Let's talk about IFF

[Hadwell]

the issue is visually identifying things in dcs isn't realistic, you might as well just not carry missiles, need to be too close to even use them...

 

in DCS you get two F-15's on different teams that only differ by a single colour on a roundel, or a number...

 

test to see how close you need to get to a plane to see its colours and numbers.

 

so, for DCS, IFF is really the only sure way to ID things.

 

unless they can make it so we can see markings on planes from a realistic distance...

 

realism is only good when it's still practical, given the limitations of hardware and software...

 

like sure, with proper iff it would be more realistic, at the expense of making us all blind as deaf bats because of other limitations.

Edited March 9, 2016 by Hadwell

[MBot]

the issue is visually identifying things in dcs isn't realistic, you might as well just not carry missiles, need to be too close to even use them...

 

in DCS you get two F-15's on different teams that only differ by a single colour on a roundel, or a number...

 

test to see how close you need to get to a plane to see its colours and numbers.

 

so, for DCS, IFF is really the only sure way to ID things.

 

unless they can make it so we can see markings on planes from a realistic distance...

 

realism is only good when it's still practical, given the limitations of hardware and software...

 

like sure, with proper iff it would be more realistic, at the expense of making us all blind as deaf bats because of other limitations.

 

I think you are underestimating the difficulties of visual identification in RL. In a conflict with both sides flying the same aircraft, no one is going to rely on just indentifying roundels when shooting at somebody (at least not for the jet age). When the Libyans introduced Mirages, Israeli Mirages were painted with huge orange triangles on their wings. This was at a time when the gun and rear aspect missiles were still the primary weapons. During Desert Storm, French Mirage F1 were kept on the ground to avoid any confusions with Iraqi Mirage F1.

 

What you are basically saying is that you want to keep a gamey feature in order to be able to play gamey missions. This is fine for me if this is a optional difficulty setting, but it should not prevent a more realistic approach to the friend-foe problem.

[Pikey]

I want IFF and so do most of my group. No need to simulate any classified encryption or abuse or failure. A simple emulation of the result is enough, it will add something small but very meaningful to much of the multiplayer gameplay and something large and serious to the groups that really are into procedure.

 

I understand it's not for everyone, I don't think it immediately fits into the FC3 "mini game". For a start, bang goes the EOS advantage for the weed crawlers and much of the ambush play would be dead. And rather than upset them I'd only ever wish for IFF to be modelled on full fidelity aircraft. But I think that's a reasonable ask that suits all. On implementation....hmm. Well if we can get AI to crank and hold shots, we can get them to close to VID as part of a new ROE setting, there's nothing I see new or complex in that.

[Pikey]

the issue is visually identifying things in dcs isn't realistic, you might as well just not carry missiles, need to be too close to even use them...

 

I can only hope to think you use the word wrongly, that is exactly what realism is. What you meant to say is that realism breaks the FC3 minigame. And thats true, ambush tactics, EOS advantages, I just mentioned.

 

But IFF IS realistic and ROE and VID are massive issues that make headlines as every person involved in fratricide would love to tell you. Simulating that level allows us to use the procedures that govern safe combat flight in war.

[GGTharos]

He uses the word correctly. The 'FC3 Minigame' is something that people make up to make themselves feel superior because they operate a click-pit. Nothing is stopping you from flying any type of procedure in an SSM model.

 

The amount of fratricide is really low in RL, and the big fear is mostly SAMs. There is a massive electronic and off-board ID capability. You don't (and won't) get that in DCS and what I mean by this is:

 

You won't get (real) IFF problems modeled except maybe for your IFF being off

You won't get AI that can really handle dealing IFF issues well (it can cheat by knowing your coalition though!), so you're only left with 'realism' when it comes to interacting with other players, which is the least amount of IFF trouble you should be running into - the big fear should be your own SAMs and flying safe corridor procedures. So right there, a major part of IFF issues just can't/won't be present.

You won't get the massive off-board intel or battle-space control from AI that you get in RL, though you can try to sort of simulate this with LOTATC and other fun things.

 

So if 'realism' to you is that someone can turn their IFF off, or that it can be damaged, and that AI can 'handle it' by just cranking and performing VID, that's just really funny ... and it has nothing to do with 'FC3 minigames' (after all, if push comes to shove, adding an IFF on/off switch to an SSM aircraft isn't a big deal).

 

No matter what you do, you'll still get weed-crawlers and ambushes. IFF is used in RL because it works. Procedures around it exist because it may be faulty, but that's not the rule. This is basically a re-hashing of the whole 'vietnam missile performance' argument being used to excuse poor missile performance, but it's applied to IFF instead. All these technologies have come forward and they are effective. Modern fighters have been cleared to perform BVR on their own because they can run their own ID matrix which includes IFF and NCTR these days. If you lock up a bandit and push the ID button, you can still reasonably expect the IFF system to give you a good response. What if things fail? I don't know of any sim that models this as it's quite complex.

 

And again, nothing is stopping you from flying VID procedures for any reason whatsoever.

Edited March 9, 2016 by GGTharos

[MBot]

He uses the word correctly. The 'FC3 Minigame' is something that people make up to make themselves feel superior because they operate a click-pit. Nothing is stopping you from flying any type of procedure in an SSM model.

 

The amount of fratricide is really low in RL, and the big fear is mostly SAMs. There is a massive electronic and off-board ID capability. You don't (and won't) get that in DCS and what I mean by this is:

 

You won't get (real) IFF problems modeled except maybe for your IFF being off

You won't get AI that can really handle dealing IFF issues well (it can cheat by knowing your coalition though!), so you're only left with 'realism' when it comes to interacting with other players, which is the least amount of IFF trouble you should be running into - the big fear should be your own SAMs and flying safe corridor procedures. So right there, a major part of IFF issues just can't/won't be present.

You won't get the massive off-board intel or battle-space control from AI that you get in RL, though you can try to sort of simulate this with LOTATC and other fun things.

 

So if 'realism' to you is that someone can turn their IFF off, or that it can be damaged, and that AI can 'handle it' by just cranking and performing VID, that's just really funny ... and it has nothing to do with 'FC3 minigames' (after all, if push comes to shove, adding an IFF on/off switch to an SSM aircraft isn't a big deal).

 

No matter what you do, you'll still get weed-crawlers and ambushes. IFF is used in RL because it works. Procedures around it exist because it may be faulty, but that's not the rule. This is basically a re-hashing of the whole 'vietnam missile performance' argument being used to excuse poor missile performance, but it's applied to IFF instead. All these technologies have come forward and they are effective.

 

And again, nothing is stopping you from flying VID procedures for any reason whatsoever.

 

 

I think you are completely ignoring the historic dimension. DCS World is not limited to the current day era.

 

Let's take my "Guardians of the Caucasus" campaign for example. It is a MiG-21 campaign playing in 1980. There you are constantly getting shot in the face BVR with long range Sparrows by F-4 and F-15. Something that simply was extremely rare in that era, historically proven by hundreds of engagements in Vietnam, Yom Kipur and Bekaa Valley.

[Hadwell]

I think you are completely ignoring the historic dimension. DCS World is not limited to the current day era.

 

Let's take my "Guardians of the Caucasus" campaign for example. It is a MiG-21 campaign playing in 1980. There you are constantly getting shot in the face BVR with long range Sparrows by F-4 and F-15. Something that simply was extremely rare in that era, historically proven by hundreds of engagements in Vietnam, Yom Kipur and Bekaa Valley.

 

the problem with that is, with real life, you have a limited amount of planes in the air, you always know how many of your own planes are in the air and generally where they are, so anything that's not what you're escorting, or part of your wing, you can assume is an enemy and investigate, even so far back as the 1960s...

 

this so called "mini game" in DCS is where you'll always find people to play with, on servers like 104th... it's really less of a "mini game" than the once a week scripted missions you play with 4 of your buddies.

 

and for scripted missions, you've probably looked in the mission editor and already know where and what every plane is for all teams and what all of their flight paths will be before you even start the mission, so having proper iff is moot anyway.

Edited March 9, 2016 by Hadwell

[GGTharos]

With all due respect MBot, no, I'm not. The historical situation is far more complicated:

 

Opportunities for long-range shots didn't always exist (eg. no look-down capability) and at least until AIM-7F, missile range vs. an even mildly maneuvering target wasn't all that good. At the same time, the system was so slow to lock on, that you were VIDing the guy as your missile was coming off the rails.

 

Other reasons to force VID is that although your IFF may work correctly, your weapons might not track the right thing - this can be especially true in dense air to air environments.

 

What you're facing is the lack of limitations of these systems in those eras, but they're not necessarily IFF limitations.

 

I think you are completely ignoring the historic dimension. DCS World is not limited to the current day era.

 

Let's take my "Guardians of the Caucasus" campaign for example. It is a MiG-21 campaign playing in 1980. There you are constantly getting shot in the face BVR with long range Sparrows by F-4 and F-15. Something that simply was extremely rare in that era, historically proven by hundreds of engagements in Vietnam, Yom Kipur and Bekaa Valley.

[MBot]

the problem is, with real life, you have a limited amount of planes in the air, you always know how many of your own planes are in the air and generally where they are, even so far back as the 1960's

 

Exactly the opposite, the sky is often extremely crowded. In the first night of Desert Storm, over 600 allied aircraft entered Iraqi airspace. AWACS and the NCTR capability of the F-15C contributed to the good allied air-air performance, yet still many shot opportunities were not taken due to fear of fractide.

 

Over North Vietnam the airspace was usually so crowded and confusing that BVR shots with Sparrows were possible only on a handful of carefully staged occasions. The airspace was emptied of US aircraft (carefully coordinated between the USAF and USN) and the first Phantom flight to enter the airspace had a few short minutes clearance to shoot everything in front. This could be staged only a handful if times in several years of war.

 

There are many example during Vietnam up to Lebanon 1982 that during visual identification, aircrews were identifying their "targets" as friendly. Those ROE were in place because they were needed to prevent friendly fire.

 

 

and for scripted missions, you've probably looked in the mission editor and already know where and what every plane is for all teams and what all of their flight paths will be before you even start the mission, so having proper iff is moot anyway.

 

I am writing dynamic campaigns, so it is exactly the opposite.

[MBot]

With all due respect MBot, no, I'm not. The historical situation is far more complicated:

 

Opportunities for long-range shots didn't always exist (eg. no look-down capability) and at least until AIM-7F, missile range vs. an even mildly maneuvering target wasn't all that good. At the same time, the system was so slow to lock on, that you were VIDing the guy as your missile was coming off the rails.

 

Other reasons to force VID is that although your IFF may work correctly, your weapons might not track the right thing - this can be especially true in dense air to air environments.

 

What you're facing is the lack of limitations of these systems in those eras, but they're not necessarily IFF limitations.

 

Then please explain to me, why did Isreali Air Force F-15 only score 1 in 34 kills beyond visual range during the Bekaa Valley campaign in 1982.

[RoflSeal]

Then please explain to me, why did Isreali Air Force F-15 only score 1 in 34 kills beyond visual range during the Bekaa Valley campaign in 1982.

 

I don't think during Bekaa Valley, F-15A radar was able to do NCTR.

[GGTharos]

You know that WVR doesn't mean VID though, right?

 

Can you tell me how many of those WVR shots were VID'ed, and why there was a BVR shot taken at all?

 

I'm actually looking for this kind of data, as I find it interesting; unfortunately even in historical contexts you won't always find good details about why something was done in a specific way.

 

Then please explain to me, why did Isreali Air Force F-15 only score 1 in 34 kills beyond visual range during the Bekaa Valley campaign in 1982.

[GGTharos]

You are correct, NCTR required a memory and processor upgrade.

 

I don't think during Bekaa Valley, F-15A radar was able to do NCTR.

[MBot]

You know that WVR doesn't mean VID though, right?

 

Can you tell me how many of those WVR shots were VID'ed, and why there was a BVR shot taken at all?

 

I'm actually looking for this kind of data, as I find it interesting; unfortunately even in historical contexts you won't always find good details about why something was done in a specific way.

 

The reason only a few BVR shots were taken was because there was a standing visual identification ROE that could only be overridden by direct clearance from AWACS (E-2). I can only speculate on why the IAF had put this ROE in place, but it sounds reasonable to assume that they did not trust IFF equipment alone to prevent friendly fire.

 

I can recommend the following book on the topic:

 

https://ospreypublishing.com/israeli-f-15-eagle-units-in-combat

 

There is an interesting annectote from the 1982 war, where a F-15 was given clearance for a BVR shot by AWACS. The F-15 pilot felt unconfortable about it and pressed on to make a VID none the less. His target turned out to be a friendly Phantom.

 

 

Edit:

Having had a quick look at the excerpt of the book, I see that I have remembering several things incorrectly. The VID ROE was a squadron rule. Controllers could be on the ground or airborne. The friendly type in the annectote is unspecified, not necessary a Phantom.

 

The greatest problem facing my squadon during the war was the correct identification of aircraft that we encountered north of the border. The informal order that we obeyed within the unit was that no one was to open fire without first achieving positive identification of the target. This was just as well, for later in the war I intercepted a jet and the GCU cleared me to fire an AAM, but I chose not to launch the missile. This was a wise move, as it turned out that my "target" was an IDF/AF aircraft!

Edited March 9, 2016 by MBot

[GGTharos]

I'm looking for analytical papers, but they seem hard to come by.

 

To me it's just a good old dense environment where friendlies and bandits may be mixed, plus a lot of UAVs which may or may not have had IFF capability.

 

My point is, IFF is really complicated and about the only two cases you can reliably simulate right now is someone forgetting to turn it on, or failure.

 

No RF multi-path issues, no 'two planes inside ID beam', no real battlespace control by the AI and there is no AI programming for VID or other handling of IFF issues (though you could sort of fake some of it in the ME and with scripting), and there is no AI programming to run tactics against failed IFF.

 

Pretty much none of what makes IFF difficult can be simualted.

 

But again, IFF is used in real life because it works.

 

Anecdotes relating exceptions to the rule are just that: Exceptions to the rule.

[MBot]

But again, IFF is used in real life because it works.

 

Anecdotes relating exceptions to the rule are just that: Exceptions to the rule.

 

Sorry, but I am just completely baffled by that statement. IFF can technically only differentiate between friendly and unknown*. I just brought up the example where the BVR capability of the F-15 remained unused for the vast majority of the engagements during a war because no positive identification could be achieved beyond visual range. IFF alone cannot provide positive identification.

 

 

*We can discuss Combat Tree and the like seperatly.

 

 

My point is, IFF is really complicated and about the only two cases you can reliably simulate right now is someone forgetting to turn it on, or failure.

 

Which is what what most here are requesting. This alone would introduce the uncertainty into an 'unknown' IFF response that would dictate a change of ROE to positive identification.

Edited March 9, 2016 by MBot

[Pikey]

It's a mini game. I play that mini game and its enjoyable, it's a subset of DCS World involving specific modules, your remarks were nearly insulting and confused and mis-defending something I'm not attacking.

 

As for the rest of your repsonse i'm not evern sure what you are trying say, are you saying that you think IFF should be in or out?

 

He uses the word correctly. The 'FC3 Minigame' is something that people make up to make themselves feel superior because they operate a click-pit. Nothing is stopping you from flying any type of procedure in an SSM model.

 

The amount of fratricide is really low in RL, and the big fear is mostly SAMs. There is a massive electronic and off-board ID capability. You don't (and won't) get that in DCS and what I mean by this is:

 

You won't get (real) IFF problems modeled except maybe for your IFF being off

You won't get AI that can really handle dealing IFF issues well (it can cheat by knowing your coalition though!), so you're only left with 'realism' when it comes to interacting with other players, which is the least amount of IFF trouble you should be running into - the big fear should be your own SAMs and flying safe corridor procedures. So right there, a major part of IFF issues just can't/won't be present.

You won't get the massive off-board intel or battle-space control from AI that you get in RL, though you can try to sort of simulate this with LOTATC and other fun things.

 

So if 'realism' to you is that someone can turn their IFF off, or that it can be damaged, and that AI can 'handle it' by just cranking and performing VID, that's just really funny ... and it has nothing to do with 'FC3 minigames' (after all, if push comes to shove, adding an IFF on/off switch to an SSM aircraft isn't a big deal).

 

No matter what you do, you'll still get weed-crawlers and ambushes. IFF is used in RL because it works. Procedures around it exist because it may be faulty, but that's not the rule. This is basically a re-hashing of the whole 'vietnam missile performance' argument being used to excuse poor missile performance, but it's applied to IFF instead. All these technologies have come forward and they are effective. Modern fighters have been cleared to perform BVR on their own because they can run their own ID matrix which includes IFF and NCTR these days. If you lock up a bandit and push the ID button, you can still reasonably expect the IFF system to give you a good response. What if things fail? I don't know of any sim that models this as it's quite complex.

 

And again, nothing is stopping you from flying VID procedures for any reason whatsoever.

[GGTharos]

Sorry, but I am just completely baffled by that statement. IFF can technically only differentiate between friendly and unknown*. I just brought up the example where the BVR capability of the F-15 remained unused for the vast majority of the engagements during a war because no positive identification could be achieved beyond visual range. IFF alone cannot provide positive identification.

 

Yes, it can provide positive identification for friendlies. That is what it's there for, but yes, it's also only part of the ID matrix.

 

*We can discuss Combat Tree and the like seperatly.

 

Let's ignore it as there's no guarantee of it working anyway.

 

Which is what what most here are requesting. This alone would introduce the uncertainty into an 'unknown' IFF response that would dictate a change of ROE to positive identification.

 

You can dictate an ROE any time you like - even to the AI you can create ROE switches based on triggers or scripting, and for humans it's just a matter of discipline.

[Pikey]

@Hadwell - Spiteful. And completely wrong. We play Team Versus Team in the 42nd, just because we are that large. And when we feel like minigame, we go drink and play on 104th or TAW for some light refreshment.

 

You just assumed we play AI internally, IFF is important for multiplayer. It's so utterly not moot and you are so completely wrong that I feel embarrassed for you.

 

this so called "mini game" in DCS is where you'll always find people to play with, on servers like 104th... it's really less of a "mini game" than the once a week scripted missions you play with 4 of your buddies.

 

and for scripted missions, you've probably looked in the mission editor and already know where and what every plane is for all teams and what all of their flight paths will be before you even start the mission, so having proper iff is moot anyway.

[GGTharos]

It's a mini game. I play that mini game and its enjoyable, it's a subset of DCS World involving specific modules, your remarks were nearly insulting and confused and mis-defending something I'm not attacking.

 

Sorry, I made assumptions I shouldn't have.

 

=================================================

 

I believe there's no point in implementing it because it is all a half measure.

 

To keep a long story short, I don't believe the AI will ever adequately represent handing of IFF issues, and I don't believe that it really adds much to MP either - you can just set and enforce ROE yourself.

As for incompatible IFF systems on the same side; that's a matter of planning which you can do anyway.

You may have off-board intel to help you, and maybe you do with LOTATC - but that is not available to everyone. You can certainly use AI GCI/AWACS, but again ... they don't (and really shouldn't in most cases) have an IFF issue. On the other hand, modeling imperfections on the part of the AI usually just leads to spurious bug reports.

 

Finally, one of the biggest IFF problems are the SAMs. So, we just paper over it and pretend that they have all the right IFF gear? I mean ok - fair enough, but then ... why don't your planes? :)

 

As for the rest of your repsonse i'm not evern sure what you are trying say, are you saying that you think IFF should be in or out?

Edited March 9, 2016 by GGTharos

[Eddie]

I believe there's no point in implementing it because it is all a half measure.

 

While all your points regarding AI are valid, I have to say I very much disagree with this statement. I think that adding IFF functionality purely for aircraft that are human controlled would add a not insignificant amount to the sim.

 

Yes the AI would continue as they are now, but at least the current "magic" IFF would be changed to a system that has potential ambiguity. As it is now, IFF is essentially confirming both friend and hostile and players can simply shoot at anything that isn't flagged as a friend.

 

Now I wouldn't advocate removing the current implementation, but rather making it a difficulty/gameplay option such that those who want to play in a more relaxed arcade type style can continue to do so.

 

Personally, I'd much prefer no IFF at all over what is currently in place. As the current functionality promotes poor procedures, and lack of communication and coordination.

[MBot]

You can dictate an ROE any time you like - even to the AI you can create ROE switches based on triggers or scripting, and for humans it's just a matter of discipline.

 

Still, for humans to do a VID if you are 100% certain that a target is hostile is rather pointless. Following procedures for procedures sake is not my thing. It's the same with system checks. I wont do any because I am certain that there is a 0% chance that a system check will discover a failure. For me this is just dumb role playing. If there is a chance though that there is a failure, even if this chance is very small, it gives the check a purpose. The same applies to ROE. Once I can no longer be certain that an unknown contact is automatically hostile, the VID ROE gets a meaning. Otherwise it is just role playing a procedure.

 

For AI you would have to make a specific, highly scripted setup in order to emulate (badly) a VID ROE. Unfortunately completely unsuitable for my purposes.

 

As mentioned in the beginning of the topic, I do agree that introducing to the AI the concept of 'unknown' and perceived contact affiliation (versus the current absolute coalition knowledge), as well as means to declare a contact's affiliation based on certain conditions, might not be trivial. Disregarding the potential complexities of such a fundamental change in the AI system (which I cannot judge), I think the concept itself is not terribly complex. While I do not know of any other flight simulation that features the unknown-principle for AI, other games do have it. Command Modern Air/Naval Operations would be an excellent example. It features AI handling friendly/hostile/unknown contacts, ROE management, conditions to declare bogeys hostile etc. I think it would be a worthwhile addition to DCS, not only for air-air but also for air defense.

[GGTharos]

As it is now, IFF is essentially confirming both friend and hostile and players can simply shoot at anything that isn't flagged as a friend.

 

And IMHO it will continue this way until there is something more in the simulation than 'friend' and 'enemy'. Ambiguity to me sounds like a forced/contrived situation - having said that, sure, you can set it up for particular purpose.

 

For example there was a mission with a Su-25 defector back in the day. In talking to EB, we struggled a bit with representing it correctly and in the end we had to settle on just making it a friendly coalition aircraft.

 

Even if a player was playing this, same problem: He needs to land at an airfield protected by SAMs, so now it comes down to an IFF system that could be shut off, but AI can 'cheat'.

 

That still leaves me with the problem of making a SAM corridor (of the side he's defecting from) for this frog pilot to fly through, but it's not as big a deal.

 

 

Personally, I'd much prefer no IFF at all over what is currently in place. As the current functionality promotes poor procedures, and lack of communication and coordination.

 

Procedure is what you make of it. IMHO you're not going to see better procedures or communication on public servers, you'll only see it from dedicated squadrons that will do this regardless.

'No IFF' to me is just asking for a WW2 dogfight fest with missiles. Anyway, obviously it's one extreme of un-realism vs another.

[GGTharos]

Still, for humans to do a VID if you are 100% certain that a target is hostile is rather pointless. Following procedures for procedures sake is not my thing. It's the same with system checks. I wont do any because I am certain that there is a 0% chance that a system check will discover a failure. For me this is just dumb role playing. If there is a chance though that there is a failure, even if this chance is very small, it gives the check a purpose. The same applies to ROE. Once I can no longer be certain that an unknown contact is automatically hostile, the VID ROE gets a meaning. Otherwise it is just role playing a procedure.

 

And having the failure happen or spending time on modeling the weaknesses of the systems is wasted time/effort in 99% of cases. Look at birds: EVERYONE turns them off. Why? Same reason you don't turn failures on: You really don't need that intruding on your entertainment time, at least for the vast majority people.

 

For AI you would have to make a specific, highly scripted setup in order to emulate (badly) a VID ROE. Unfortunately completely unsuitable for my purposes.

 

I have done that before, and yes, it's limited.

 

As mentioned in the beginning of the topic, I do agree that introducing to the AI the concept of 'unknown' and perceived contact affiliation (versus the current absolute coalition knowledge), as well as means to declare a contact's affiliation based on certain conditions, might not be trivial. Disregarding the potential complexities of such a fundamental change in the AI system (which I cannot judge), I think the concept itself is not terribly complex.

 

Depends on how half-baked you want it to be - the concept is easy to understand, the implementation is complicated since again, it's not just about what you know, but what you do with that information.

 

While I do not know of any other flight simulation that features the unknown-principle for AI, other games do have it. Command Modern Air/Naval Operations would be an excellent example. It features AI handling friendly/hostile/unknown contacts, ROE management, conditions to declare bogeys hostile etc. I think it would be a worthwhile addition to DCS, not only for air-air but also for air defense.

 

ARMA has this concept. The AI is always either too poor at it or too good at it but sometimes they do cool things - eg. an AI officer may send a couple of guys to check things out. Dangerous Waters has it. Some people will play the 16-hour hunt but really, due to limitations of simulations, you usually have the data to figure out who's who in the first few minutes. The I doesn't, but if they sense a launch they'll respond in kind.

 

Anyway, coming off the AI thing for a moment - given OP's post, the amount of procedure you've added is as follows:

 

1) Check you flipped the IFF switch to on

2) Someone with a radar (in RL it could easily be a small SAM sitting at EOR) verified that they get a good correlation from your IFF (again, just a check to ensure it's on).

[MBot]

Depends on how half-baked you want it to be - the concept is easy to understand, the implementation is complicated since again, it's not just about what you know, but what you do with that information.

 

That is quite pessimistic :) Would you care to elaborate what you think is particularly complex to implement?

 

Here are some basics which I think would provide a decent start:

1. Unknowns are prosecuted like Hostiles but with weapon status per ROE. If weapon hold, then AI maneuvers to engage target until contact is identified hostile (then open fire) or friendly (ignore it). This is how Command Modern Air/Naval Operations does it.

2. ROE weapon hold/free on Unknowns

3. ROE is controlled in the ME. Global setting per coalition and overriding settings per groups.

4. Means of declaring Unknowns to Hostile:

4a. Visual identification of aircraft type

4b. If type is ambiguous (same type used by both coalitions) visual identification of markings

4c. Observation of hostile act against friendlies.

4d. Observation of take-off from hostile base.

4e. Non Cooperative Target Recognition

4f. Any combination of heading, altitude, speed (bigger, lower, equal), zone (inside, outside) or time, as defined as condition in the ROE tab in ME.

4g. Identification by external party to which a radio-/data-link is established (which itself must declare the contact hostile by 4a.-4g.).