Jamming Capabilities-EF-111/EA-6B/F/A-18G Type Aircraft

[KingKenny04]

Was curious as to the possibilities of what DCS can simulate regarding E-War and radar jamming? Is something like the jamming capabilities of the Prowler/Growler possible to simulate in DCS? What would be required to make it possible?

 

Not planning to work on anything myself (I know nothing about modding), just thought it made an interesting topic for discussion.

[JayPee]

Was curious as to the possibilities of what DCS can simulate regarding E-War and radar jamming?

Currently next to none. Several people have roughly attempted the same in the past and all ended up finding out DCS has very simple arcade modeling of electronic warfare.

[chaos]

I'd imagine it's one of those 'no-go areas' due to mil. restrictions. I do wonder if it can be approximated in LUA by a 3rd party somehow. Some script (attached to a vehicle) that prevents said vehicle from being detected. Would that be even possible? I know nothing about LUA...

[emg]

This does not answer your questions, but it may be interesting to see this video captured at various Swedish ground radar stations in the 60's-80's.

Go to 19:53, note the fixed circle net, see 5 o'clock at the 4th ring out. You'll see lots of chaff being dropped by An-12 ECM variants.

At 20:12 you will see heavy jamming from some Tu-16 ECM variants.

 

 

Scale: Kaliningrad visible at the lower edge of the picture. Riga bay in the right side of the picture. Finnish airspace marked at the upper right edge. Swedish mainland at the left edge. Gotland island in the center.

Edited December 12, 2014 by emg

[vicx]

Wow. There is chaff and then there is filling the sky with metal. I would assume that standard fighter chaff countermeasures are not going to look like that.

 

Also are you sure that was jamming at 20:12. Maybe someone was heating up their lunch in the microwave oven.

[emg]

:D

Also check out 6:35. "Red Flag in the Warsaw pact," Soviet Tu-16s practicing attack runs against defending East German and Polish MiG-21 units.

 

10:43, you will see around 200 An-12 heading back from Czechoslovakia during the 1968 invasion.

 

29:49: SR-71 heading east at 6 o'clock, 3rd ring out. Fast!

[emg]

May also be of interest:

Edited January 1, 2015 by emg

[will-]

very nice! so tired of hearing "top secret" blah blah... Nice to finally see and learn something.

[BitMaster]

The video has been taken off YT, at least I can't watch it from a german IP.

 

Any chance to UL it again ?

 

Bit

[SDsc0rch]

fascinating

[Eihort]

Video is up. If you can't see it, you need a proxy or something.

[PFunk1606688187]

https://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/

 

Its kind of embarrassing the level of sophistication in that thing compared to DCS.

 

E warfare is so important I hope that down the line it gets addressed in the engine.

[emg]

Ahh Sam Simulator, yes that's a cool sim.

With the Hornet I hope we get some nice functionality re: ground EW vs fighter radar and vice versa, AI SAM operator shutting off their radars vs HARM spam, etc.

 

@BitMaster, I'm not the original uploader so I don't have the source files, or I could've loaded them to vimeo or liveleak or something. you can try a proxy like Eihort said.

[vicx]

Sam Sim is cool because they stick to modelling systems which are older. This is a smart way to approach the subject. It allows them to get the information and do a decent job of modelling and please many people with an interest in this area. Demonstrating the secret of success, be realistic with the goals.

 

I do not think there will be realistic modelling of EW capabilities for the aircraft listed in the title of this thread. The systems are complex to model in isolation but it could be done with 'access' to the right information BUT then to model their dynamics in an EW environment that is where the complexity becomes impossible. You would have to revert to assumptions and shortcuts which would undo the effort of modelling in the first place.

 

I think the dawn of the technology is the logical place to start modelling EW.

 

Electronic Warfare Equipment of World War II.

 

The technology is not as complex to model "in operation" and much of the detail for many of the systems is well known. So I think you have the wrong aircraft in the title. You should choose some aircraft where it is actually possible to succeed and model EW systems.

 

Start at the beginning. Just my opinion.

[PFunk1606688187]

Even if you don't have access to the specifics of the modeling of actual systems interacting to other systems you can still make your best guess. Countermeasures technology is extremely secret yet nobody would pretend like you can get away with not modeling it. DCS has a pretty rudimentary missile/countermeasure system modeled. Its far from realistic but its essential for the interplay of aircraft with a threat environment. Without it there's no point in having the sim.

 

As DCS becomes a much more crowded environment with far more complementary and adversarial systems the lack of decent EW modeling will become ever more conspicuous. With a proper modern fighter in the F-18C to go alongside the proper modern mud mover of the A-10C the question of mutual support in larger scale operations becomes real. No longer can this "we only have FC3 aircraft to back you up" thing be the excuse.

 

The F-18 will be able to do CAP, SEAD, the strategic end of AI while the A-10C will be doing the CAS and BAI and Aggressors with the F-18 again. We have most of the ingredients for a decent shot at virtual Red Flag on a massive scale multiplayer mission, except we have no EW.

 

So far the logic of the countermeasures and the systems on the A-10C are pretty unremarkable compared to the real thing (which we know little about). I'd say that public knowledge of the general principles of even modern EW are sufficient to make a much better "best guess" than people might think. Considering the number of things in DCS that are far from absolutely realistically modeled (last I checked we don't have full access to western or Russian missile data) EW has no real reason to be so neglected.

 

I would contend then its not a matter of opaque knowledge as much as priorities. Given the amateurish way most people play DCS (there's no real tactical primer like in BMS) I think its probably not missed by most people anyway.

Edited January 15, 2015 by P*Funk

[SDsc0rch]

^^agreed

[Suchacz]

RWR and ECM are not devices that works right out of the box. Its functionality is based on a database of received enemy radar signals, radar signatures etc. This database is a top secret "national treasure". Also modern ECM devices are more capable than just plain jamming - blinding the enemy radar. It can also fool enemy's radar by sending a false signals to it. It can erase you from your opponents radar screen and (for example) create a false targets somewhere else and the enemy even don't have an idea that your are jamming his radar.

 

Imho this is imposible to properly simulate without proper data, which are more than TOP secret :smilewink:

[PFunk1606688187]

Imho this is imposible to properly simulate without proper data, which are more than TOP secret :smilewink:

 

We don't have proper data on a lot of things. We do have knowledge of the general way things work in various forms. Thats enough to create an approximation.

 

We don't even need to know exactly how everything interacts, we just need the net effect. Our countermeasures in DCS are basically just a random dice roll based on certain limited parameters. I don't see why that would be acceptable but an equivalent (but more fleshed out) EW model wouldn't be.

 

Basically our missiles and our countermeasures aren't like the real ones, not even close. They do however approximate certain parameters and the ultimate goal is to create an approximation of the capabilities and the force balance. We don't know how IR missiles reject flares but we have a way of guessing it (probably badly) that allows us to simulate the ability to shake a missile. These are not strictly realistic, but they are realistic in the sense that the pilot is faced with the same abstract challenges and problems to solve in the battlespace.

 

Ultimately large scale study sims, when looking beyond the individual single user aircraft experience, are about just that, approximating the problems and where possible allowing us to use realistic solutions. There is no realistic modern battlespace without EW.

Edited January 16, 2015 by P*Funk

[karambiatos]

anything would be better than the current binary implementation of ECM, where its, youre in cover, now youre not.

 

and its even worse than FC2 since you burn through it just as you get in range of your missile

[BitMaster]

I love SEAD missions in the Su-25T and nothing would improve realism more than a more sophisitcated ECM implementation.

 

It doesnt need to copy the original 100%, as said, it's mostly classified etc.. .

 

Just some of the feeling..

 

Bit

[BitMaster]

..and using "classified xyz" as an excuse...is a lame excuse.

 

You may not even think about programming a DCS style software if you intend to pull that card as an excuse, than you are way better off doing a Farming Simulator and get some coffee hours with John Deer or Massey Ferguson.

 

It is the nature of the genre that you have to make assumptions to fill the gap. Nobody is gonna give you that information, just do it and adjust accordingly over time.

 

Bit

[SDsc0rch]

not related - but "kinda" related

 

IFF

 

the IFF implementation can be improved

 

this is in no way an exhaustive list, but an IFF transponder will respond even if the host a/c is currently jamming or in the notch

 

so.. for friendly a/c, if they're jamming or in the notch, you should be able to query them and get an IFF return

 

think how that can help you!

 

also - if the friendly radar contact is beyond the range of your radar, you can still get an IFF hit

 

all of these things are good - they help build SA - even if its just for friendly forces - its still "good"

 

note: trust me, IFF functioning and operation is more complicated than just this - but if we had just what i'm talking about, it would certainly be an improvement

 

if you have the f-15c flight manual that's available to d/l from the internet, look at the HOTAS system and you'll see that IFF is incorporated into the HOTAS ----- why do you think that is?? mm-hmm, because its a helpful/useful tool in an air superiority aircraft

 

((ps.. speaking of RADAR ------ not to derail this any more than i already have BUT........ *when* is the eagle's radar going to be brought up to snuff?? c'mon! the radar scope goes out to 160miles! we're not seeing ANYthing close to real-world performance out of the eagle's radar!))

[vicx]

I dunno. I think the whole idea of "modern EW" inside DCS is just a dream for now. You can have it but it won't actually be anything other than moving from a binary approach to rock, paper and scissors and then made to look more than it is. This might change in the future BUT not the near future.

 

For older EW technologies of WW2 up to the late 50's you probably can start to approximate and model the most common systems in a fashion that is dynamic enough to be worthwhile. After this period the techniques become way more complex so that writing the code and environment (from scratch) is too much to take on. This is my pragmatic position on EW modelling. Start with something simpler that can be done to a worthwhile level where solving the modeling and simulation complexity will provide experience and frameworks that are a base for modelling more modern systems. I think very early Cold War era would make a good lab. The dawn of radar and jamming in WW2 would also be a ideal place to start.

 

Do you need an example? Lets say that someone put in a lot of effort to write an ALQ-135 model. That model would be pointless without an adversary. To make this model worthwhile you have to spend just as much time on adversary EW suites for ground, air and sea to make the model part of a full dynamic system.

 

Coding and simulating a SET of highly complex EW suites is a much more difficult proposal than coding and simulating a SET of far simpler EW suites from an earlier era.

 

And without system dynamics you don't have much. Just my opinion.

[PFunk1606688187]

http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA566236

 

No, I'm not going to jail.

[emg]

:thumbup::book: