Let's talk about IFF

With more and more high fidelity modules becoming available that are capable of interrogating IFF signals I would like to talk about their implementation in DCS. For now only the FC3 low fidelity modules and the MiG-21 can interrogate IFF signals but more are in development.

In the FC3 modules it is a pretty basic and abstract IFF implementation, that works automatically no matter what the conditions are (apart from jamming, which is also wrong).

The MiG-21 has a more advanced IFF simulation, because you need to actively interrogate the contact to get an IFF response. But as far as I know it is independend of the target, meaning that you can interrogate any contact, even if it has its IFF transponder switched off, totally incompatible IFF systems or no IFF system at all. (I'm not sure if this also applies to other MiG-21s. Can you successfully interrogate them if they have their IFF transponder switched off or are on a wrong IFF-channel?)

So this leads to the question how the IFF situation will develop in the future with more and more advanced aircraft becomming available. I think the way it works right now is way too basic, so I would like to have a more advanced IFF implementation. The primary concern I have is, that IFF responses should not work under all conditions, but only if certain conditions are valid.

The most basic condition should be, that the target aircraft possesses an IFF system and has it activated, meaning if those two conditions aren't true it should not give IFF responses, even if it is friendly.

The systems in question would be:

• A-10C, UH-1H, F-5E: AN/APX-72 (the thing with the 2 green lamps between two big knobs). It can already be switched to OFF/STBY/LOW/NORM/EMER (at least in the UH-1H where you already get a warning if it is off, haven't tried in the A-10C).
  
• Mirage 2000C: LMT NRAI-7A (located below the radar screen). Not implemented yet (WIP).
  
• KA-50: Name unkown (it has 4 controls, two of them beeing red and is located in front of the ARK-22 automatic direction finder panel). As far as I know it is not functional at all.
  
• MiG-21: SRZO-2 (RV35 & RV36). Like I mentioned above I'm not sure how this system is implemented in DCS at the moment. It might even be fully functional in conjunction with other MiG-21s, meaning that you have to activate it and select the right channel to be able to interrogate and be interrogated by other MiG-21s. I also don't know how this works in conjunction with other aircraft types.
  
• F-86F: AN/APX-6 (last panel on the right side with the red guard switch). I have no idea about it's current functionality in DCS.
  
• P-51D: The SCR-695-A (right side, behind the radio, labeled "I.F.F."). I have no idea about it's current functionality in DCS.
  
• Fw 190 D-9, Bf 109 K-4: FuG25a (located on the bottom left corner of the front section, just above the cockpit illum knob in the Fw 190 and on the far right side in the Bf 109). I have no idea about it's current functionality in DCS.
  
• Mi-8 Hip, MiG-15, Gazelle, Trainers: No idea, haven't used them.
  

It should be pretty easy to enable the player to switch these systems on to enable IFF-responses in case of IFF-interrogations by other aircraft (The IFF status of FC3 aircraft can always be considered ON or a simple toggle switch for IFF status can be implemented). This, still beein a pretty basic IFF implementation, is what I would like to have in DCS. It should work pretty well throughout all modules and shouldn't be difficult for the devs to implement. It would just require a status flag for the aircraft (something like IFF==true/false) which can be toggled by turning the IFF system of the respective aircraft on/off.

Of course, it is still a huge simplification, since compatibility of different IFF-systems as well as the different modes, channels and codes aren't taken into consideration but it would already be a huge improvement over the current IFF situation, because it requires the player to do at least something and therefor can fail if he does forget to activate it. It would then also be possible, that the IFF equipment gets damaged and stop working. They are both things, that aren't possible atm, where they just work automatically and are 100% reliable which isn't true to real life.

Of course, I would be happy about even more complex and realistic IFF solutions but they would be restricted to certain IFF systems and won't work throughout all modules.

Alright, enough from my side, now I would like to know what you guys think about IFF in DCS? :)

Edit: Some concerns about the AI have been raised, which is something I haven't covered at all, having only MP in mind. I would recommend to just leave the AI as it is (IFF transponder always "on"), since everything else would be difficult and probably require much work.

I think it should be as realistic as possible and modeled as per the aircraft. The term being thrown around is Air Quake which it is in many open online servers, i would imagine having a more true iff would help reduce this and bring things more inline with reality.

Your idea is something i would enjoy and like to see in Dcs World. Im no expert on iff but like what you have proposed.

+1 Totally agree that this should be the bare minimum implemented and it really doesn't sound like a lot of effort for the base game (mainly some code added to the radar implementation to invoke the new method on the module interface plus the implementation of those on the module side, of course).

If it's added, perhaps even the FC3 modules could have some simple on/off toggle switch for the IFF functionality if there is an adequate indication present in the cockpits (e.g. a main on/off switch on the IFF panels) and implementing those would not be requiring too much effort.

+1 Totally agree that this should be the bare minimum implemented.

 

If it's added, perhaps even the FC3 modules could have some simple on/off toggle switch for the IFF functionality if there is an adequate indication present in the cockpits (e.g. a main on/off switch on the IFF panels) and implementing those would not be requiring too much effort.

Good idea. Added it. :thumbup:

This has been discussed many times before.

The reason why you can't actually replicate it is that those devices are still, even they are sometimes decades old, still highly classified.

The question would be, accepting the above circumstances, what could be done to mimik some of the expected behaviours of an IFF system to integrate it deeper in the gameplay and strategy.

"GET VIS-ID" could get a totally new meaning for Jockeys ;)

This has been discussed many times before.

 

The reason why you can't actually replicate it is that those devices are still, even they are sometimes decades old, still highly classified.

 

The question would be, accepting the above circumstances, what could be done to mimik some of the expected behaviours of an IFF system to integrate it deeper in the gameplay and strategy.

 

"GET VIS-ID" could get a totally new meaning for Jockeys ;)

Yes, that's why I proposed the above solution, because it doesn't require accurate information on those systems, since it's still an abstraction of the real functionalities.

Very good subject.

This has been discussed many times before.

 

The reason why you can't actually replicate it is that those devices are still, even they are sometimes decades old, still highly classified.

While the black boxes may be classified, the tactical function they serve is simple and well understood. I don't care about modes and codes, but I care about tactical implications of IFF.

A futher aspect would be the possibility to control IFF transponder use by AI through triggers (just like you can currently control their radar or ECM use). This way you could for example define a 1% random chance that each aircraft in a mission has a disabled IFF transponder (simulating equipment failure or wrong codes). This would mean that you could no longer be certain that a contact is hostile if you get no IFF repsonse, which has far reaching tactical consequences.

Also, IFF transponder failure for AI and player aircaft due to battle damage.

AI might make implementing IFF quite difficult though. Currently AI is all-knowing about the coalition of every contact, both radar and visual. AI only knows the states friend or enemy. More realistic IFF would require the concept of unknown contacts to AI, which might result in substanial changes in the AI system.

Very good subject.

 

 

 

 

While the black boxes may be classified, the tactical function they serve is simple and well understood. I don't care about modes and codes, but I care about tactical implications of IFF.

 

 

 

A futher aspect would be the possibility to control IFF transponder use by AI through triggers (just like you can currently control their radar or ECM use). This way you could for example define a 1% random chance that each aircraft in a mission has a disabled IFF transponder (simulating equipment failure or wrong codes). This would mean that you could no longer be certain that a contact is hostile if you get no IFF repsonse, which has far reaching tactical consequences.

 

Also, IFF transponder failure for AI and player aircaft due to battle damage.

 

AI might make implementing IFF quite difficult though. Currently AI is all-knowing about the coalition of every contact, both radar and visual. AI only knows the states friend or enemy. More realistic IFF would require the concept of unknown contacts to AI, which might result in substanial changes in the AI system.

You're right. Playing primarily multiplayer I haven't thought about the AI. It would indeed require some additional work to make it work with the AI.

I also like the idea of (battle) damaged IFF transponders and added it to the initial comment.

Poll added to get an impression how much an advanced IFF implementation is needed/wanted.

Voted for option 4 :)

I'd also like to see IFF modelled with maximum possible detail, however I'd be concerned that the proposed implementation would be the maximum possible for non-DCS level aircraft. That being said, I'm sure most people would dearly love to have DCS: F-15C and DCS: Su-27S modules...

There are already a variety of radio systems implemented in DCS.

Couldn't we just have IFF modelled as a simple additional radio system*, with those aircraft that's IFF system are compatible with each other sharing a common frequency ?

That would get you a functional system that could model emitter power based range capabilities, LOS issues, and it would be simple to have things like 'interrogate but don't respond' - if that's an option on the controls (& of course you'd have to turn it on to have it work:) )

*(so there would be AM / FM & IFF radio types, no 'codes' or secret 'sneakyness', and very little additional technology involved,)

Die-hard study sim enthusiast.

As the saying goes,

"Give me the closest accurate representation to the real world equivalent, or give me death! (not really)"

P.S. I get that almost 100% of the time, simulating such systems perfectly 100% is not possible.

Voted: I only want a realistic in-depth modelling of IFF. Nothing less!

But realistically, I want the most realistic modeling of IFF you can do. Nothing less!

The idea you've outlined would be a good solution, at least until the AI could be programmed to work with IFF as well.

Just implementing IFF between players in MP would drive a significant step change in game play and tactical fidelity of the simulation.

There are already a variety of radio systems implemented in DCS.

Couldn't we just have IFF modelled as a simple additional radio system*, with those aircraft that's IFF system are compatible with each other sharing a common frequency ?

That's all IFF is anyway really. It's really not a complex or "sneaky" as people have the impression it is.

It is no different to civil aviation transponder functions, it just adds a few modes, and a layer of cryptographic security over the top, just like GPS, voice radios, and data link radios.

Voted 4.

I'd like to have some sort of working IFF implemented even if it is pretty basic.

I think a more realistic IFF environment would be pretty big turn off for air quake environment, but also a very welcome addition for more cooperation based hardcore environments.

A middle road may be providing a realism setting for level of IFF implementation, that can be server enforced.

Also, IFF is one of the things, probably along with ECM, that we'll probably never get even %70 realistic. Even the most ancient IFF systems remain a tightly kept secret for many countries. That said, even %70 would be welcome.

Yes ... Would be great to have this on every aircraft ... It will bring a lot of realism to an already amazing platform that the DCS is ...

Not to forget it will make pilots think a lot before firing a BVR shot ... I see lot more Dogfights happening :thumbup: and it makes me super happy ... :megalol::pilotfly:

The only issues I have are assholes who will USe the excuse of not knowing how to use the iff systems to just shoot anyone down, and the asses who will cry wolf when they set their codes to the enemies, so they look friendly to their enemy for an easy kill, or just fail to turn on or properly set their iff and end up getting teamkilled, and ruining the guys score...

This has been discussed many times before.

 

The reason why you can't actually replicate it is that those devices are still, even they are sometimes decades old, still highly classified.

Nope. It's because making AI deal with them properly is not trivial.

The question would be, accepting the above circumstances, what could be done to mimik some of the expected behaviours of an IFF system to integrate it deeper in the gameplay and strategy.

 

"GET VIS-ID" could get a totally new meaning for Jockeys ;)

Not either. Most modern fighters automatically interrogate (yes, you can turn that off), and things like multi-path issues or other interesting occurrences other than IFF damaged/otherwise off can't be easily modeled either.

It's like having fine failures modeled: No one really cares for them because they will a) tick you off and or b) waste your time, leading to a) :P

Ie. IMHO this whole IFF business is thus low priority.

In the 1982 Bekaa Valley campaign, of 30+ (I think 34) kills achieved by Isreali F-15, only a single one (!) was a BVR kill. At that time, the Israeli Air Force was operating under a standing VID rule. To me that sounds pretty significant, considering that DCS is supposed to simulate eras reaching back to WWII.

Another aspect that is often forgotten, IFF equally applies to ground based air defences. Since IFF can only differentiate between friendly and unknown, some other means of declaring a contact hostile must be applied before engaging. This might be a combination of parameters such as position, altitude, heading, speed and time. For example: Between 1500z and 2000z, every unknown contact flying a heading of 181-359 is considered hostile until positively confirmed as friendly. Such ROE are particularly important for radar SAMs which have little hope of visually identifying a contact. For SHORAD, a visual identification might be part of the ROE to engage a contact. For MANPADS for example, such a ROE can be a significant limitation in their effectiveness.

To implement IFF/SIF is not that complicated. We use it already in our ground radar development. For the moment it works only with the A-10C, but is not limited to this type. The transponder answers on mode 1, 2,3A , C and even mode 4. IFF/SIF is not that secretly. Only the encryption codes for mode 4 are classified. The complicated situation is air to air identification. If an Aircraft has an interrogator device, it needs even any type of display to show the responses. This is normally the airborne radar display. To implement the response to be shown on the onboard radar display can only be done by DCS. If someone knows how to mod an onboard radar display, IFF/SIF could be implemented with a simple mod. If someone wants to know how our implementation works:

visually identifying things in dcs is really hard, it uses a really awkward LOD system that makes it pretty well impossible to see a planes paint colour, never mind any kind of markings on it, from anywhere further than a couple hundred meters away...

there aren't many situations in real life that two american planes would fight each other, so all you need to do is see the outline of a plane and you know if it's a friendly or not...

with multi-player in dcs, you have a whole bunch of random people out there, who all left the airfield at random times and went in random directions, and every side uses the same planes.

you need to look at the markings on a plane to tell friend from foe without a dependable IFF system that works with no input from the player... not practical...

solutions: keep IFF that's already in the game, it's dependable, and just works, even though its not realistic, or somehow create an LOD system that lets people visually ID planes by their markings, without needing to basically ram into them, and that wouldn't just be unrealistic, it would look unrealistic, because the main reasons we'd need that are low pixel density, small screen sizes, and no peripheral vision...

solutions: keep IFF that's already in the game, ...

Then we should have the option to force IFF on/off in MP.

Especially since some DCS high fidelity modules are also using the current arcade IFF which is maybe for some people an inappropriate feature ;)

Then we should have the option to force IFF on/off in MP.

No, you shouldn't ...

Especially since some DCS high fidelity modules are also using the current arcade IFF which is maybe for some people an inappropriate feature ;)

... because in general you completely lack the massive feature of IFF being done by off-board parties among other things.

Signed: Devil's advocate.

Let's talk about IFF

According to the guy who designed F4, a10 and f16 clearly says:

IFF ? You never know if it got fooled. Who knows what the adversary has as c-measure. At the end of the day you have to Vis Ident and BVR left for very clear situations which are very rare.

I trust that guys word

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk