ECM Blinking

[Pilotasso]

Im a blinker too, if I dont blink my eyebals will dry and my eyelits will cause more drag in their travel and will cause me severe pain and injury! :D

 

Just like the bird on my sig! :D

[Guest IguanaKing]

Look, this is a poor argument in some ways. I disagree that the argument is sound.

 

F-15's going STT on jamming aircraft even in burn-through is unrealistic.

Missiles flying pure in HoJ is unrealistic.

Mad dogging missiles long range is unrealistic.

Flying low to gain the upper hand consistently is unrealistic.

 

All of these are caused my game glitches - or poor mission setup. Or both. And they are just a -few- examples of what is unrealistic.

 

 

Yup, aware of all that, just like notching the F-15s radar in a look-up situation. SA-6s engaging AGM-65s with almost 100% PK is pretty unrealistic too, but its just one of those things we have to adapt our tactics for until it gets fixed...and I'm guessing many of these bugs aren't very high on the priorities list. I guess its just personal choice really. Its a whole lot simpler for me though, since I'm pretty much strictly a ground pounder. Heh...I don't have as many "is this realistic?" questions to worry about. :)

[Pilotasso]

Yup, aware of all that, just like notching the F-15s radar in a look-up situation. SA-6s engaging AGM-65s with almost 100% PK is pretty unrealistic too, but its just one of those things we have to adapt our tactics for until it gets fixed...and I'm guessing many of these bugs aren't very high on the priorities list. I guess its just personal choice really. Its a whole lot simpler for me though, since I'm pretty much strictly a ground pounder. Heh...I don't have as many "is this realistic?" questions to worry about. :)

 

Actualy the low fliers getting the upper hand is the result of poor tactics of the high flier as well. You still get the advantage from being higher when launching missiles.

 

Its just that it is more demanding managing the radar looking down than it is with vertical scan looking up. Therefore peope are lazy or not educated for going high and do the right moves. Im sorry that thiss sounds arrogant (trying to get into the spitrit of the thing :D )

But I simply do not agree, despite the games flaws that flying low is the way to go. If anyone gets that feeling now, it wont make much impact with WAFM and new sensor modeling either.

[chrno120]

Nope, i won't since as most of you people said, it's a glitch so i won't do it.

 

i don't use Sorbtsiya pods that much anyway. When i do have ecm pods, it's only during single missions, offline.

[GGTharos]

As an aside GG, stop talking out of both sides of your mouth. As soon as I hit Hyperlobby you apologized for fecking with me here on the forums because (and I quote) you have nothing better to do.

 

I didn't apologize. I stated a fact. ;)

That you saw me apologize is your own twist on reality - I have no reason to do such a thing. I also don't see a point on getting into it on HL; I spend enough time doing so here.

 

That's a chickenshit move and insincerity rates low on my tolerance list. Be a man, pick your stance and don't apologize for it. But don't blow smoke up my ass elsewhere and act like a dick here. You may have knowledge about real world systems and you may be a fantastic beta tester but you're not much of a person as shown by your actions tonite. You notice I didn't apologize for calling you a bonesmuggler on HL. Then again, I'm not afraid to man up.

 

But I also don't care much wether you apologize or not. You have your reasons, I have mine - to say what we do say. I disagree with you - I tell you why. That is it. Everything else is basically extranneous crap that is wrapped around that message.

[GGTharos]

But I simply do not agree, despite the games flaws that flying low is the way to go. If anyone gets that feeling now, it wont make much impact with WAFM and new sensor modeling either.

 

Yes, it will. As I said - it's a matter of missiles hitting things. Missiles like to hit the ground when fired down towards it.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Not sure why you think I havent dealt with it. Quite easily actually.

 

Hmmm...I'm pretty sure it had something to do with basically demanding that servers make people stop using that tactic or LOMAC was going to just collect dust...or something along those lines. It kinda looked like Cartman on SouthPark saying, "Screw you guys! I'm going home!" :P

[Guest IguanaKing]

Actualy the low fliers getting the upper hand is the result of poor tactics of the high flier as well. You still get the advantage from being higher when launching missiles.

 

True, but the LOMAC world also isn't as full of Jihad Johnny with his Redeye or Igla. ;)

[Pilotasso]

Yes, it will. As I said - it's a matter of missiles hitting things. Missiles like to hit the ground when fired down towards it.

 

 

You didnt have to tell me that, I know it, but flying high still, despite all gives you the intitiative. If the guy behind the scope doesnt let him go the guy flying low will be almost always defensive, so it doesnt matter much how easy it is for the missile to be fooled by chaff against the clutter because for him that exercise will be merely a dodging gauntlet and he'll run out of chaff eventualy. It does influence how many times you can do this per sortie, not more than twice in most cases. In pre 1.1 I could do up to 4, sometimes against more than 1 target at a time, so in BS the difference will be again the number of times this can be donne with 8 missiles avaiable. ;)

[OldFrankHog]

WATCH OUT BLINKERS!!!

[Guest IguanaKing]

That's because some of the people making the missions don't know how to put together a realistic one. Fly any of my LMR missions below angels 10 over enemy territory and you ain't going home in one piece.

 

LMR? I've been so out of touch with new mods for Lockon, I didn't know it had been completed. Is there some place I can download that, Rugg? I very rarely get below 14 over enemy territory anway. Randomized missions would certainly be cool too. I've noticed that quite a few on-line servers are putting more low-altitude air defenses in, which is a good thing...more like the real world. :D

[Guest IguanaKing]

WATCH OUT BLINKERS!!!

 

Kinda funny, but those are some people, ON BOTH SIDES, who seriously need to get a grip. :doh:

[Pilotasso]

I Finaly swiched my mind over the root of this problem:

 

The burn through range.

 

I knew it it was a bad idea when ED announced it for FC in order to make things more fun (I should have winned loudly then not just making a small remark wich I did), but they seem to forgot the consequences of that change. IMHO they must have tested this in 1 VS 1 Combat and never in 20+ player mission. Its a mess, 15 miles is too short to IFF anyone. It requires too much skill out of the average player to tilt the radar fast enough to get a shot off after IFF. This alone is as much or even more troublesome than blinking ECM, and in practice practicaly removes the F-15 multi engagement capability, depending of the opeonents good will, wich shouldnt be expected, and frankly I dont like to win at the cost of charity.

 

I think we should reconsider taking it back to 35 miles again, it will also end this blinking exploit along with it. Adding to that it would make more complicated fixes unnessessary, we dont need to make HOJ all the time to have fun as it has only broke things in the game.

[GGTharos]

I think we should reconsider taking it back to 35 miles again, it will also end this blinking expliot along with it. Adding to that it would make more complicated fixes unnessessary, we dont need to make HOJ all the time to have fun as it has only broke things in the game.

 

I would actually prefer a more complicated fix.

 

One of the suggestions I made - aside from fixing the blinking issue - would also give us dynamic break-lock and burn-through in HoJ.

 

Basically the idea was as such

 

1. Jammer has warm-up and cool-down times - blinking is fixed

2. Jammer is automated. It will emit when you're locked on-to, stop when you're not. TWS now becomes much more useable.

3. When the jammer emits, a couple things happen.

Right off the bat, you roll a die (read: random probability) to determine if it breaks the offending radar's lock outright. You do this again every x seconds that you are locked.

The attacking radar rolls a die to see if it burns through.

 

Burn through and break lock probability are affected by radar power on target - meaning range ... relative to your radar strength (so a MiG has more difficulty burning through for example)

So, at longer ranges - more chance to break lock. At shorter ranges - more chance to burn through.

 

At this point, what you end up with is a more dynamic ECM/ECCM environment without a set burn-through range and no guarantees of maintaining lock on a jamming target.

 

At the same time ... fear the F-15's with their TWS systems - AS it should be.

[Anytime]

Sounds good, as long as you can still hook the jammer strobe and the HOJ shots are scary enough to make someone think twice about turning it on.

 

 

I would actually prefer a more complicated fix.

 

One of the suggestions I made - aside from fixing the blinking issue - would also give us dynamic break-lock and burn-through in HoJ.

 

Basically the idea was as such

 

1. Jammer has warm-up and cool-down times - blinking is fixed

2. Jammer is automated. It will emit when you're locked on-to, stop when you're not. TWS now becomes much more useable.

3. When the jammer emits, a couple things happen.

Right off the bat, you roll a die (read: random probability) to determine if it breaks the offending radar's lock outright. You do this again every x seconds that you are locked.

The attacking radar rolls a die to see if it burns through.

 

Burn through and break lock probability are affected by radar power on target - meaning range ... relative to your radar strength (so a MiG has more difficulty burning through for example)

So, at longer ranges - more chance to break lock. At shorter ranges - more chance to burn through.

 

At this point, what you end up with is a more dynamic ECM/ECCM environment without a set burn-through range and no guarantees of maintaining lock on a jamming target.

 

At the same time ... fear the F-15's with their TWS systems - AS it should be.

[GGTharos]

Sounds good, as long as you can still hook the jammer strobe and the HOJ shots are scary enough to make someone think twice about turning it on.

 

That is the idea - I have been asking for PN guidance for HoJ missiles for a while.

 

You can lock the strobe - but there's no guarantee you'll stay locked, under this model. But on the other hand, the other guy has no guarantee that you won't burn-through at 50nm and get a solid STT track on him!

 

So it would look like this.

Target has ECM off: Same as right now. No difference

Target has ECM on: You see the target as in normal search (instead of strobe - because the jammer is not emitting). You lock him in STT - the Jammer reacts to the threat and you now find yourself locked on a jammer strobe with no range info.

As you close the distance, there's an increasing probability that you'll burn through the jamming. But there's always a probability (decreasing with distance) that your lock will be dropped by the jammer.

[Kula66]

And one reason in RL for a jammer is to deny range info ... so how would this work?

[OldFrankHog]

He just said it the ECM starts to pulse only when locked upon hence denying range "only once locked upon".

[tflash]

I'm with your proposal, GGTharos, but if it would prove to cumbersome to adopt, I would turn to Pilotasso's proposal as a fall-back.

[Sealpup]

I wouldnt bet on TWS being all that superior. An ECM system would, as has been explained, deny ranging information based on threat priority. Would it be so unusual to assume that an ECM's threat library may assign a fairly high priority to a 'scan' from a platform capable of firing from TWS?

 

Just me trying to get into an EW Tech's head here, not so much trying to start an argument.

 

EDIT: Simplified threat priority, based on what I was thinking of, highest priority first:

 

1. STT Lock

2. TWS-capable scan

3. Non-TWS capable scan

4. Search-only scan (IE: ATC, AWACS, GCI)

[GGTharos]

And one reason in RL for a jammer is to deny range info ... so how would this work?

 

The idea Kula is that when you lock on, you suddently have 'invalid data' for missile launch. This is something that is typically not simulated in sims, and won't be simulated in LO for a little while I think. But that is the basic idea behind the SPJ. It'll try to deny you the shot, then it'll try to deny you a good shot - in that order - and if it can, it'll downright break your lock.

[GGTharos]

I wouldnt bet on TWS being all that superior. An ECM system would, as has been explained, deny ranging information based on threat priority. Would it be so unusual to assume that an ECM's threat library may assign a fairly high priority to a 'scan' from a platform capable of firing from TWS?

 

Yes. The reason for this is that you then overload the system with threats and slow down its reactions. The bigger threat is the missile coming at you - and it is entirely possible (realistically) that you can only jam one target at a time, depending on your SPJ - in which case you are jamming the wrong target.

 

In a slightly different scenario, suppose you are facing off two TWS-capable platforms, and again, you can only jam one threat - suddenly you have to decide which one of these two you're going to jam, and when the missile comes in you'll stop jamming them anyway.

 

Furthermore, your jammer's just making you nice and bright on everyone -else's- scopes.

 

Just me trying to get into an EW Tech's head here, not so much trying to start an argument.

 

EDIT: Simplified threat priority, based on what I was thinking of, highest priority first:

 

1. STT Lock

2. TWS-capable scan

3. Non-TWS capable scan

4. Search-only scan (IE: ATC, AWACS, GCI)

 

No worries - no 'argument' per se. You don't want your jammer jamming everything - you're basically giving up SIGINT.

You jam threats, and that means 'anyone who is going to shoot at my plane right now' which means 'anyone who is locked on and according to threat ID and radar signal power has crossed a certain threshold'.

 

That's your threat priority. You've heard of the 'ECM forrest' in MP no doubt. In reality, they'd try pretty hard to avoid that - it doesn't just mess up enemy systems, it messes your guys up too ... so ECM function needs to be focused on target and with good reason.

 

Someone scanning you in TWS - even with the intent to shoot - is not a good reason to fire up your ECM. A missile locking onto you on the other hand is - and at that point you forget the shooter and jam the missile.

 

Yep, you're defensive and he'll be coming up for that second shot - but you wingie might get him meantime ... on the other hand? If you don't make him think about having to take that second shot, he'll go eat your wingie, too. That's the way you have to think about priorities ... albeit I am being vague.

 

Lastly - your jammer can't jam everything. It can only am certain frequency bands, so you can basically forget about trying to jam AWACS or EWRs.

[Sealpup]

I thought SPJ jammers were simply a kind of selective transponder? They get a radar pulse, and send back a bunch of similar pulses at different intervals to create false range information (seen in game as 'strobes'). I cant really see that making an aircraft a 'bright target' to someone who's antenna may not be pointed at the jamming craft at the time.

 

I do, however, agree that a SPJ jammer would drop jamming aircraft radars when it picks up missile guidance radar, either from aircraft STT lock or missile self-guidance. A certain change in defense priority there. But if no missile is in the air, and you have, say, 4 aircraft, 2 with TWS-attack capability, and 2 without, would you not want to make life harder for the TWS-attack capable birds before the missiles fly?

[TucksonSonny]

How about 3 versus 1 having 3 birds jamming 3 times stronger than the bandit (1 jammer) and as a result have increasing burn through range of the 3ship and have decreasing the burn through range of the bandit?

 

Ok, not necessary 3 times stronger but anyway 3 jammers are more effective than 1!

[MBot]

Considering the fact that ARH missiles can be shot and guided for a large part of their reach by a radar in TWS mode, I guess TWS capable platforms detected in search mode should be fairly high on the SPJ's priority list.

If I was a jammer I would certainly do something if I have a F-15 in search mode on the RWR. If he is within 30 nm or so there is a good chance that he is preparing to fire a missile or already did so. If you wait for the AMRAAM to go active before doing something you are in serious trouble.