Don't blow it off, it's just a question.

[504Goon]

It never existed ;)

[504Goon]

There has never been a clear source which states that the frogfoot specially cannot carry the S-300 missile.. so can it? :P

[504Goon]

I tried to lope it into the frog once, but i wasn't able to do it..:(

:P

[GGTharos]

No, as far as I can tell, the 'real ECM Blinking' as in the ECM method which *carries that name* makes the target warp a little bit on the radar screen (ie. uncertain or fuzzy position)

 

There are however -other- methods that -can- break lock and prevent a lock, such as simultaneous range and angles jamming (it can even potentially white out your radar) ... and that does 'blink' in the sense that it reacts to a lock, turns on, then turns off hoping that it has broken the lock - and repeats as necessary as long as the threat is present.

 

That's just one technique, there are others - and of course there's ECCM ... at this point our 'ECCM' is represented by burn-through range.

[Ice]

No, as far as I can tell, the 'real ECM Blinking' as in the ECM method which *carries that name* makes the target warp a little bit on the radar screen (ie. uncertain or fuzzy position)

 

I know.. thay are taking Digital Photos :smilewink:

[Anytime]

I don't even think ECM Blinking (NOISE) would work on a doppler radar. It would just discard the noise as there is no frequency shift. Might help when beaming though. The only reference I've found to ECM Blinking is against monopulse radars.

 

The other methods, range gate pull off etc, listen for the scanning radar for a while then try to induce fake velocity information on the radar returns thus it drags the target away from where it really is. Eventually the scanning radar will get no returns from where it expects the "fake" tgt to be and drop it then pick it up again in the real location and so the process starts again. <- not modelled in Lockon and not equivelent to ECM Blinking by sticking a macro on your joystick.

 

Think the range gate pull off could be modelled well by making making a missile track slightly of a tgt with Music on and maybe taking a couple of seconds to drag the missile out of proximty range once the seeker goes active. Also only letting it handle one sensor at a time, thus if a salvo is fired it might help you escape missile 1 but missile 2 is coming for you.

 

 

No, as far as I can tell, the 'real ECM Blinking' as in the ECM method which *carries that name* makes the target warp a little bit on the radar screen (ie. uncertain or fuzzy position)

 

There are however -other- methods that -can- break lock and prevent a lock, such as simultaneous range and angles jamming (it can even potentially white out your radar) ... and that does 'blink' in the sense that it reacts to a lock, turns on, then turns off hoping that it has broken the lock - and repeats as necessary as long as the threat is present.

 

That's just one technique, there are others - and of course there's ECCM ... at this point our 'ECCM' is represented by burn-through range.

[GGTharos]

I don't even think ECM Blinking (NOISE) would work on a doppler radar. It would just discard the noise as there is no frequency shift. Might help when beaming though. The only reference I've found to ECM Blinking is against monopulse radars.

 

Guess what kinda radar every modern fighter and missile uses these days ... yep. Monopulse :) The older type was con-scan or separate azimuth and height-finders.

 

The other methods, range gate pull off etc, listen for the scanning radar for a while then try to induce fake velocity information on the radar returns thus it drags the target away from where it really is. Eventually the scanning radar will get no returns from where it expects the "fake" tgt to be and drop it then pick it up again in the real location and so the process starts again. <- not modelled in Lockon and not equivelent to ECM Blinking by sticking a macro on your joystick.

 

It doesn't display the target 'getting away' (and perhaps the real thing doesn't either, it might all happen in a fraction of a second) but it sure drops the lock - the radar then might try to search in the last known position which is too far. At this point, is the target sitting within the mini-raster that the radar may or may not perform to re-locate the target? Who knows. :)

 

Think the range gate pull off could be modelled well by making making a missile track slightly of a tgt with Music on and maybe taking a couple of seconds to drag the missile out of proximty range once the seeker goes active. Also only letting it handle one sensor at a time, thus if a salvo is fired it might help you escape missile 1 but missile 2 is coming for you.

 

There is a -lot- that isn't, and probably won't be - modelled in terms of ECM and ECCM in LO - and by that I mean in BS, too. Right now, as far as I'm concerned, my -only- problem with the 'ecm blinking' technique is two-fold:

 

a) ECM is human-controlled which is what truly enables abuse, and

b) It has a 100% success rate.

[Anytime]

Monopulse - meant traditional non-doppler

[GGTharos]

There's probably a technique against monopulse radars to replace a technique against older radars that will do the same job. A jammer can properly shift the phase also.

[Anytime]

Yes but that's the difference between noise jamming and deceptive jamming ;)

 

.

There's probably a technique against monopulse radars to replace a technique against older radars that will do the same job. A jammer can properly shift the phase also.

[GGTharos]

I think right now the line between them is almost as blurred as calling an aircraft an interceptor ... where in the past it meant a rocketship that'd go up and deliver missiles on bombers :)

I think the only 'pure' noise jammers these days are probably stand-off jammers, and they degrade the SNR (which lowers gain) ... at least, simply-speaking. I don't know if they have other effects but I'd think that's the gist of it :)

This is basically an academic discussion we're having though, and I'm not sure how it really applies to the in-game ECM blinking.

 

You can easily call it un-realistic ... much like the entirety of ECM/ECCM representation in LO ... is it more or less realistic than what LO represents without blinking to break lock? Who can tell either way? Like I said, one of the biggest problems with it is probably that it has a 100% success rate. Otherwise it'd be less of a problem I'm sure.

[Anytime]

I think you'll find most self protection jammers are deceptive not noise (quote below). Kinda of counter productive to blurt out I'm on this bearing if your trying to move a return of it's true location, especially with triangulation via data links.

 

"AN/ALQ-165 ASPJ is an automated modular reprogrammable active radar frequency (RF) deception jammer designed to contribute to the electronic self protection of the host tactical aircraft from a variety of air to air and surface to air RF threats"

[GGTharos]

Okay, I see what you're saying now. I agree :D

That would be a) ECM is under human control ...

 

And is modelled as a noise jammer (actually 'deception jammer' applies since it deceives you as to the target range, but that's beside the point) that jams everything - wether it's scanning or locking or whatever. Where an SPJ would have to react to a threat, typically - that being a radar lock.

[ericinexile]

I often give my ECM a short, single, on-off burst while jinking, so I just want to make sure I get the interval long enough so I won't be "cheating". :D

 

Not that I am a model of survivability but I don't even carry ECM on the Su25(t) anymore. I've found that the only hope of surviving on that thing is to be able to drop everything and fly "fast" toward the friendlies. ECM Pod(s) create a huge amount of drag and can't be dumped.

 

BTW, (in case I decide to change strategy) does anyone know at about what distance AWACS achieve "burn through"?

 

Smokin' Hole