Today I fired 20 amraams =(

[markriley]

Correct, Hub - notice I spoke of the real thing...my info is accurate for the 120A ;)

And a very good overview of how jammers actually work!

 

So you are saying that the 120A is what lockon models and not the B or C model?

[GGTharos]

Nope, I'm saying nothing of the sort. I'm saying correct data for /one/ particular AIM-120A scenario exists.

 

But I -could- say that compared to the 120A, LOMAC's 120 is undermodeled in that particular scenario.

[Geier]

So you are saying that the 120A is what lockon models and not the B or C model?

 

And it'll be named 120A isntead of FC's 120C in the BS

[GGTharos]

This is incorrect. Please understand that we cannot really model an A, B or C model AMRAAM. All we can do is guess 'this one has more range, better ECCM' and just assign different probabilities or alter the formulae for kinematics and CM rejection.

[Geier]

THis is incorrect. Please understand that we cannot really model an A, B or C model AMRAAM. All we can do is guess 'this one has more range, better ECCM' and just assign different probabilities or alter the formulae for kinematics and CM rejection.

 

Incorrect what? Naming 120A instead of current 120C:huh:

[markriley]

Nope, I'm saying nothing of the sort. I'm saying correct data for /one/ particular AIM-120A scenario exists.

 

But I -could- say that compared to the 120A, LOMAC's 120 is undermodeled in that particular scenario.

 

True. So if lomac uses the C version, then it would be grossly undermodeled in the sim. I would expect the range figures that are available on the web, being listed as "aproximate because of variying reports" would be the middle ground and not either end of the spectrum.

So 65m for a 120C is most likely middle of the road data. Even if that is max range, ED should still be considering changing the sim to model the 120c at least 40m with good pk at mid alt around 35m. That would be more like a simulation of the real world, and trust me 35m is a low figure.

 

Where are the real F-15 pilots to give us some feed back on this, with accurate data? My brother has been loading 15s and 16s for the past 12 years and now 22s. Of course people here wont take my word on any data he has to offer since the true figures will never be even concidered here. So lets get some eagledrivers on here and get some acceptable info.

[GGTharos]

True. So if lomac uses the C version, then it would be grossly undermodeled in the sim. I would expect the range figures that are available on the web, being listed as "aproximate because of variying reports" would be the middle ground and not either end of the spectrum.

So 65m for a 120C is most likely middle of the road data. Even if that is max range, ED should still be considering changing the sim to model the 120c at least 40m with good pk at mid alt around 35m. That would be more like a simulation of the real world, and trust me 35m is a low figure.

 

This is flat-out wrong. Sorry, but it is. It just doesn't work this way.

Rtr at high altitude might be 10-12nm ... anything beyond Rtr has a quickly diminishing Pk if you're dealing with a fighter.

Internet sites list figures which may sometimes even be on the mark, but they do not list the shot parameters at all, which makes those figures all but useless.

 

Where are the real F-15 pilots to give us some feed back on this, with accurate data? My brother has been loading 15s and 16s for the past 12 years and now 22s. Of course people here wont take my word on any data he has to offer since the true figures will never be even concidered here. So lets get some eagledrivers on here and get some acceptable info.

They're doing exactly what they should be doing: Saying 'the AMRAAM's overmodeled' and nothing more, as the reasons, the hows, the whys, are all classified. Even if you showed them proof of accurate info they'd have to say 'no comment'.

 

The AMRAAM having a high Pk at 30-40nm is a pipe dream. You can basically forget it. Pretty much most of the range extension work that went into AMRAAM was focused on extending the Rtr, IIRC, and if Rmax increased, that was just a byproduct.

[markriley]

This is flat-out wrong. Sorry, but it is. It just doesn't work this way.

Rtr at high altitude might be 10-12nm ... anything beyond Rtr has a quickly diminishing Pk if you're dealing with a fighter.

Internet sites list figures which may sometimes even be on the mark, but they do not list the shot parameters at all, which makes those figures all but useless.

 

 

They're doing exactly what they should be doing: Saying 'the AMRAAM's overmodeled' and nothing more, as the reasons, the hows, the whys, are all classified. Even if you showed them proof of accurate info they'd have to say 'no comment'.

 

The AMRAAM having a high Pk at 30-40nm is a pipe dream. You can basically forget it. Pretty much most of the range extension work that went into AMRAAM was focused on extending the Rtr, IIRC, and if Rmax increased, that was just a byproduct.

 

If this is the data that ED testers team is going to stick with then so be it. Since there is no way to prove any data past the A model of the 120 (without getting people in trouble and giving away US intel) then I guess that is what lock on is doomed to have to live with.

 

Do the best you can to make the sim the best it can be for all involved.

Thanks for the opportunity and the place for me to express my views on the subject.

[GGTharos]

No problem. :)

We also have a ballistics simulator ... even under perfect conditions ... energy of the 120 at long ranges is pretty poor, as is with any missile :)

Although we're aware that AIM-120C has increased range over the A ... we don't know how much ... and I personally suspect they are talking mostly Rtr, not Rmax (though again ... that may have increased as a by-product of increasing Rtr, but not necessarily)

Either way, it is my hope that we will have respectable (instead of patently ignorable) missiles.

[Geier]

No problem. :)

We also have a ballistics simulator ... even under perfect conditions ... energy of the 120 at long ranges is pretty poor, as is with any missile :)

Although we're aware that AIM-120C has increased range over the A ... we don't know how much ... and I personally suspect they are talking mostly Rtr, not Rmax (though again ... that may have increased as a by-product of increasing Rtr, but not necessarily)

 

Yes, that's right

[centermass]

Therefore the best thing to do is make the the ECM/ECCM battle probabilistic, plain and simple. You pick a 'technique' semi-randomly and decide if it works semi-randomly. That, to me, is the best way to simulate the EW 'cat and mouse' game.

 

This seems too random. I can see having a randomizer that randomizes what ECM/ECCM to employ BUT, once employed there should be no randomness on working. Unless your talking about malfunctions.

 

Example:

So if you have two fighters high aspect 60 miles +. Both fighters activate Jammer (manually or, if the sim supports it, automatically based on avionics configuration due to the spike/lock.)The game randomly picks what jammer technology (tech) to use (if manual) or, selects jammer tech based on ECCM. Once this is done the method used should work, to the best of its ability. If the tech is one that would defeat the other fighters electronics/avionics tech then the jammer should jam or the radar should burn though.

 

I think on situations like this the devs need to pick a best guess / best effort and stick with it. As long as they describe the methodology used to come up with their decision they will be able to send us "this is not realistic" and "this game is not the way I want it to be" criers to the FAQ that could look like this:

 

"Given that the data we have on <insert subject here> is classified we have chosen to use <insert best guess/best effort answer> method on all fighter aircraft. This will not change the life of the product."

 

All those for and against will know what was done, why, and what is going to happen going forward.

________

starcraft II replay

Edited January 24, 2011 by centermass

[GGTharos]

This seems too random. I can see having a randomizer that randomizes what ECM/ECCM to employ BUT, once employed there should be no randomness on working. Unless your talking about malfunctions.

 

What do you mean too random? Why should there be no randomness in working? Where is -that- coming from? RL you don't get to know if your ECM or ECCM -will- really work. You hope it will, and if your guys did their job it ought, but it'll only work until the software is updated on the enemy side, and it will be right after you use your ECM. So now you have to deal with something you've no data on.

 

Example:

So if you have two fighters high aspect 60 miles +. Both fighters activate Jammer (manually or, if the sim supports it, automatically based on avionics configuration due to the spike/lock.)The game randomly picks what jammer technology (tech) to use (if manual) or, selects jammer tech based on ECCM. Once this is done the method used should work, to the best of its ability. If the tech is one that would defeat the other fighters electronics/avionics tech then the jammer should jam or the radar should burn though.

 

 

The only reason to pick a jamming method is that effects as you see'em on your scope etc might appear differently. The effect (if successful) is always the same: Your Pk goes down.

 

I think on situations like this the devs need to pick a best guess / best effort and stick with it. As long as they describe the methodology used to come up with their decision they will be able to send us "this is not realistic" and "this game is not the way I want it to be" criers to the FAQ that could look like this:

 

Which leads us back to the crap we have today in pretty much every sim out there. And?

There is NO INFORMATION on how effective ECM and ECCM is. NONE. Best guess nothing. We have some information on methods, and that's that. There's barely any information at /all/ as to what ECM methods are used in what fighter, how many threats you can jam in each quarter, how effective one or the type of ECCM is against that method, and so on and so forth.

 

"Given that the data we have on <insert subject here> is classified we have chosen to use <insert best guess/best effort answer> method on all fighter aircraft. This will not change the life of the product."

 

All those for and against will know what was done, why, and what is going to happen going forward.

 

Which has been done already as is, simplified as it may be.

So yeah. Random is the best.

It makes things dynamic - which may or may *not* be realistic. We won't know. It'll certainly be more interesting.

[centermass]

What do you mean too random? Why should there be no randomness in working? Where is -that- coming from? RL you don't get to know if your ECM or ECCM -will- really work. You hope it will, and if your guys did their job it ought, but it'll only work until the software is updated on the enemy side, and it will be right after you use your ECM. So now you have to deal with something you've no data on.

 

You know it works if you burn through or you don't or if your jammer works, by not being locked, or it doesn't, you get locked.

 

The only reason to pick a jamming method is that effects as you see'em on your scope etc might appear differently. The effect (if successful) is always the same: Your Pk goes down.

 

Based on what HubMan wrote, and other information on the Internet, there are different techniques that ECCM programs can use to jam radar. I'm still talking burn through not PK, because how do you know if your missile is in WEZ for a shot.

 

Which leads us back to the crap we have today in pretty much every sim out there. And?

There is NO INFORMATION on how effective ECM and ECCM is. NONE. Best guess nothing. We have some information on methods, and that's that. There's barely any information at /all/ as to what ECM methods are used in what fighter, how many threats you can jam in each quarter, how effective one or the type of ECCM is against that method, and so on and so forth.

 

You don't need "how effective" jammers are. It is simple, if your jammer power is stronger the the radar then it will be jammed. If not then you will get burn through. This does not need to be random.

 

Which has been done already as is, simplified as it may be.

So yeah. Random is the best.

It makes things dynamic - which may or may *not* be realistic. We won't know. It'll certainly be more interesting.

 

Where in the FAQ have the devs indicated that they can't obtain solid info on ECM, jamming, also what are their answers?

 

Is the damage modeling random? When I gun a jet does it randomly select what systems to kill? So if I gun the nozzles on an SU-27 does the HUD go out? Or does the engines go out? Randomness is not the answer.

 

It'll certainly be more interesting.

For who?

________

juggalos

Edited January 24, 2011 by centermass

[GGTharos]

I'm not going to agree with you, so we can leave it all there. ;)

[centermass]

Fair enough. :pilotfly:

________

mexicocity hotel

Edited January 24, 2011 by centermass

[Frostie]

Lockons F-15 model is nearly at stall at 45000 feet and Im not talking about missle range before it drops out of the sky and you know it, Im talking about the usefull (killing) range of the missle in sim compared to IRL.

If your stalling the F-15 at 45000ft you can't be flying it right.

 

At over 60km the AMRAAM is travelling at 2000+.

 

You have no comparisons for killing range in real life ,infact you, me and everyone else on these forums have no chance of ever having the indepth knowledge which is required to model an absoloute example of an AMRAAM or any other missile. Most of it is all down to assumptions.

 

There is probably no data existing comparing the performance and killing effectiveness of an AMRAAM compared to an R-77.

 

AFAIK the AMRAAM in LO is modeled the same as the R-77 only slightly slower.

And please don'tbe thinking that the Russian developers are screwing Westerners over by modeling Russian missiles superior that path leads to the Darkside.:D

[golfsierra2]

 

Based on what HubMan wrote, and other information on the Internet, there are different techniques that ECCM programs can use to jam radar. I'm still talking burn through not PK, because how do you know if your missile is in WEZ for a shot.

 

Was this a typo ? ECCM doesn't effect radar like a jammer does (which is ECM). ECCM is the general expression used for devices or methods to minimize or neutralize the effects of ECM.

 

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECCM

 

Also WEZ is know to me as Weapon Engagement Zone. I think you were referring to the effective weapon envelope.

[Frostie]

For the AIM-7s made since 1987, the range on the 7F, & 7M/P is 70km.

Again effective range somewhere around 45-50km (25-30 miles).

 

 

Here it says 30 km for the AIM-7M , which is LOMAC's Sparrow

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_armament_article10.html

 

The AIM-7M in LO has an Rmax of 38miles at 45000ft

against an incoming bandit.

 

I don't see a cause for complaint about ranges.:thumbup:

[centermass]

Was this a typo ? ECCM doesn't effect radar like a jammer does (which is ECM). ECCM is the general expression used for devices or methods to minimize or neutralize the effects of ECM.

 

I was referring to what jammers do once offended by radar, they start ECCM programs...

 

Also WEZ is know to me as Weapon Engagement Zone. I think you were referring to the effective weapon envelope.

 

I don't know what the weapon envelope is, least in the context you are referring to. The WEZ is dependent on what both jets are doing, so you have to know what the other jet is doing in order for an "in-WEZ" shot. Sounds like the weapons envelope is the synonymous with WEZ?

 

Also, when are you going to bring that German Mig-29 into Hypperlobby so I can shoot it down with my Texas F-15? :D

________

trichome

Edited January 24, 2011 by centermass

[golfsierra2]

I was referring to what jammers do once offended by radar, they start ECCM programs...

 

of course, that way it makes perfectly sense. Actively following a radar frequency with a jam pod in oder to maintain self-screening jamming of course is ECCM as well.

 

About the MiG29:

Naaaah, I don't fly that underpowered, non-F3 capable baby, I prefer the Ukranian one with 2XR77, 1xR27ER, 1x27ET, and 2xR73. Watch your belly, I'm coming in from aside, mowing the grass and locking you in your shiny F-15 with my IRST..... :joystick:

[cool_t]

hehe

 

So does this mean we r getting IFF for ECM?

 

Cant tell you how many times I call out "Blue ECM IFF" amd you get no reply.

 

The Tech stuff is very interisting and the research is nice.

 

:thumbup:

[centermass]

 

About the MiG29:

Naaaah, I don't fly that underpowered, non-F3 capable baby, I prefer the Ukranian one with 2XR77, 1xR27ER, 1x27ET, and 2xR73. Watch your belly, I'm coming in from aside, mowing the grass and locking you in your shiny F-15 with my IRST..... :joystick:

 

Why would I want to do a missile fight with these shitty missiles.

 

I will saw off your wings with the gun. :D

________

CRF80

Edited January 24, 2011 by centermass

[HubMan]

Correct, Hub - notice I spoke of the real thing...my info is accurate for the 120A

And a very good overview of how jammers actually work!

Thanks GGTharo :) And yes, I understood you were talking about RL AIM-120A :)

 

 

They cannot because:

Therefore the best thing to do is make the the ECM/ECCM battle probabilistic, plain and simple. You pick a 'technique' semi-randomly and decide if it works semi-randomly. That, to me, is the best way to simulate the EW 'cat and mouse' game.

Yes :) Rolling a virtual good old dice with a bonus / malus would probably be the -best- solution (more below) :)

 

Yes. HoJ is modelled as using pure pursuit, where it should be using proportional navigation with either estimated or no closure component in the computation.

I would tend to agree with you : proportionnal navigation does not depend on knowing the distance to the target and could be used for a HOJ shot. But at the same time, I wonder about the effect of :

 

- intentionnaly "moving around" a thin jamming beam over the radar to confuse : that would be fairly simple to do and would probably force a missile using proportionnal navigation to manoeuver almost constantly. The same thing could even happen as a side effect if the jammer is slow to "track" a fighter and its radar.

 

- ECM producing a "large" jamming beam : the problem will be about how to keep "looking" at the same point, especially if the jammer modulates it's emitted power : because you know that there is some jamming in that direction, but probably not with the angular accuracy needed for proportionnal pursuit at medium/long range.

 

As a result, I'm not 100% sure that using pure pursuit for a HOJ shot is unrealistic :)

 

 

This seems too random. I can see having a randomizer that randomizes what ECM/ECCM to employ BUT, once employed there should be no randomness on working. Unless your talking about malfunctions.

 

Example:

So if you have two fighters high aspect 60 miles +. Both fighters activate Jammer (manually or, if the sim supports it, automatically based on avionics configuration due to the spike/lock.)The game randomly picks what jammer technology (tech) to use (if manual) or, selects jammer tech based on ECCM. Once this is done the method used should work, to the best of its ability. If the tech is one that would defeat the other fighters electronics/avionics tech then the jammer should jam or the radar should burn though.

 

I think on situations like this the devs need to pick a best guess / best effort and stick with it. As long as they describe the methodology used to come up with their decision they will be able to send us "this is not realistic" and "this game is not the way I want it to be" criers to the FAQ that could look like this:

 

"Given that the data we have on <insert subject here> is classified we have chosen to use <insert best guess/best effort answer> method on all fighter aircraft. This will not change the life of the product."

 

All those for and against will know what was done, why, and what is going to happen going forward.

Hi centermass, :)

 

At a "microscopic" level, your solution is probably the closest to "realistic" ECM. But at a "macroscopic" one, ie the one that matters, I definitly think that the semi random principle of GGTharos is better :

 

- ECM / ECCM is too much classified. Even more than missiles range ! Lomac historical period is just to "recent" to get accurate real life data. ED would have to make wild guesses, probably quite far from the reality or breach some national security secrets to modelize the game properly... :)

 

- right now, Lomac only modelizes -explicitely- "noise jamming" / ie range obscuration technics. That is the simplest and oldest ECM technic, used to conceal the -distance- to the target. But real life jammers have other purposes, one being to to break the radar lock of a fighter / missile. To do so, a -lot- of different "deception" technics are used to generate false information about the range / angle / velocity of the target (such technic being not real far away from the result of ECM blinking... *no flaming, please :)* ). Considered the complexity and the large number of technics involved, I'm not sure it would be a good idea to try to modelize precisely the behavior of every (or even a few) ECM and ECCM component included in this electronic fight.

That would probably take months or years... And such a large time (money) investment would probably better be used somewhere else (missiles behavior ? ) :)

 

- actually, What only really matters is the outcome : what will be the probability for a specific radar / missile be able to defeat a speficic jammer ? As already suggested several time on the forum, using a simple semi random algorithm (like rolling a dice with a bonus / malus) would probably be far easier to code and not further away from the reality than some semi accurate modelisation. Simply because the parameters involved in ECM / ECCM are just too many to be considered and that introducing some randomness is the only way to introduce this "complexity" in a game.

 

- there shouldn't too difficult to establish an "ECM" hiearchy ie the bonus and malus of every jammer against every kind of threat family in the game. The problem then, will be to get the game "balanced" and for readers of this forum to survive the following thousands of posts like "DEVs, FIX THE ALQ-135 !!!".

 

Hub, out ! :)

[GGTharos]

I would tend to agree with you : proportionnal navigation does not depend on knowing the distance to the target and could be used for a HOJ shot. But at the same time, I wonder about the effect of :

 

- intentionnaly "moving around" a thin jamming beam over the radar to confuse : that would be fairly simple to do and would probably force a missile using proportionnal navigation to manoeuver almost constantly. The same thing could even happen as a side effect if the jammer is slow to "track" a fighter and its radar.

 

- ECM producing a "large" jamming beam : the problem will be about how to keep "looking" at the same point, especially if the jammer modulates it's emitted power : because you know that there is some jamming in that direction, but probably not with the angular accuracy needed for proportionnal pursuit at medium/long range.

 

As a result, I'm not 100% sure that using pure pursuit for a HOJ shot is unrealistic :)

 

 

I understand what you are saying, but this sounds like it is not a very big problem for a monopulse seeker ... I have been led to believe by someone 'in the know' that pure pursuit would definitely not be the choice of navigation against a jamming target ... but I do not know the details. I think against SPJ's it is quite fair to say it would use proportional if its lock is not broken! :)

[tflash]

Another thing I wonder about is if it is possible to have this noise type of simple jamming whilst not affecting your own transmissions (look through?)

 

Maybe it would be nice to model ECM in such a way that it "degrades" the radar performance of a jamming fighter. (Just another suggestion to stop the jamming circus).