Discussion of ECM pods in DCS

[TheMaroon47]

Basically, yes, adding more variables in the game would result in a significantly higher complexity of the detailing and development of all aircraft systems. I do believe that ED will add further improvements to DCS in the coming years, just not anytime soon. People sometimes forget that this is a massive spectrum to cover, and the fact that some people treat DCS as "just another game". ED always needs to implement some kind of balancing in the sim, otherwise it's just not going to be fun.

[MikeMikeJuliet]

I'll just repost what I put in this thread ( https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=170600 ) in the sim research section:

 

I'm only going to say I know a thing or two about this stuff.

 

The problem isn't just simply "Hey, let's make it more realistic one thing at a time." Once you breach a certain level of complexity with just one system on one aircraft, you now have a whole host of variables that must be applied to all aircraft/systems in order to properly represent the EW environment, and allow the more advanced EW techniques beyond noise jamming to have purpose. We're talking every pod (external and integrated like MiG-29 and F-15) and every radar (ECCM). What's the point if you're going to add velocity-gate/range-gate techniques if the radars you're trying to jam don't have the proper victim response or ECCM response modeled? Let's not even get started on individual blocks/versions of radars and what was added to them for ECCM.

 

Some of these variables include what's the jammer set to jam, because a lot of them can't do everything they're built to do, all the time. A lot of times, this is only configurable on the ground. What exact channel is each individual A/C operating their radars on so they don't interfere? How fast does a particular pod figure out what it's getting hit with and then counter? There's -so- many variables, the complexity of the sim will increase exponentially the more aircraft you throw at it.

 

As "trollish" as GG sounds sometimes, he's asking very pertinent and important questions, to which the answer will almost always be "I don't know, and there's no way we can find out, because EW is the blackest of black boxes, next to the radars themselves."

 

So where does this leave the game? Break it down into the most basic ideas.

 

1. Since all ECM on player aircraft is self-protection, what capability does it provide?

It denies a shot and/or fouls one taken and obscures what the aircraft is actually doing.

 

2. Can this be counter-acted upon?

Yes. You either burn through for the most part or develop techniques in the radar to automatically or semi-auto sort itself out. The later requires an individual radar to be a generation, at least, ahead of the system that's trying to jam it. It's a constant back and forth between "measures" and "countermeasures".

 

3. Do pilots have control over what these systems are doing?

No, not really. The system is either on or off for the most part and all the signal analysis and transmission is almost completely automatic, and most functions are only able to be programmed on the ground. Often, some intel officers are the ones that determine what capabilities the pods are loaded with, based upon ELINT in-theater.

 

When you distill what's going on to the above, the current model, while not realistic, provides a decent abstraction of what's going on, in a way that's manageable for the developers to implement. Remember, especially in multiplayer, you have people borking up all the time in the A-10C their individual aircraft IDs. Now you're asking these same people to throw a jammer on their aircraft and, should we stick to realism, figure out what to load it with so it's useful in the field? It would be a cluster bunch, and a bunch of radars operating with identical settings messes it up for everyone. It wouldn't be up to the pilot, but the mission planners anyway, especially in Russian doctrine.

 

It's hard to justify the value-added vs the cost and effort of further developing the EW environment, just to get nearly the same effect of "Push to WVR to nullify ECM".

 

I completely understand where you are coming from, and I don't expect anyone to be able to correctly and accurately model Electronic Warfare aspects into any sim out there.

 

Yet, as I've said a couple of times, most end users don't have a clue if the ECM they are seeing on their radar is real or cleverly faked. The emphasis here being on 'clever'. Self projection jammers to my knowledge rarely if ever use noise jamming. Still DCS shows all jamming as noise regardless. I've come to understand Mirage simulates deceptive ECM to some extebt.

 

What I'm getting at here, is that turning on ECM in DCS is too predictable and easy to identify. We should not expect complex ECM and ECCM systems from the game, but rather a simple suite of possible displays on the receiving end that look like real jamming and not the noise we have now. Possibly adjust burnthrough distances between each jammer and each radar with respect to approximate transmit power and there we go.

 

Again, EW being the black box that it is, I'm not looking for realism (it actually cannot be reached as you said, because of the ever changing arms race can't be simulated reasonably in a static Simulator). I'm looking for ECM to not look stupid and counterproductive.

 

 

If we want, just add CA-controlled noise jamming aircraft that we have now, and ta-da we can create simple but effective and *authentic enough* jamming corridors without the need to increase calculations exponentially.

 

 

I hope I made sense.

 

Regards,

MikeMikeJuliet

[FNU LNU]

Caveat: I didn't read the whole thread so if I repeat a talking point, I apologize.

 

At present, the lack of any semblance of EW in DCS prevents realistic tactics against double-digit SAMs, and fails to capture the point of carrying an SPJ in the first place. SPJs are specifically designed to defeat radar locks, and/or generate sufficient miss-distance in order to ensure aircraft survival. Current DCS jammers make no attempt to perform this task.

 

There are plenty of ways to more realistically model EW without it becoming overly complex for either users or developers. One does not need to model every radar's range and velocity gate algorithms in order to simulate an SPJs ability to employ an RGPO/VGPO countermeasure. Nor does one need to play EWO in order to make the pod do its job.

 

All that is required is to give each radar a set of representative characteristics: Band, PW, PRF, ERP, antenna pattern, scan type, etc. Then give each radar a set vulnerabilities, call them 0-9. For each vulnerability, assign a susceptibility value e.g., "0.85".

 

Now create a jammer, and give it some characteristics: Band, ERP, number of transmitters, antenna pattern, response time, max threats tracked, max threats countered, etc. And give it some ECM techniques, call them 0-9. Give each one an effectiveness value e.g., "0.5".

 

Use range to the victim radar, the SPJs signal characteristics, and the effectiveness/susceptibility values to algebraically calculate the probability of breaking the track. Voila...instant ECM.

 

Yes, some additional effort would be required in order to define the pod's priorities, and task specific techniques against specific threats, but it's not that complicated, and you only have to do it for number of pods in the game, which isn't many.

 

The beauty is that the pod's threat and technique libraries could be altered in the .lua files in order to create realistic threat response behaviors. All without actually modelling any specific ECM or ECCM technique. Now if you wanted to call Vulnerability 1 "Range Gate", and Technique 1 "RGPO", so much the better. But it doesn't matter...

 

Repeat for SOJ which prevents acquisition in the first place, and now you've got a reasonable approximation of the EW environment with relatively little effort...plus a reason to have Growlers/Prowlers in the game.

[Exorcet]

The problem would be kind of what we're suffering right now without a proper multi-role on NATO without an F-16/F-18 doing DEAD with HARMS, and then on the reverse not having long range SAMS like the SA-2 and SA-5.

 

You're only simming part of what the over all environment would be which leads to artificial advantages and disadvantages in the system that don't exist in real life.

I accept that this will be the case with a simple model. Some DCS modules already lack certain functionality due to a variety of reasons. The same would apply to ECM. What I was asking for in my post wasn't really anything new, just a revamp of what we have.

 

How exactly are they supposed to justify the development time and expenditures to develop this and then what? Release it as part of a free update to the system? If they try and release it as part of an expansion, good gravy can you imagine the poo storm on the forums? And then how would they integrate it with those that didn't buy it? You'll have servers having to choose between locking players out, or keeping an over simplified system and more occupied player slots. You can see something similar right now with people flying the full fidelity aircraft next to the FC3 in PVP. All that time to get into the air to get blown away by someone spamramming who took less than a minute to get into the air on a taxiway take off.

It would have to be a free update, but again my goal was to keep things simple. We have to compromise on ECM modeling somewhere but in my opinion, where we are now isn't the right spot. ECM is basically useless and I wouldn't say that it even provides a flavor of real EW. At the very least it shouldn't be as harmful to allies as it is to enemies. Just taking the simple system we have now and turning the white noise jammers into actual SPJ's

would do a lot for the sim in my opinion.

[GGTharos]

I love it when people call complicated things 'not that complicated' :D

 

but it's not that complicated

[FNU LNU]

The concept is not complicated. The implementation, however, can be as complicated as the developer desires.

 

I'm just saying that plenty more can be done to realistically simulate EW without ever approaching the level that requires more than basic math or a rudimentary understanding of the ECM/ECCM techniques. Like I said above, the process can be almost entirely abstracted, to the point that individual ECM techniques are nothing more than column labels.

[Eihort]

FNU's got the best solution so far, but then the problem is trying to determine what each pod is capable of, and as this thread, and many other threads comparing various systems and their capabilities (missile discussion anyone?), you're going to have a lot of people who know very little about it claiming that it's wrong.

 

Still waiting on F/A-18C and people think this is going to be done well, timely, and for free? Pick one and only one.

[MikeMikeJuliet]

FNU's got the best solution so far, but then the problem is trying to determine what each pod is capable of, and as this thread, and many other threads comparing various systems and their capabilities (missile discussion anyone?), you're going to have a lot of people who know very little about it claiming that it's wrong.

 

Still waiting on F/A-18C and people think this is going to be done well, timely, and for free? Pick one and only one.

 

That is indeed a problem and something that will never be "just right" for many people. Still, having some kind of system as described would - in my books at least - be considered as a great improvement to the sim expanding the tactical and operational options available in any given scenario.

 

As you have stated, we will never get the final word on how good each ECM-suite actually is at any given time against any given radar.

[SDsc0rch]

...As you have stated, we will never get the final word on how good each ECM-suite actually is at any given time against any given radar.

 

that's right - the next best thing is to make a "best guess"

 

assume larger more powerful a/c have stronger ECM systems - modern a/c will (should?) have better performance vs older a/c - also there should be differences between a/c with respect to coverage arcs (azimuth/elev where ECM/ESM is effective) - etc ----- make guesstimates - there will always be room for debate - but no one who knows anything for sure will say anything about it so its all just speculation anyway

 

would be a better system than we have right now

Edited June 4, 2017 by SDsc0rch

[VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants]

Watch this and makes me worried regarding ECM

Sorry if it was the wrong thread regarding this.

[oldcrusty]

6 hours ago, VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants said:

Watch this and makes me worried regarding ECM

Sorry if it was the wrong thread regarding this.

Wrong thread or not...  I'd like to see some sort of dedicated ECM platform (AI's fine). I wouldn't worry too much about lack of RW docs... however it all works, we know it wreaks havoc on all electronics 'around'.  ED could use their imagination as much as they want, :D.   Here's a sample:   https://youtu.be/v1zxH369Bm4?t=322

 

[Dragon1-1]

Actually, how a jammer works, in general terms, is well known. What's unknown is specifics. We don't know what values we should plug in to be good enough for planning real engagements, but we do know enough to implement a plausible ECM modeling from the physics side. Clever estimation can fill the other gaps, both radar and ECM power can be approximated from the antenna size, which can be approximated by pod/housing size, a known value. Some older (Vietnam-era) ECM systems are unclassified, although at the time they were rather crude.

[Pavlin_33]

I would first start with adjusting the burn-through range to be a percentage of radar's max range for locking up targets. This would actually give purpose to jamming we currently have in DCS and also give advantage to more powerful radars.

What's the point of jammig if the burn happens above missiles max range?