AIM-120 AMRAAM Performance Increased

[Chizh]

Of course not, I don't work in ED and can only assume.

If you make assumptions you need to indicate this. Use IMHO.

[Harlikwin]

ECM is very complicated and dark area of any modern combat. We do not know how to count it in real time.

 

Didn't you guys just post a job opening for an ECM guy?

[Wizard_03]

ECM is very complicated and dark area of any modern combat. We do not know how to count it in real time.

 

That’s fine, I meant no offense to ED I’m sure you people can only do what you can do. I just think it’s funny how people jump down your throat over missile dynamics but they’re fine playing make pretend with other aspects of modern air combat.

[Chizh]

Didn't you guys just post a job opening for an ECM guy?

We are looking for ECM specialist, but have not found yet.

[GGTharos]

ECM is very complicated and dark area of any modern combat. We do not know how to count it in real time.

 

I have some ideas, though also IMHO some of this would have to be configurable to allow a mission maker to set up ECM capability. But that's complicated.

 

Some simple stuff that could be done: Off-board noise jammers, which would reduce detection/lock range in a specific direction.

 

Fighter SPJs would not longer jam everything, but the radar that's attacking them or at least whichever radars they have chose to jam. I know that this part isn't fully realistic but details can be adjusted.

 

Missile HoJ would degrade based on what information is denied, and, as they get closer to the emitter their sensors might wash-out and lose accuracy (too much power from the emitter for the antenna)

 

Just a couple of ideas made up on the spot. If you had a bit of an RF simulation for the in-game emitters/receivers you could do more. Note hat I'm not suggesting full, physics-based RF simulation, just more than 'ECM on/off' flag.

[KlarSnow]

Before you can even get started with this stuff you have to emulate the fact that RF as radars and these systems work are in discrete elements and have limited bandwidth. IE a “Jammer” even the most modern and best one can’t effectively jam every radar at once equally. It will have a limited RF range, and a limited power output, you jam 1 frequency you have much better effectiveness than if you jam 10.

 

Then you have to get into which radars can operate or hop between multiple frequencies, what happens if the radar operator manually changes the frequency. Can missiles hop frequencies with their seekers, how fast, the jammer can’t listen very well while its jamming, so how often does it try and listen to what is out there to change its jamming frequency, how quickly can it hop. If two radars are operating on the same frequency in close proximity (or pointed at each other) then jamming or reduced sensitivity can occur.

 

This is all just for a really simple noise jammer. And while we can talk about all of this from a platform agnostic standpoint, as soon as you say “what can a specific radar or jammer do and how effective is it” you will rapidly find zero usable data on anything past the Vietnam conflict. There are countermeasures and techniques for all of this stuff both offensive and defensively out there that there will be zero data on. And if you see that there is a name, there will be zero data on how effective any of these techniques or systems are on a particular threat.

 

For example you can find pretty easily the Range gate pull off is a technique thats been around since the Vietnam war, but you will never find how effective, or ineffective it is as a technique against an AMRAAM, or an R-77, or a slot back 2, or an APG-73.

 

Just saying, platform or side X has great jammers and we should have that capability in game isn’t enough, you have to know how effective it is, how it shows up on the various systems displays, and whether or not it actually has any effect, and all of that data is gonna be classified (for good reason).

[draconus]

I love how everyone is so concerned about every possible aerodynamic and guidance problem the missiles may or may not have...but it seems like no one cares that ECM in DCS has basically zero impact on BVR. Where as IRL it’s arguably the single biggest factor.

 

So even if the missiles matched real world perfectly, It’s still completely unrealistic. :D

 

We've been just said that there's zero data available to mortals on this but you seem pretty sure how it works. So how much can you help?

There's some theory of how it works and what can be done. No reason to kill the idea because we don't have whitepapers. Small steps is better than nothing and it adds to what we have.

Edited February 27, 2020 by draconus

[Harlikwin]

I have some ideas, though also IMHO some of this would have to be configurable to allow a mission maker to set up ECM capability. But that's complicated.

 

Some simple stuff that could be done: Off-board noise jammers, which would reduce detection/lock range in a specific direction.

 

Fighter SPJs would not longer jam everything, but the radar that's attacking them or at least whichever radars they have chose to jam. I know that this part isn't fully realistic but details can be adjusted.

 

Missile HoJ would degrade based on what information is denied, and, as they get closer to the emitter their sensors might wash-out and lose accuracy (too much power from the emitter for the antenna)

 

Just a couple of ideas made up on the spot. If you had a bit of an RF simulation for the in-game emitters/receivers you could do more. Note hat I'm not suggesting full, physics-based RF simulation, just more than 'ECM on/off' flag.

 

I remember reading an older post by Fri13 on the topic and it was a fairly intresting take on what could be done fairly simply. It was a bit more on the "gamey" side, but it sounded interesting. I think he posted it an IADS thread a while back.

[Harlikwin]

We've been just said that there's zero data available to mortals on this but you seem pretty sure how it works. So how much can you help?

There's some theory of how it works and what can be done. No reason to kill the idea because we don't have whitepapers. Small steps is better than nothing and it adds to what we have.

 

He does have a point on the particular effectiveness though, I don't think I've ever seen anything like actual numbers, which really for anything modern are likely guesses anyway. I'm sure that data exists for older cold war stuff that the US or russia actually got its hands on and tested/figure out how to jam though, whether or not that is in the public domain is another question.

 

I think one of the major issues for modeling this well will be the operative question of "when" the pod made it into service and what sorts of threats was it effective against. I'm sure the modern ECM in the hornet will work fine on everything from an SA-2 to having some effect of working against the SA-20. The flip side of the coin is the mig21 ECM suite, which was designed to work against the Hawk, but would likely be ineffective against the patriot (yes I know there is a ton of granularity there too). With the Viggen being somewhere in between capability wise.

 

Also, another though I had was does that old sam-simulator game show these effects on sam systems? Maybe that guy has some data, or at least knows where to look. Maybe ED could hire him to re-work the iads system.

Edited February 27, 2020 by Harlikwin

[nighthawk2174]

Yeah wasn't he a SAM operator in Hungary? Hence is in depth knowledge?

[LTRMcrew]

Why does the Amraam get such a bad rap when the R27 and Phoenix are essentially employed in the same manner? I don't fly anything but the hornet so have never fired them. But often I'll have not yet gotten into range for the Amraam and already have to defend against a Phoenix and/or R27.

[Harlikwin]

Yeah wasn't he a SAM operator in Hungary? Hence is in depth knowledge?

 

Yes.

[DAZnBLAST]

AMRAAM to single target = STT

AMRAAMs to multiple targets = TWS

AMRAAMs to single target = SPAMRAAMer <- there is no such thing as a SPAMRAAM.

 

:D

[BranchPrediction]

Spamraam

[BranchPrediction]

You say its a sim then you use the term 'buff'. Make up your mind.

 

Oh so u cant use the term buff?,¿¿?

kk

[TLTeo]

Buff typically refers to a change in a game driven exclusively by balance reasons, not by the developer wanting to make said game more realistic. So no, in this context using the term "buff" is wrong.

[BranchPrediction]

Typically but definitely not always. If buff is used for balancing or not is debatable. So there ur answer.

Anyone can freely call it a buff cuz it is.

[Exorcet]

As far as lofting goes inconsistency goes, I was testing more the other day and realized after the fact that the missiles liked to loft (getting up to 60000 ft) in Hormuz, but didn't in the Black Sea. However I was flying the F-15 on one map (Black Sea) and F-16 on the other. Then again originally I used the F-16 on the Black Sea map and the missiles didn't loft then either.

[BranchPrediction]

Interesting. The youtubers are probably gonna do tests and experiments. I look forward to that, even though i dont fly jets xD.

[Sierra99]

I think it's kinda telling that many of the people complaining the AMMRAMs are unfair to REDFOR players have zero issue flying in servers that restrict BLUEFOR players use of AIM-9X missiles...

 

Apparently it's acceptable that REDFOR players get missiles with off bore sight capability...but it is unfair if BLUEFOR fighter get missiles with the same capability?

 

If an expert came out tomorrow and said the AMMRAM is working correctly would you actually believe them?

Edited March 6, 2020 by Sierra99

[BranchPrediction]

I think that the two thing u said( amraam unfair complaints and server rule) are unrelated to each other. I mean one can play on those servers and be of opinion that amraams are OP. But he can also be of the opinion that raams are fine and fair. I hope this sounds logical xD.

[Exorcet]

OK more testing with the loft, AMRAAMs will loft when going north, they will not loft when flying east, and they will dive when flying south.

 

 

Bug report:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4238554

Edited March 7, 2020 by Exorcet

[BranchPrediction]

Strange behaviour. Im sure ed is working hard on missile characteristics right now.

[DerFangzahn]

I think it's kinda telling that many of the people complaining the AMMRAMs are unfair to REDFOR players have zero issue flying in servers that restrict BLUEFOR players use of AIM-9X missiles...

 

Apparently it's acceptable that REDFOR players get missiles with off bore sight capability...but it is unfair if BLUEFOR fighter get missiles with the same capability?

 

If an expert came out tomorrow and said the AMMRAM is working correctly would you actually believe them?

 

If 9x is restricted R73 is usually too.

[*Aquila*]

The buff vs nerf debate is a Fortnite thing, not a simulation one. I think many people here are mingling a couple things, like different development levels cohabiting in the same soft. Some missiles are bugged due to being the first ones to be re-developed via the new API. Some badly need to get their old flight model and guidance laws updated. There's also something currently going on with chaff, which behave on EM missiles like flares on IR ones. And guys come in with conspiracy theories. Business as usual. I don't say the situation is cool. It's a mess. I just say that conspiracy theories are the choice of ease, and those who use DCS World since its release like I do have all the elements to know what I mean.

 

Maybe redfor missiles would get updated first if we had a couple commercial hardcore modules of redfor aircraft (which I badly miss!). Just an educated guess.