centermass

You know it works if you burn through or you don't or if your jammer works, by not being locked, or it doesn't, you get locked. Based on what HubMan wrote, and other information on the Internet, there are different techniques that ECCM programs can use to jam radar. I'm still talking burn through not PK, because how do you know if your missile is in WEZ for a shot. You don't need "how effective" jammers are. It is simple, if your jammer power is stronger the the radar then it will be jammed. If not then you will get burn through. This does not need to be random. Where in the FAQ have the devs indicated that they can't obtain solid info on ECM, jamming, also what are their answers? Is the damage modeling random? When I gun a jet does it randomly select what systems to kill? So if I gun the nozzles on an SU-27 does the HUD go out? Or does the engines go out? Randomness is not the answer. For who? ________ juggalos

This seems too random. I can see having a randomizer that randomizes what ECM/ECCM to employ BUT, once employed there should be no randomness on working. Unless your talking about malfunctions. Example: So if you have two fighters high aspect 60 miles +. Both fighters activate Jammer (manually or, if the sim supports it, automatically based on avionics configuration due to the spike/lock.)The game randomly picks what jammer technology (tech) to use (if manual) or, selects jammer tech based on ECCM. Once this is done the method used should work, to the best of its ability. If the tech is one that would defeat the other fighters electronics/avionics tech then the jammer should jam or the radar should burn though. I think on situations like this the devs need to pick a best guess / best effort and stick with it. As long as they describe the methodology used to come up with their decision they will be able to send us "this is not realistic" and "this game is not the way I want it to be" criers to the FAQ that could look like this: "Given that the data we have on <insert subject here> is classified we have chosen to use <insert best guess/best effort answer> method on all fighter aircraft. This will not change the life of the product." All those for and against will know what was done, why, and what is going to happen going forward. ________ starcraft II replay

Nice work HubMan. So it looks like we are all in agreement that some jammers can defeat some radars and some radars can burn though some jammers depending on the situation? Hope the devs can come up with a good model for each system that is realistic. And at worst, a system that is the same for all jets if they can't find any reliable data (jammer, Radar, and ECCM). ________ headshop

I was thinking that vs human pilots you should not be able to get such kills, because the human pilots would get separation laterally and vertically. But 5 kills at once is nice non the less. ________ ultimate fighters

Wow, 5 bandits at once! Human or AI targets? ________ weed

That is true, but finding a fighter sized AC at 100NM is luck in the first place LOL. That jammer also jams friendly AC's radar too if using the same frequency. So we got friendlies jamming enemy and enemy jamming friendlies so no one can get a BVR lock, which I'm all for if it's realistic. Looks like WVR engagements are going to be the common fight. There are always going to be specialty AC that provide an advantage in EW. What if that SOJ AC is not there? Does a fighter have a jammer strong enough to block burn through? Maybe, but maybe not. Some jammers are directional, emitting more power 12 and 6 O'clock while not as much on the 3/9 line. Hopefully the devs will be able to come to a solution to balance resources to research missile and ECM technology and be able to provide the highest realism possible. ________ medical marijuana dispensary

Regardless of who's technology you use the science is the same. So given the fact that most ECM and weapons tech is classified and were going on basic information the below is pretty solid and can be used in conjunction with other material to come up with a good model of ECM functionality. The jammer in Falcon seems to be as good as the Jammer in LOMAC in that it hides your, altitude (Falcon Better than LOMAC unless LOMACs ability to put a target box on a jamming target is accurate), range, speed, and aspect. All important factors in your BVR missile shot. Here is the meat of the link... Defensive Electronic CounterMeasures Jammers can be broadly divided into two categories, noise jammers and deception jammers. In either instance the jammer comprises a receiver which listens for threat radars, a processor to make decisions and a tunable transmitter. The transmitter is automatically tuned to the frequency of the hostile transmission and jams it by transmitting a commanded signal. A noise jammer will transmit a signal much like electrical noise which results in the radar return (echo) from the aircraft being obscured and at range may cause the aircraft to disappear from the threat operator's scope. At closer range however considerable power is required to outshout the return from the jamming aircraft and distinct radial lines termed strobes will appear on the victim's scope. The operator will know he is being jammed and may attempt to tune the radar to a slightly different frequency which may or may not defeat the jammer (a technique used to defeat an ECM system is termed an Electronic Counter CounterMeasure or ECCM). At some even closer range the victim radar will 'burn through' the jamming as the return becomes more powerful than the jamming transmission, the aircraft will then become distinguishable from the jamming. A deception jammer doesn't attempt to conceal the presence of the aircraft but rather transmits signals very much like the real return to deceive the radar or its operator. The number of deception jamming techniques is immense and every type of radar and specific design of a radar has some exploitable vulnerability. Broadly, deception jammers can be divided into false target generators and track breakers. A false target generator is usually employed against a track-while-scan surveillance radar with the objective of confusing the operator or saturating the tracking computer. It achieves this by transmitting false radar returns, usually delayed retransmitted versions of the radar's actual pulses. This creates the illusion of a whole formation of aircraft rather than the single real target which vastly complicates interpretation of the tactical situation. Because of the difficulty involved in generating credible false target signals this technique is often combined with noise jamming which degrades the performance of the victim radar so that the false targets are impossible to distinguish from the real target, if not concealing the real target completely. Track breakers are usually employed against tracking radars in single target track mode, these are typically fire control radars associated with SAMs, AAMs and AAA. Track breaking techniques are therefore of major importance in tactical and strategic aircraft. Track breakers attack the automatic tracking mechanism of the victim radar. If the threat is a pulsed radar a track breaker will usually transmit a 'cover pulse' at the same time as the return pulse. This masks the return and the victim tracking mechanism is then allowed to lock on to the cover pulse rather than the weaker real return. The jammer has then seduced the tracking mechanism and can, within limits, move the target about its real position and typically turn it off to break lock. The target will often be made to erratically jitter which makes it impossible to accurately guide a missile or fire a gun at the target. This is termed gate stealing and can be applied in various ways to many diverse radar types (angle/range/velocity gate walk-off/pull-off/stealing) including Continuous Wave (CW, ie non-pulsed radar, often used in fire control illuminators for SAMs) radars (FM-CW ranging). Other track breaking techniques disrupt the angular tracking of the target by attacking the antenna scan mechanism. Conical scan radars (common in missile seekers and AAA) can be jammed by rapidly varying the amplitude of the jamming signal at a rate close to the rotation rate of the antenna, this will drive the antenna wildly off target and is termed Amplitude Modulation or AM ECM. Monopulse radars are notoriously difficult to jam and require more cunning techniques such as cross eye jamming. A cross eye jammer employs two deception repeaters which retransmit the impinging radar signal with set time delays. By situating the transmitting antennas at the extremities of the aircraft (eg out on the wings) and manipulating the time delays, the cross-eye jammer distorts the shape (and hence perceived direction) of the returned echo (wavefront). A monopulse track ing system aligns itself with the direction of the incoming return from the target and is thus driven off the target. ECM equipment is usually carried internally although podded jammers are available for older aircraft or as a supplement to an internal system where required by a specific threat. Tactical aircraft which must grapple with threats at close quarters rely primarily on track breaking ECM to penetrate terminal defences and equipment such as the Sanders ALQ-126B carried by the F-18A is typical of this class. The ALQ-126 family of jammers succeeded the earlier USN standard ALQ-100 jammers and is carried by the A-6, EA-6, A-7, F-14 and F-18. The B model provides E, F, G, H, I/J band coverage and implements several techniques effective against pulse mode and conical scanning radars. Delivering over 1 kw of jam power per band in pulse mode the 126B can be operated autonomously or tied in with an ALR-45F/67 RWR. In a high threat environment the ALQ-126 would be supplemented with a Northrop ALQ-162 Compass Sail/Clockwise continuous wave jammer which is effective against CW threats such as the SA-6 Gainful family of semi-active radar guided SAMs. Deep penetration aircraft carry more extensive systems with noise jamming capability against radar (ALQ-94/F-111, ALQ-155/ALT-2B/B-52, ALQ-161, B-1B), missile tracking downlinks (B-52) and false target generating capability (ALQ-122/B-52). ________ Kawasaki MT1

Hiding your position if vital, like going radar off on a bandit that does not see you. He can't shoot what he does not know is there (WVR). The point of the Falcon reference is to show how you can manipulate your radar to increase the strength/focus to aid in burn though. How is the Falcon jamming wrong? Jamming is not random it is a science. The exact numbers to use, hopefully the most realistic model possible, are the problem of the game developers/researches to solve. In order to have accurate BVR engagements you need accurate ECM (the best it can be). Review the link I provided i the other post for more detailed information. ________ buy vaporizers

Please point me to the source information for this event, it is very interesting to me. And were back on it because you don't have BVR engagements without jamming. Jamming modeling is as important as missile modeling in that regard. So if you have to engage then you would want to hide your altitude, speed, and aspect as long as possible. Alt is known in LOMAC, roughly if the target is in the HUD, not sure if this is accurate though. In Falcon the vpilot is able to focus a strong beam on a jammer and burn through around 20 to 25 miles. Unfortunately this is not the case in LOMAC. From what I under stand the F-15 has a much stronger radar than the F-16 IRL. ________ Honda CBR125R

Nice signature. I'm in Texas, you should come to HL so we can see how you handle that Mig-29 vs my F-15. Nothing like some good dogfighting fun. :thumbup: Back on topic. @ GG All those things you talked about are indications of jamming, so you KNOW your being jammed. You handle jamming contacts differently than you would locked targets. All situations are too dynamic to try and solve here. Just have to handle them as they come at you. ________ DT175

Roger, same, but I'm glad it's being looked into. All I hope for is real as possible. ________ buy silversurfer vaporizer

Please do not use them again, the G model is shat! LOL I had to :lol: ________ XS500

Does this actually happen, are the Russian pilots only? I do agree that the casual player's feeling of real is not enough and really does not matter. ________ easy vape

What is a useful range? How do you not know that your being jammed? ________ roor bong

I was partially correct and partially incorrect. Jammer (ECM), depending on the type, is used to deny a lock. In most cases jammers are used to hid your position by flooding the frequency the radar is using and giving false returns. This is what LOMAC attempts to model, as far as I can tell, except that it knows your rough altitude by placing a target box on you, if in the HUD (I'm not sure if the Fire Control System (FCS) should know your altitude or not). If you turn your jammer on in range of burn though then yes you may force the radar to lose lock but then your signal is very strong and are inviting a HOJ shot. http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-RWR-ECM.html You will notice that the source in the bottom of the article is old, we can assume the technology has improved since 1980's. ________ volcano vaporizers

ECM should have no affect on radar after it has burned through. ECM is to deny a lock not to brake a lock once acquired unless at longer ranges, but usually chaff, altitude, and aspect changes are required. Missile defense is with aspect and energy. NOTHING else should defeat a missile fired well within DLZ 1. ________ ps3 jailbreak

Read them, and the one on the Fighter Ops forum... http://www.fighterops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6724 ________ herbalaire

I think I'm in love. :worthy: Should we start talking about realistic G while we're at it? :mad: ________ weed vaporizer

Missile failure is different than missile suckage. :lol: Missile failure adds to realism while missile suckage, unless realistic justs sucks. The ability to disable non-combat related failure is a nice touch. :thumbup: ________ launch box

I hope they make them as realistic as possible, nothing more, this goes for all things with this game. :pilotfly: ________ F9

Anyone have an EM diagram for the F-15? ________ herbalaire

Good deal, thanks for the information, I need to modify my stick curve I guess, I can't pull more than 9 G's the way I have it now. I try not to over-stress the jet but I'm more concerned about having nose authority when slow, and I'm guessing that if the stick curve allows more G at higher speed it will allow it at slower speed as well. I fly with a CH stick which has a long throw (throw being distance from center to limit deflection). This makes for, what seems like, unrealistic ability to get huge G pulls due to stick curve and not FM ability. :joystick: ________ Honda RC71

What is the max G for the F-15 in LOMAC and in real life? Is this limited by the jet in some way or is it possible to get spikes past these max specs? I have spiked the F-15 to 10+ G in turns while trying to figure out why I was blacking out so often at corner speed, which is just below 400 knts for the real jet (read somewhere online), and 340 knts in LOMAC (article on SimHQ, seach "Good stick LOMAC".) ________ jugalettes