A-10 and ECM

[Scrim]

some of it requires you to pay money)

 

No. That's just another reason why I suspect you don't know what you're on about (apart from the complete lack of actual sources to back any of your claims). The knowledge regarding all of these things can be divided into 2 sections: That which is secret to the general public, and that which isn't. The latter is always available for free. There simply is no classified level that is available for anyone who'll pay a fee. If you've payed anyone money to find out things that no one would be able to know otherwise, you've either A, bribed someone with the right clearance, or B, signed up on some nonsense website that charges a fee for access to freely available information.

 

I've had enough of your way of arguing. I have provided sources to back up my claims, whereas you've just written "no, you're wrong because you disagree with me, and I know things that no one else knows", in addition to misrepresenting what I've written. It's immature and nothing else.

[winz]

No. That's just another reason why I suspect you don't know what you're on about (apart from the complete lack of actual sources to back any of your claims). The knowledge regarding all of these things can be divided into 2 sections: That which is secret to the general public, and that which isn't. The latter is always available for free. There simply is no classified level that is available for anyone who'll pay a fee. If you've payed anyone money to find out things that no one would be able to know otherwise, you've either A, bribed someone with the right clearance, or B, signed up on some nonsense website that charges a fee for access to freely available information.

If you're interested in a subject then you'll spend money on study sources. Not because there aren't free sources of information, but because publications/papers written by people who studied and work(ed) in the field cost money. Also because credible publications that aggregate information from various sources cost money.

It is much more cost effective to pay some $ than to spend years trying to find all the relevant pieces of information, and gluying them together...Also you, as someone not experienced in the field, will have hard time realizing what free information is actually correct and what is not.

 

 

I've had enough of your way of arguing. I have provided sources to back up my claims, whereas you've just written "no, you're wrong because you disagree with me, and I know things that no one else knows", in addition to misrepresenting what I've written. It's immature and nothing else.

you have provided no evidence for your claim that the pods used by A-10C are noise jammers. Noise jamming is primitive and ground radars have so much more power than the jamming pod that I cannot see a way for it to be effective. Not to mention that your jammer is big "here I'm, come and HOJ".

There is no logical reason why SPJs would not use deceptive jamming.

[PFunk1606688187]

If you're interested in a subject then you'll spend money on study sources. Not because there aren't free sources of information, but because publications/papers written by people who studied and work(ed) in the field cost money. Also because credible publications that aggregate information from various sources cost money.

It is much more cost effective to pay some $ than to spend years trying to find all the relevant pieces of information, and gluying them together...Also you, as someone not experienced in the field, will have hard time realizing what free information is actually correct and what is not.

You're basically explaining why people pay to go to university.

 

@Scrim You do realize that publicly available doesn't exclusively mean free and without copyright, right?

[dumgrunt]

the value of academic or research papers pales in comparison to the experience and knowledge of people who HAVE WORKED AND OPERATED WITH particular equipment.

 

you can read shit off the net, paid or free untill you are blue in the face. it doesn't compare with having the pam infront of you, nor the experience of how it works in the field (and believe me there are discrepancies both ways on that issue).

 

its fairly clear that only two posts in this thread have substantive value.

[Maverick-X]

I've had enough of your way of arguing. I have provided sources to back up my claims, whereas you've just written "no, you're wrong because you disagree with me, and I know things that no one else knows", in addition to misrepresenting what I've written. It's immature and nothing else.

 

And your way of arguing (I know what I "know" and therefor you must be wrong) is better? You provided a source (credible or not) with very little information on a tiny part of the subject we are talking about. GGTharos paid for research papers he doesn't have the right to publish himself, so I guess you are quite even there, apart from GGTharos at last seems to have an Idea what he's talking about. And as I, and presumably you, don't know the real capabilities of the AN/ALQ-184 it is a pretty wild guess to say "the Pods of the A10 aren't as sophisticated as the ones of the (insanely old) SR-71

[Scrim]

Paying for information about this gets you nowhere, certainly nowhere where you are privy to information lacked by others. Going to college is a bad comparison; The teachers are allowed to teach you how the subject works, whereas anyone who legitimately knows what they're talking about in regards to modern ECM pods would get locked up for decades if they revealed how it works to someone without the clearence in exchange for money.

 

The very best you can get in exchange for money within the limits of the law is educated guesses from retirees who worked with ECM during the Vietnam war.

[Maverick-X]

Ok, did you study anything and/or read any research papers regardless of the topic? You always sound like you know what you are talking about in your angry "you are all wrong" attitude, but I highly doubt it ;-)

[tomcatter]

So I was enjoying this thread until this " I know more than you guess and you don´t know what you think you know but I know what you don´t know" ego fight appears.

 

Please,can you discuss what you know or not over PM?

[Scrim]

Have I gone and bought papers about how modern ECM pods work, and what they do? No, because that is sheer speculation.

 

Have I read what little is available to the public? Yes. That is what I base my statements on. It is very likely that modern pods can do a lot more than what I or most people know, but using that as a justification to speculate and make things up is just silly.

 

It is not my intention to come across as angry at everyone who doesn't agree and all knowing. What I take exception to is when someone who is entrusted with keeping the tone on the forums civil turn up and says "you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong, and I refuse to prove that I know anything because you've questioned my knowledge".

Edited July 3, 2014 by Scrim

[winz]

What public sources list ALQ-184 or ALQ-131 as noise jammer only? Just a quick google allowed me to find several sites that state them as capable of deception jamming.

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/an-alq-131.htm

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/ALQ-184

http://www.afcent.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123361669

 

Even the older pods, like AN/ALQ-119 are labled as deceptive jammers:

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/an-alq-119.htm

http://books.google.sk/books?id=Y8kePYFK1L8C&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=AN/ALQ-119&source=bl&ots=hOzazOxau8&sig=r0KCiWlQ1mpzoQGiu8tfwCh4RpM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5yC1U-XHJOqO7QaEqYDIDQ&ved=0CGIQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=AN%2FALQ-119&f=false

 

For me it looks like you based your opinion solely on the way DCS: World simulates jammers, which is known to be wrong and very very simplified.

[Maverick-X]

Have I gone and bought papers about how modern ECM pods work, and what they do? No, because that is sheer speculation.

 

 

I didn't do much research on that topic as I'm not that interested in it, but I read a lot of engineering related publications. I doubt you'd find a paper about modern ECM pods as the specific capabilities of one are classified and don't have anything to do with research. Thats more a case for an advertisement brochure. What you very well can find in research papers are for example studies on EMI and signal processing, what could bring you a basic knowledge on how guidance signals and jamming of those work.

 

In the end this is all more or less an electromagnetic impulse emitted and recieved. My guess would be that GGTharos is right in the case that it is a software issue: the physics behind guidance and signal processing remain the same regardless of the SAM architechture. Knowing how the SAM works gives you the opportunity to precisely counter that SAM system while another SAM might be unaffected by the measures you employ against it.

 

My guess is, that this conversation had to fail at some point because you can't compare two systems you know nothing about except the name and some more or less relevant values scattered to the public somehow. I usually carry an ECM pod but I barely use it, as the great capability of jamming a particular source with directional antennas is not modeled. Giving away my position to enemy fighters does not seem very smart.

I do use it when I'm out of ordnance and switch over to gunruns in the hope of decreasing the chance to hit of those damn shilkas still left down there. I'd be interested in some knowledge what this actually does to a Shilka. Much talk about SAMs can be found on the forums, but does it decrease the lock range of a Shilka as it does with the SAMs? Is it's firing solution degraded?

[Scrim]

Winz: I can assure you that I base it on more than DCS. In fact, I don't base any of it of DCS for obvious reasons.

 

I will admit that upon further reading, it appears I've misinterpreted deception jamming as being a sort of aspect of noise jamming. Many thanks for pointing that out!

Any tips about info on deception jamming? Is it providing false guidance like BLUE DOG, or making it look like the plane is somewhere else?

 

 

Mav: I don't know if the Shilka targeting radar can burn through jamming when you're inside the relatively short max range, but if it can't, the noise jamming will mean it doesn't know your range, which would obviously cause quite some problems for the Shilka crew. In good visibility, they'd have optical sights for backup.

Again though, no idea how well portrayed this is in DCS.

[winz]

The way I understand it: noise jamming is basicaly jamming by raw force. You make the radars frequency unusable by flooding it with high power noise. It can only work at ranges where the power of your jammer is stronger than the radar signal.

 

Deception jamming is trying to confuse the tracking radar logic i.e. by creating false radar returns, so the tracking logic will have hard time figuring out which of the received signals are valid and can be used for missile guidance.

[shagrat]

The way I see it, the OP was asking what use the simulated jammer pods in dcs are? Now you started a manly discussion about who can proof to have more knowledge...

So what exactly can the simulated pods actually do in DCS World?

[_Hoss]

The Pod on the A-10 is a Deception repeater, it does not JAM anything.

 

Like I said, I worked on this stuff for 20 years in the USN, down to the component level.

 

Here are the different classifications of ECM/DECM

 

Mechanical jamming

 

Mechanical jamming is caused by devices which reflect or re-reflect radar energy back to the radar to produce false target returns on the operator's scope. Mechanical jamming devices include chaff, corner reflectors, and decoys.

 

• Chaff is made of different length metallic strips, which reflect different frequencies, so as to create a large area of false returns in which a real contact would be difficult to detect. Modern chaff is usually aluminum coated glass fibers of various lengths. Their extremely low weight and small size allows them to form a dense, long lasting cloud of interference.
  

 

• Corner reflectors have the same effect as chaff but are physically very different. Corner reflectors are multiple-sided objects that re-radiate radar energy mostly back toward its source. An aircraft cannot carry as many corner reflectors as it can chaff.
  

 

• Decoys are maneuverable flying objects that are intended to deceive a radar operator into believing that they are actually aircraft. They are especially dangerous because they can clutter up a radar with false targets making it easier for an attacker to get within weapons range and neutralize the radar. Corner reflectors can be fitted on decoys to make them appear larger than they are, thus furthering the illusion that a decoy is an actual aircraft. Some decoys have the capability to perform electronic jamming or drop chaff. Decoys also have a deliberately sacrificial purpose i.e. defenders may fire guided missiles at the decoys, thereby depleting limited stocks of expensive weaponry which might otherwise have been used against genuine targets.
  

Electronic jamming

 

German Luftwaffe Tornado ECR.

 

 

Electronic jamming is a form of Electronic Warfare where jammers radiate interfering signals toward an enemy's radar, blocking the receiver with highly concentrated energy signals. The two main technique styles are noise techniques and repeater techniques. The three types of noise jamming are spot, sweep, and barrage.

 

• Spot jamming occurs when a jammer focuses all of its power on a single frequency. While this would severely degrade the ability to track on the jammed frequency, a frequency agile radar would hardly be affected because the jammer can only jam one frequency. While multiple jammers could possibly jam a range of frequencies, this would consume a great deal of resources to have any effect on a frequency-agile radar, and would probably still be ineffective.
  

 

• Sweep jamming is when a jammer's full power is shifted from one frequency to another. While this has the advantage of being able to jam multiple frequencies in quick succession, it does not affect them all at the same time, and thus limits the effectiveness of this type of jamming. Although, depending on the error checking in the device(s) this can render a wide range of devices effectively useless.
  

 

• Barrage jamming is the jamming of multiple frequencies at once by a single jammer. The advantage is that multiple frequencies can be jammed simultaneously; however, the jamming effect can be limited because this requires the jammer to spread its full power between these frequencies, as the number of frequencies covered increases the less effectively each is jammed.
  

 

• Base jamming is a new type of Barrage Jamming where one radar is jammed effectively at its source at all frequencies. However, all other radars continue working normally.
  

 

• Pulse jamming produces noise pulses with period depending on radar mast rotation speed thus creating blocked sectors from directions other than the jammer making it harder to discover the jammer location.
  

 

• Cover pulse jamming creates a short noise pulse when radar signal is received thus concealing any aircraft flying behind the EW craft with a block of noise.
  

 

• Digital radio frequency memory, or DRFM jamming, or Repeater jamming is a repeater technique that manipulates received radar energy and retransmits it to change the return the radar sees. This technique can change the range the radar detects by changing the delay in transmission of pulses, the velocity the radar detects by changing the doppler shift of the transmitted signal, or the angle to the plane by using AM techniques to transmit into the sidelobes of the radar. Electronics, radio equipment, and antenna can cause DRFM jamming causing false targets, the signal must be timed after the received radar signal. By analysing received signal strength from side and backlobes and thus getting radar antennae radiation pattern false targets can be created to directions other than one where the jammer is coming from. If each radar pulse is uniquely coded it is not possible to create targets in directions other than the direction of the jammer
  

 

• Deceptive jamming uses techniques like "range gate pull-off" to break a radar lock. This is what the A-10 ECM Pod does....... Just like the F/A-18, the old A7, A6 and yes even the EA-6B Prowler carried one along with its ALQ-99................
  
  

Inadvertent jamming

 

In some cases, jamming of either type may be caused by friendly sources. Inadvertent mechanical jamming is fairly common because it is indiscriminate and will affect any nearby radars, hostile or not. Electronic jamming can also be inadvertently caused by friendly sources, usually powerful EW platforms operating within range of the affected radar. Unintentional electronic jamming is most easily prevented by good planning and common sense, though sometimes it is unavoidable.

Countermeasures

 

 

• Constantly alternating the frequency that the radar operates on (frequency hopping) over a spread-spectrum will limit the effectiveness of most jamming, making it easier to read through it. Modern jammers can track a predictable frequency change, so the more random the frequency change, the more likely it is to counter the jammer.
  

 

• Cloaking the outgoing signal with random noise makes it more difficult for a jammer to figure out the frequency that a radar is operating on.
  

 

• Limiting unsecure radio communication concerning the jamming and its effectiveness is also important. The jammer could be listening, and if they know that a certain technique is effective, they could direct more jamming assets to employ this method.
  

 

• The most important method to counter radar jammers is operator training. Any system can be fooled with a jamming signal but a properly trained operator pays attention to the raw video signal and can detect abnormal patterns on the radar screen.
  

 

• The best indicator of jamming effectiveness to the jammer is countermeasures taken by the operator. The jammer does not know if their jamming is effective before operator starts changing radar transmission settings.
  

 

• Using EW countermeasures will give away radar capabilities thus on peacetime operations most military radars are used on fixed frequencies, at minimal power levels and with blocked Tx sectors toward possible listeners (country borders)
  

 

• Mobile fire control radars are usually kept passive when military operations are not ongoing to keep radar locations secret
  

 

• Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radars are innately harder to jam and can operate in Low Probability of Intercept (LPI) modes to reduce the chance that the radar is detected.
  

 

• A quantum radar system would automatically detect attempts at deceptive jamming, which might otherwise go unnoticed.[3]
  

HOSS!.............................

Edited July 3, 2014 by BeoWolf_57

[shagrat]

So the correct question is: is DECM functionality modeled in the DCS A-10Cs pods or not?

I have the feeling it simply changes the range before a SAM actually launches.

[GGTharos]

An (old) F-18's ECM for example can use simultaneous angle and range jamming against a threat radar to break the track (and apparently that part isn't secret, but the frequencies are :P )

 

In DCS, we basically have SOJ style range jammers.

 

There is no noise jamming in DCS: Plain noise jamming would decrease the radar gain (usually an automatic response to the noise) and thus shorten detection ranges. Noise jamming probably doesn't attempt to manipulate the signal at all - it's just trying to drown out your signal. This is not what we have in DCS.

 

In RL you can program pods to do whatever you want them to do, but you always have to deal with the fact than an SPJ has limited power, limited cooling, and thus limited ability to deal with multiple targets. If you have A-10C, you'll notice the jammer will select a program based on the threat and will come on when that threat locks onto your plane. This is a simple but fair representation of reality. That said, it doesn't really work too well in-game :)

 

That's how SPJs work, regardless of what method they use (DECM or Noise) - they respond to a threat, because they don't have enough resources to deal with absolutely everything out there, so the process looks something like:

 

- Listen

- Receive threat from RWR or internal mechanism

- Isolate threat waveform and match to library

- Apply ECM technique according to threat library, or apply default technique if threat is not recognized

- Transmit for x seconds

- Listen

 

The ECM technique can be any of the things BeoWolf-57 posted, and probably more.

 

Deception jamming is trying to confuse the tracking radar logic i.e. by creating false radar returns, so the tracking logic will have hard time figuring out which of the received signals are valid and can be used for missile guidance.

[GGTharos]

Yes, that is exactly what it does in game. Think of it as the SAM operator finding his bearings and dealing with your ECMing ways :)

 

So the correct question is: is DECM functionality modeled in the DCS A-10Cs pods or not?

I have the feeling it simply changes the range before a SAM actually launches.

[shagrat]

Thanks! So don't rely too much on it to actually defend the missile... :D

[GGTharos]

Correct. In fact, if you run into a player (or AI fighter), keeping your ECM on continuously is a) useless inside 20nm and b) hurts your evasion at almost any range if you are fired on - you won't be able to notch his radar or his radar guided missiles since your ECM is continuously transmitting :D

[shagrat]

Hmm, good point!

[tomcatter]

Such good answers, is good to know how the SPJ work in game.

 

To me, is most important to have the knowledge of how thing works inside the sim, than to know that are a simulated like in RL. A impossible thing talking about EW I guess...

 

Thanks BeoWolf for putting in a such clear way how things work, and thanks for share your knowledge and experience.

If anyone wants to elaborate, that post is a very good start.

[ralfidude]

wait, you can notch sam radar at their Rmax in DCS?

 

I've tested this theory in my spare time some time ago and it never worked.

[shagrat]

Naaw! He meant a human enemy plane, like F-15C or SU-27... not SAMs

[GGTharos]

Not in game, though you certainly should be able to at the right altitude and distance*.

 

 

*Time limited offer, where circumstances apply

 

wait, you can notch sam radar at their Rmax in DCS?

 

I've tested this theory in my spare time some time ago and it never worked.