my thread on missile guidance vs the tomcat jammer Check out this thread, one of more than one example of the difficulty that is quite frustrating online: F-14 Jammer renders new API missiles almost useless It has tacviews and videos showing my testing online with a friend. We even switched alternatively flew the tomcat to make sure it wasn't only on my end.

This makes sense since the AIM-7 also has a similar upgrade. I remember the AIM-54s also having API updates about 4 or 5 patches ago but I didn't test those but I suspect the same issue will present itself. The R-27ER and R-77 I suppose don't have any API upgrades but the R-27R had some improvements when the AIM-7 got new API which might explain the disparity. As for the jamming in the F-14, I confirmed with HB that they modeled it simply to blink so as to break lock when you try to HOJ to make it more involved than just a simple "always on" strobe. They stated that the jamming would therefore be ignored when you burn through the jamming. I do not believe it was their intent to have some missiles completely break once you reach this burn-through range.

A little bit of a bump - but also I wanted to post another video. I think it's more missile-related than F-14-related as it affects only some weapons. Here's a WVR dogfight showing the AIM-120C intermittently losing and tracking an F-14 (apologies there's a bit of good ol' gamer swearing, but nothing too bad): More F-14 jammer vs AIM-120C shenanigans

Posted a few threads first about AIM-7's then realized it appears that the F-14A/B jammer may not be working as intended in combination with the missiles in the title. The AIM-7M/MH, R-27R, AIM-120BC and SD-10 can be spoofed WVR by a hot F-14A/B that only cranks side to side to keep the attacker within gimbal limits provided it is dropping chaff and has the jammer on. Strangely, the R-27ER and R-77 are unaffected by this tactic. I tested the AIM-7MH and AIM-120C online with a friend flying the F/A-18 and the F-15 and results were consistent although the AIM-120C went ballistic about 9/10 times, the AIM-7MH went ballistic 100% of the time. The rest of the missiles I tested offline vs. AI. Sorry to be posting similar topics but I think this time, I have the right conclusion. Can someone please confirm this is the same case for them? ALQ-126 with chaff overpowering AMRAAMs and AIM-7s - Tacview-20201230-222208-DCS-BFM_ACM_Clinic_BVR.zip.acmi F-14B jammer off and chaff vs AIM-7 Tacview-20201229-180805-DCS-missile test - Syria.zip.acmi F-14B jammer on and chaff vs AIM-7 - Tacview-20201229-180638-DCS-missile test - Syria.zip.acmi

Probably posted many times but "BIO" Baranek the F-14 RIO has stated his opinion on TWS and that picking up targets in Pulse was the mark of a real good RIO since TWS truly created a lot of false tracks. It seems quite consistent with the DCS Tomcat: Thoughts on Radar Modes of the AWG-9 by Dave Baranek

This is awesome, thank you so much for your work and these excellent missions. Just played Cage the Bear mission 1 with some friends (RIO and a wingman) and it was so much fun. Keep it up!

I noticed that both in MP and SP, the ALQ-126 is a unique jammer (talking only within DCS for obvious reasons). Locking onto a jammer strobe gives momentary lockon to the F-14A/B but then the lock is quickly broken at > burn through range. Once burn through is achieved, it appears one can lock on to the F-14A/B but firing an AIM-7MH or R-27R at it forces the AIM-7/R-27R (but not the attacking radar) to lose and regain lock even < 10 nm. See attached track files below and video link during a MP duel here. Hard to tell, but I was in the F-15 here and maintained lock on the F-14B the whole time. More often than not, maneuvering side to side in the F-14A/B with jammer on transmit + chaff is enough to defeat the AIM-7s completely to even within 5 nm as my second AIM-7 didn't even track. I do not own the Hornet but am curious if it has the same effect using its jammer or when being jammed by the F-14. AFAIK, no other jammer does this so my question is this intended or is it a bug? Either way, it's really interesting! F-14B jammer off and chaff vs AIM-7 Tacview-20201229-180805-DCS-missile test - Syria.zip.acmi F-14B jammer on and chaff vs AIM-7 - Tacview-20201229-180638-DCS-missile test - Syria.zip.acmi F-14A jammer off and chaff vs AIM-7 - Tacview-20201229-181559-DCS-missile test - Syria.zip.acmi F-14A jammer on and chaff vs AIM-7 - Tacview-20201229-181312-DCS-missile test - Syria.zip.acmi

I noticed this in Blue Flag Syria 80/90s server today. It appears that the AIM-7 is having issues guiding right, almost like it has reverted back to the time when it does not pull more than 4G after running out of fuel. Take a look at the gif excerpt of my tacview (I can post the tacview file as well but it was huge since it was off the server so I'll have to try when I get home): AIM-7 last second pull and miss lookup vs hot aspect F-14 The F-14 lazily banks side to side popping chaff and I had a solid, look-up lock yet the AIM-7 didn't pull much until it missed at which point it just pointed straight up. Strangely, I have only ever noticed this against the F-14 and only this one pilot (not accusing it just happens that I noticed it happening when I fired at them). Additionally, you'll notice an AIM-9 miss as well despite the F-14 barely maneuvering and only popping flares at the last second which would never work for me (at least in the F-15). Furthermore, I noticed that the F-14 AIM-7s loft while the F-15's AIM-7s don't at around 15 nm or less, hot aspect. This has lead to me getting kills in the F-15 while I die in the F-14 since the AIM-7s are wasting their time going up in the F-14 while the F-15s missiles are halfway to their target. Anyone have similar issues?