F-16 IFF

[mobua]

Hi, the updated IFF features for the Hornet had me hopeful for what was to come for our beloved VIper. Then I saw one of Big Newys replies stating no auto IFF on the Viper.

 

Ok, fair enough.

 

I do however remember seeing AIFF in a list of Viper features. Could someone please expand on what AIFF brings in the Viper?

 

Is IFF symbology overlayed on the HUD a reasonable expectation or are we forever resigned to Mk II eyeballs and looking down on the FCR ?

 

Sincerely

mobua

Edited December 15, 2020 by mobua
correction

[danny875]

I’ve definitely seen IFF symbology on the HSD before, albeit in a mission with AWACS and other friendly aircraft. Have seen a red symbol for a bandit too.

[kengou]

IFF is not overlaid on the HUD in the Viper.

[mobua]

1 hour ago, kengou said:

IFF is not overlaid on the HUD in the Viper.

Thanks, well that answers that. 

 

Do you by any chance have some insight into what AIFF entails in regards to the Viper?

 

Sincerely

mobua

[kengou]

2 hours ago, mobua said:

Thanks, well that answers that. 

 

Do you by any chance have some insight into what AIFF entails in regards to the Viper?

 

Sincerely

mobua

 

Googling AIFF it looks like this is a Mode 5 interrogator, vs the Mode 4 we have now in most aircraft. It was integrated in the Viper starting in around 1995. I'm not seeing very much that would be relevant to DCS aside from maybe this line:

 

Quote

The Mode 5 waveform uses modern modulation, coding, and cryptographic techniques to overcome performance and security limitations in the current Mark XII waveform. Additionally, Mode 5 systems provide expanded data handling capabilities tosecurely pass GPS position and other extended data.

Source: https://www.telinstrument.com/avionics-news/industry-articles/101-iff-and-mode-5-past-present-and-future.html

 

 

[mobua]

29 minutes ago, kengou said:

 

Googling AIFF it looks like this is a Mode 5 interrogator, vs the Mode 4 we have now in most aircraft. It was integrated in the Viper starting in around 1995. I'm not seeing very much that would be relevant to DCS aside from maybe this line:

 

Source: https://www.telinstrument.com/avionics-news/industry-articles/101-iff-and-mode-5-past-present-and-future.html

 

 

Thanks Kengou for the clarification, this however leads me deeper down the rabbit hole. Im curious as to why ED would list AIFF on the Viper road map if it has no discernable implication or tactical function, what's your take on that?

 

Also do you know what AIFF stands for when it comes to the Viper? I always assumed it meant Automatic IFF.

 

Edit: Advanced IFF

 

Here's hoping that ED or any SME can shed some light on the subject.

 

Sincerely

mobua

Edited December 15, 2020 by mobua

[kengou]

8 minutes ago, mobua said:

Thanks Kengou for the clarification, this however leads me deeper down the rabbit hole. Im curious as to why ED would list AIFF on the Viper road map if it has no discernable implication or tactical function, what's your take on that?

 

Also do you know what AIFF stands for when it comes to the Viper? I always assumed it meant Automatic IFF.

 

Here's hoping that ED or any SME can shed some light on the subject.

 

Sincerely

mobua

Based on google articles, AIFF is "Advanced IFF". Agree I hope an SME can clarify but IFF systems tend to be very classified.

 

It may be something like the A-10 II's satellite radio feature. Some new in-cockpit models for switches, an extra item for the feature list for marketing purposes, not much more.

[mobua]

Not to beat a dead horse but in EDs own thread for planned systems it states:

"Integration of the JHMCS with the HARM Targeting System (HTS), Link 16, and AIFF".

Is it possible that the JHMCS as a system bypasses the FCR display in regards to Mode 5 IFF? Assuming this to be true we should via our HMD be seeing symbology for friend or foe... yes?

 

Sincerely

mobua

 

[Florence201]

On 12/15/2020 at 12:48 PM, mobua said:

Not to beat a dead horse but in EDs own thread for planned systems it states:

"Integration of the JHMCS with the HARM Targeting System (HTS), Link 16, and AIFF".

Is it possible that the JHMCS as a system bypasses the FCR display in regards to Mode 5 IFF? Assuming this to be true we should via our HMD be seeing symbology for friend or foe... yes?

 

Sincerely

mobua

 

So that depends on track correlation. Haven’t seen evidence of Viper HMCS IFF/L16 correlation so I’ll await ED’s input. Hornet has it, so must be available in Viper......

[mobua]

12 hours ago, Florence201 said:

So that depends on track correlation. Haven’t seen evidence of Viper HMCS IFF/L16 correlation so I’ll await ED’s input. Hornet has it, so must be available in Viper......

Very intresting indeed. All things considered I'm expecting that the correlation as presented on the FCR/HMD via MIDS should be on par with what we're seeing in the Hornet.

One could also wager than ownship IFF (i.e non correlated tracks) would not be visble on the JHMCS.

 

At this point its just alot of conjecture, I do wish ED would step in and clarify or change the phrasing in the thread for planned systems so us not to lead as astray.

 

Sincerely

mobua

[Florence201]

4 minutes ago, mobua said:

Very intresting indeed. All things considered I'm expecting that the correlation as presented on the FCR/HMD via MIDS should be on par with what we're seeing in the Hornet.

One could also wager than ownship IFF (i.e non correlated tracks) would not be visble on the JHMCS.

 

At this point its just alot of conjecture, I do wish ED would step in and clarify or change the phrasing in the thread for planned systems so us not to lead as astray.

 

Sincerely

mobua

Best course of action is to find a YT video that backs up any changes/improvements. 

[mobua]

@BIGNEWY , @NineLine .

A penny for your thoughts?

[Frederf]

F-16s with IFF (APX-109) can reply to interrogations.

F-16s with AIFF can make and reply to interrogations.

The basic forms of IFF and AIFF would be modes 1234 C and S. The fancier AIFF features aren't necessarily required to be called AIFF. For a lot of F-16 history the concept of IFF interrogating other airplanes was not a given. It was for special air defense units or not at all.

 

It's more helpful if you talk about APX-113 or -125 or -126 with Mark 7 or 7A or 8 capabilities. Since we're ~2007 I'm guessing -113 and Mark VII. The only thing I don't know is if we'd get Mode 5 by then or not.

[mobua]

3 hours ago, Frederf said:

F-16s with IFF (APX-109) can reply to interrogations.

F-16s with AIFF can make and reply to interrogations.

The basic forms of IFF and AIFF would be modes 1234 C and S. The fancier AIFF features aren't necessarily required to be called AIFF. For a lot of F-16 history the concept of IFF interrogating other airplanes was not a given. It was for special air defense units or not at all.

 

It's more helpful if you talk about APX-113 or -125 or -126 with Mark 7 or 7A or 8 capabilities. Since we're ~2007 I'm guessing -113 and Mark VII. The only thing I don't know is if we'd get Mode 5 by then or not.

Hi Frederf and thanks for your insight. Do you by any chance see what the connection AIFF would have with JHMCS or is it just me being led down a rabbit hole by a poor framing of the sentence by ED?

 

Referring to: "Integration of the JHMCS with the HARM Targeting System (HTS), Link 16, and AIFF".

Edited January 11, 2021 by mobua

[twistking]

just an observation from the free trial: (unfortunately i did not have the time to investigate further...)

 

i noticed that when interrogating all targets, i would get positive answers from friendlies that were not picked up by my radar. in fact the returns came from friendlies still parked on the ramp (or maybe taxiing - not sure). those replies seemed to be roughly in the right spot on the fcr. back then i was assuming that this might have been a bug, but now i think that those friendlies might have actually responded with their gps location and could therefore be located despite not being picked up by my radar.

 

could this be a feature of AIFF? what other means would the aircraft have to locate the position from a return and how would you traditionally assign a return to a radar contact, if you interrogate all contacts?

 

 

 

[Frederf]

Best guess from reading that sentence is that helmet integration with HTS, L16, and IFF would be seeing some kind of IFF return through the helmet and/or being able to steer IFF interrogate by helmet. I haven't found any documentation that shows IFF displayed on helmet if that's even a thing.

 

The AIFF antennas are independent of the FCR antenna. There is a casual association when you do a narrow IFF scan in that IFF pattern is pointed in azimuth according to FCR. But by default IFF interrogate is full size and even when it is narrow it is still quite fat especially in elevation. AIFF should show reply position (probably not the best accuracy) even with FCR off. The AIFF system can locate in azimuth. Range I think comes from round-trip time of call-reponse like TACAN. I'm sure the super modern IFF modes will actually transmit a large amount of data (mode 5? mode S?) but at least M123C is extremely basic in response. There's enough M4 info out there that it could be looked up if there's any info encoded in the reply.

[Northstar98]

Hmm according to this, it's sorta implied that Mode 5 came on the M6.1 tape (we have the M4.2/4.3 tape), though I might be misinterpreting it.

 

As for IFF as a whole, I don't think we have automatic interrogation, but it would be great if we could get some core IFF functionality (like the other sim). 

[Bunny Clark]

8 hours ago, twistking said:

i noticed that when interrogating all targets, i would get positive answers from friendlies that were not picked up by my radar.

Yup, this is totally normal and expected behavior and has nothing to do with GPS. IFF systems are actually a form of radar transponder, and an IFF response can be used to locate the responding aircraft. That's how the fire control system can correlate IFF returns with radar contacts, and why IFF transmitter power is variable and the system can be setup to notify you when an IFF response is broadcast. 

[Pulstar]

Picking up the tiny dots on the screen is a pain compared to how easy and nifty it is in the F15C, especially the TWS multi-targetting. Add to it the frantic pressing of the IFF buttons and it doesnt look to be a sexy option for MP BVR engagements.

[SpaceMonkey037]

1 hour ago, Pulstar said:

Picking up the tiny dots on the screen is a pain compared to how easy and nifty it is in the F15C, especially the TWS multi-targetting. Add to it the frantic pressing of the IFF buttons and it doesnt look to be a sexy option for MP BVR engagements.

Might not be sexy, but it is highly realistic. And as a sim I think our sim should aim to be the best simulation of real life as possible. 

[Pulstar]

21 minutes ago, SpaceMonkey037 said:

Might not be sexy, but it is highly realistic. And as a sim I think our sim should aim to be the best simulation of real life as possible. 

 

Of course, but I wonder in 10 years' time whether all modules will become advanced ones with FC3 AC being phased out completely.

 

On a sidenote, is there a way to make acquisition brackets move faster on hat switches? It's too slow as is.

[SpaceMonkey037]

2 minutes ago, Pulstar said:

 

Of course, but I wonder in 10 years' time whether all modules will become advanced ones with FC3 AC being phased out completely.

 

On a sidenote, is there a way to make acquisition brackets move faster on hat switches? It's too slow as is.

Honestly I have no problem with FC3 being phased out, not because I think having an easy alternative is bad, rather I think the incarnation of FC3 as an easier alternative should be done differently. I think all planes should be full fidelity and that if you want to fly something that requires less skill you'll have simpler aircraft to suit your needs.

I am unsure what you mean with "acquisition brackets".

[Falconeer]

52 minutes ago, Pulstar said:

On a sidenote, is there a way to make acquisition brackets move faster on hat switches? It's too slow as is.

I dont think you can increase the speed of the cursors

 

I can only recommend to bound it to axes like a ministick or something. Not only faster, but also more precise