Pilum

Very interesting stuff @Northstar98 and @okopanja. Years ago I met a German Luftwaffe officer who came by our booth at an airshow and we started talking about the conflict. He was very impressed with the professionalism of the Serbian Air Defense forces and said that although they (NATO) made every effort to catch these batteries once they had started emitting, they were always long gone by the time any strike package got there.

First of all, you are the random internet guy here since you are the one who is anonymous while I'm not. I already posted a link featuring my name and my resume when it comes to competence in EW which I've worked professionally with for close to 15 years. In addition, I've already explained why I don't "help" in an earlier post and which is the same reason I suspect many other professionals who have worked with classified systems stay away from doing so: And this is because one's knowledge base is a mix of open and classified knowledge and even if I were to refer to open sources, this would be because I have the knowledge base I have so it's a catch-22. And the only way to avoid the risk of divulging classified data is to stay away from it. Again, read my sig. It was not chosen at random. But this is going nowhere so unless there are any more comments about my persona or my competence that need to be addressed then I will leave you here since it should by now be abundantly clear what my views are on the viability of modeling the EW systems of the F-35 for anyone who does not have classified access.

Well again, if you bothered to read the resume I linked to above you will know that I'm a former EW engineer who has worked on the EW systems for the AJ 37 & JA 37 Viggen and JAS 39 Gripen systems and that I come to a somewhat different conclusion. And frankly, I don't see how "some guessing" and utilizing "well known (publicly available) principles" will allow the modeling of a highly classified F-35 EW system. And believe me, I would like nothing better than not having to reply to posts like yours but they just keep on coming: And one internet expert after another seems to be lining up to explain to me how EW systems work and how they can and should be implemented in DCS and how the results will be just dandy. First of all you're twisting my words: IMO many aircraft modeled in DCS are very much simulators even though the EW on most is pretty basic. However, the F-35 is a highly classified system that will form the backbone of the West's AF's for a long time to come so it's a completely different ballgame to model the systems on that compared to say a Mig-21 or F-4 for which there is a ton of declassified data to go on.

I'm not claiming to be a former EW-engineer. I am one and I've worked with multiple EW-systems. And I'm not trying to gish gallop you whatever that is, I'm just giving you my professional opinion and you can do with it what you like. But I'm sure that that won't stop you since you're now building straw men claiming I'm saying it's not possible to build an EW simulations and that it's black magic. But that is not what I'm saying at all: What I'm doing is answering the question in the OP and saying that it's IMHO impossible to do one worthy of the name simulation for the F-35 because so much surrounding it is still highly classified. But this is going nowhere and we simply have to agree to disagree and leave it at that. But on an ending note I can't help but notice that it's funny how people in these type of aviation forums are always so deferential to pilots and usually take what they say as gospel truth but when it comes to technical matters and engineering questions, there is always some armchair expert who has no qualms about lecturing professionals.

Sorry, but referring to open sources when modeling the F-35 EW is an exercise in futility for the simple reasons you yourself mention: These are general principles only and say absolutely nothing concrete about how the EW-systems in the F-35 are implemented. But please do tell, based on these open source general principle textbooks you refer to, how should the F-35 radar model in DCS react to the “RG/VGPO, Range and Range/Doppler MFT etc” jamming you mentioned? Should it be fooled? Or should it via its ECCM filter out this and retain lock? And in which cases should this occur and for which enemy systems? And vice versa, how should the F-35’s jamming affect other in-game DCS aircraft’s radars? Sorry, but the only thing we know with any certainty is that the F-35 has a state of the art EW-system that is still deeply classified and that this of course will be pretty sophisticated. But since there is absolutely no solid data to go on regarding how its jamming and ECCM works, you simply can’t model it with anything approaching realism. In addition, in-game in DCS, how should the RWR’s in other DCS aircraft react when being painted by an F-35 LPI radar? Should they always miss it or should some of them detect it and if so at what range? I was not planning to post anything more in this thread but as a former professional EW-engineer, when I read “There's plenty more that you can find through google searches” connected to the F-35’s EW, I just felt I needed to react.

To answer the question in the OP, “how much EW content we can get based on publicly available information”, this will be close to 0 %. Because everything about the EW for the F-35 is still top secret and will be for the foreseeable future. And this is the problem with “simulation” modeling of any in-service aircraft, and not just the F-35: The information you need to model the radar and EW with anything approaching realism is still classified and will inevitably result in a game- and not a simulation-model. I worked for more than 10 years in the defense industry with EW for fighter aircraft and my sig has not been chosen at random.

Well regarding just how much people who have worked with classified systems can help make unclassified modules in DCS we just have to agree to disagree. You have now made your point abundantly clear and you already know mine. So no need to repeat ourselves and we will just have to leave it at that. Regarding how attractive we find a module that has a lot of guesswork in it, I understand you think that’s fine, you have made that very clear now in a number of posts. But that is not for me. Pushing a sequence of buttons on an MFD to do a specific task, or having displays with conceptual presentation modes, which change in a conceptual way when you are lit up by an S-300 holds no interest for me. I want a simulation where everything is much closer to IRL. And this you can do on a 3rd gen aircraft, but not on a 4.5 or 5th gen aircraft which is still in service. AFAIK Heatblur is very much focused on realism and that modules should be as close as it gets, and I hope that they stick true to this goal. And whatever that means for the Eurofighter module time will tell. So with that I’ve said my piece and have to chime in with the call that the ball is now in the developer’s court. Now we just have to sit back and see what they give us in the next update.

Much of what you say about the reasons for the delay may well be true. However, I think it would be fair to say that we are all just speculating. And in this context I would like to add something: I think many in this forum are a bit optimistic as to what former pilots (and engineer’s like myself for that matter) could bring to the table for DCS module development when it comes to classified systems we have worked with. And this is because after a while, your knowledge base whatever your profession, be it engineer or pilot, will be a mix of open and classified knowledge which you use (or used to use ) daily in your job. And it’s therefore very difficult when you are confronted with a question in the area of your expertise, to know weather you can answer it or not without divulging things you shouldn’t. I already mentioned in another thread that I worked with EW previously, and for sure, I could refer to open sources to answer many questions in this forum related to EW if I wanted to. And believe me it’s tempting to do so sometimes when you know something. But the conundrum here is that even if you are referring to open sources, you may be guiding other parties in a way based on your classified knowledge. This may be a bit difficult to grasp unless you worked with classified data before, but the only way to be sure (at least if you worked for a number of years) is to not touch stuff at all that you signed an NDA for. And for me that is EW. But I dabble in another area which is classified: Missile kinematics. But I can do that since I never worked in that area professionally, and all my knowledge is therefore 100% based on open sources. So missile kinematics yes, but EW is a big no-no for me. So again, those GAF Eurofighter pilots probably won’t be able to help much with the modeling of classified systems in DCS. It’s as simple as that. I don’t think sigs show up anymore, but mine is an Old Crow motto from the world of EW: “Those who talk don’t know, and those who know don’t talk”. And this is of course not only applicable EW engineers, but very much to military pilots as well. So this is why I would not be surprised at all if a flight sim enterprise that relies on modeling systems that are still classified runs into problems. But again, for sure, this may not be the particular problem that is delaying Heatblur right now, but it’s for sure is not unreasonable to ask, and see what kind of answer we get. You are a funny guy Max! Yes, The 17 appearances of the Eurofighter compared to a measly 12 each for the Fulcrum's & the F-4's in that video tells us all we want to know, because herein lies the irrefutable proof that the Eurofighter is as you say "the main star" in the 2025 lineup and therefore all must be well! But seriously, while as we know correlation is not causation, it's nonetheless food for thought that it's the in-service aircraft with systems that are still classified that is so delayed. And I'm sure Heatblur keeps an eye in the forum and will eventually see this thread. And it will be interesting to see if they respond because I really do think the question in the OP deserves an answer.

And this is exactly my point: The F-4 is a 3rd gen aircraft with much lower complexity and no classified parts making it much easier to implement than an in-service 4.5 gen aircraft, hence the big interest in how the development of the latter is progressing.

Well all those points are rather self-evident aren't they? You could say that about basically any product made by any company. But that TG & HB obviously know what's going does not stop potential customers from finding it strange that a one module is announced 5 years ago, another 2 years later, but still becomes available much earlier? Again, my question really stems from the fact that the Eurofighter was mentioned in the F-35 thread as an example that in-service aircraft had already been modeled in DCS, which made it all the more interesting to understand just how the Eurofighter's module was progressing.

Well I saw a post where it was stated that HB had "taken over" from TG but maybe I read too much into that and that this should instead be interpreted as taking over the management of the module only?

Well AFAIK Gero Finke is one of the founders of TrueGrit Virtual Technologies, and if Heatblur have taken over and Truegrit is no loner involved, then I understood that to mean that he is no longer part of the development but maybe I'm mistaken on that point?

Well you may find it boring, but I can't agree with your "nth thread the nth repetition" take: I just looked at your contributions on the Eurofighters timeline and there are only 5 posts during the last 6 month in two threads on the matter so if there is a problem I would not say its spamming but rather a lack of news if anything. Anyway, one of the contributing factors to my interest in the Eurofighter's timeline was because when I in another thread (the now merged and closed F-35 thread) claimed that the F-35 will be the first fighter module DCS does of an aircraft which is still in service, then someone "corrected" me and said that that was not true because we already have the Eurofighter in DCS. But it now seems like that person was stretching the concept of being "in" quite a bit and so from that perspective I think it would be very interesting indeed to understand just what is behind the delay of the Eurofighter and why Heatblur took over, and just why Gero Finke is no longer (as I understand it?) part of development.

AFAIK the definition "generation" as in "4th gen" etc refers to a classification of jet aircraft and that that piece of information is just left out these days.

I just watched that video but not sure I get it: In that video, if it's the one you mean, the Eurofighter makes about as much of an appearance as many others?

I'm well aware that Heatblur have their hands full with the F-4 Phantom at the moment, but my thinking is more connected to the fact that the 4.5 gen Eurofighter module was announced almost 5 years ago, and that the solidly 3rd gen (i.e. nothing is classified any more) F-4 Phantom module was announced after this, but is even so nearing completion while the Eurofighter development seems to have made very little progress during these years. Given that large parts of the now closed discussion connected to the the problems of modeling the classified systems of the 5th gen F-35 are very much applicable also to the 4.5 gen Eurofighter, I don't think it's a stretch to assume that Heatblur has realized the difficulties of modeling in-service aircraft, and are acting accordingly.

Has the issue of how to model classified systems stalled this module’s development? DCS recent announcement to do the F-35 has sparked a lot of forum discussions about the feasibility of introducing aircraft that are still in service, and since the Eurofighter faces the same problem, is this why this project appears to have stalled? I watched the Grim Reapers Gero Finke interview, and just as I would have expected, he says that there will be a very progressive approach to introducing systems due to the problem that many are still classified. And about 5 min into the interview, he mentions that as a consequence of this, only a limited number of systems will be modeled initially, and that system will be added if/when the information to do that becomes available given the classification issue. So is this what is holding Heatblur back from following through on this project? As is the number of systems that can actually be modeled under these constraints just to small to make it an attractive module that will sell, or is it something else?

OK, thanks for the clarification, I appreciate it. Well if you worked with the Penguin, you may have have known a Norwegian friend of mine by the name of Knut who worked with it. Surname begins with an S and if you met him you would have remembered it. But for obvious reasons I wont write out his name here in the clear. We studied together at the RIT University in Stockholm back in the days and he went on to work for Kongsberg. Unfortunately he passed away a few years back. Anyway, sure, I agree DCS modules are for entertainment but if I spend time to learn a "cold start" procedure and system setups, operating the MFD buttons, interpreting displays, radar and RWR info and push buttons etc etc I want this to replicate how it's done IRL, not something cobbled together as a best guess because that info is still all classified. But each to his own, and I can see it from your angle as well only I would still have preferred a 3rd or 4th gen aircraft rendered with high fidelity as opposed to a F-35 guesstimate.

Well put! Yes, you're right. I should have written 5th gen. My bad. That being said, I agree with your take on this. PS: This auto-merge gets on my nerves. Is there any way to avoid it?

Now that you put it like that.....

Well what I mean is that while I agree that they will probably make money short term, is that in the long terms their status as a producer of high fidelity flight simulations products could be tarnished by releasing modules that inevitably (since the systems are still classified) must contain loads of guesswork. I think there is still a lot of money to be made on producing high quality 3rd and 4th gen aircraft (which they already do and are quite successful at), so I don't see them risk loosing any money as long as they retain a good name as flight simulation producers. So more of the same would be better I say.

Well Pops, thanks for sharing. However, since I don’t belong to the first category, I think you are implying I belong to the second? But maybe you should consider that there is a third category? Professionals who actually know a thing or two? I’m an aeronautical engineer by profession with a master’s in aerodynamics and structural engineering. I worked for more than 10 years at Ericsson and SAAB with the JAS 39 Gripen, mostly in EW, but close to the guys who did the display systems. So maybe you should consider that there are people here who actually know a thing or two before categorizing them into gamers and Karen’s?

Why do I bother? Well forum posting helps me procrastinate and stay away from doing the honest work that needs to be done, that’s why. But more seriously: I agree with the take that the DCS F-35 module will probably sell like hotcakes. But that does not mean it’s the right approach: There is a famous company doing commercial aircraft that was once run by engineers, but when the accountants took over, quality took a dive and they are now struggling to regain their good name. And just because you can make money on something in the short term, doesn’t mean it will benefit you in the long term. I’ve always respected DCS in the past when they have said that they could not do something because they did not have enough data. That speaks to the engineer in me.

You and those who liked this post didn’t read what I wrote above did you? Because that post clearly explains why those challenges cannot be overcome for an in-service 6th gen aircraft like the F-35.

TL;DR There are literally dozens of posts now in this forum that go something like this: “Yes, well we understand that some are skeptical about DCS ability to model the F-35, but nothing has been released yet so there is no merit to your objections, because you can’t be critical of something you haven’t even seen”. Well I beg to differ: I think we can be critical of the decision to model the F-35 already now, and here is a concrete example of why: On the F-35, there is just one big humongous screen that can hold a myriad of different windows and tables etc. And, yes, we can see what they show us at demos and airshow and that can give us some idea about how the display may look like IRL. However, the only thing we can be absolutely sure of is that this will not be what the pilot will see in an operational aircraft. This is just common sense. You don’t show classified presentation modes for operational aircraft publicly. So already here we are lost. But wait, it gets worse: Because instead of a couple of MFD’s with knowns sub-menus and display properties, supplemented by the ubiquitous round RWR we see in most 3rd and 4th generation fighters (you know, the type of displays & systems DCS modeled up till now), you will in the F-35 have just one big screen where you have absolutely no idea how the disposition of different display windows will be. Why? Well because the big thing with 5th generation aircraft is the sensor fusion and how this will be displayed is top secret. For example, when you’re dozing off in nav mode, and you suddenly get lit up by a SAM or fighter radar, how will that enormous display react? Will it be overlaid something already there or will a threat window pop up which takes up 10, 20, 30 or 50% of the big screen? Where will it be located? How will threat zones be displayed? If, dynamic, how will this be displayed? Missile position and if you are inside or outside projected range? Birds eye view, or obliquely? What other windows will be active? Stores, radar, IRST etc? And if so where? Bottom right? Top left? etc etc. And this is where the 6th gen secret lies: How do you fuse not only your own, but your wingman’s, ship and AWAC data? And how do you in the best way filter and present all this data? And the only thing we can be sure of here is that what we see in manufacturers booths at airshow will be fluffy concept modes, and exactly NOT how it will be displayed IRL. Because this is what separates the wheat from the chaff. And not only for reasons of security, but also not to divulge trade secrets to your competitors, will you be showing how you have solved all this. The winner will present not all data, but the right data at the right time in the right way (SAAB is good at this!). But there is no way SAAB or Lockheed Martin are going to share this with us either in air show booths or in open documentation. So whatever DCS comes up with will be guesswork. And yes, some may scoff at the figure of 85% guesswork that was thrown around here earlier on, but how are you even going to get THAT close when you are working with one huge display that could be used in a myriad of ways, all of which are classified? However, if the aircraft you are modeling has two MFD’s, a round little RWR, and a bunch of manuals which tells you exactly how those MFD’s function and look in all sub modes (3rd and 4th generation fighters), well then 85% ACCURACY and not GUESSWORK seems within reach. And this is why it's currently possible to do high fidelity 3rd or 4th gen sim aircraft, but only 6th gen game aircraft, and while IMHO DCS should stick to the two former.