Remove 15 seconds warm-up of ECM.

[Seaeagle]

Better to remove ECM as such until ED can come up with a more realistic implementation for all.

[Coxy_99]

22 hours ago, GGTharos said:

... which is exactly why the world's air forces have stopped making any new ones.

 

I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but let's put it this way:  If it does that to a 120, just what do you think that flanker radar is worth other than ballast?

 

No im not being sarcastic ECM is used to scramble the active seeker head and make it go dumb, You also say not making new missiles maybe thats why ne tech will be lasers in the future? How true that is who knows. But if jeff gets instant ECM with a pod F-14 gets instant blinking, F18 gets whatever, Why should the warm-up not be removed? That question is still un answered.

Edited January 19, 2021 by Coxy_99

[GGTharos]

1 hour ago, Coxy_99 said:

No im not being sarcastic ECM is used to scramble the active seeker head and make it go dumb, You also say not making new missiles maybe thats why ne tech will be lasers in the future? How true that is who knows. But if jeff gets instant ECM with a pod F-14 gets instant blinking, F18 gets whatever, Why should the warm-up not be removed? That question is still un answered.

 

It's used to break lock or prevent lock of any radar, not 'actives'.  This includes your aircraft, your SARH missiles, SAMs.   But nothing is 100%, SPJs certainly are not.  This is a DCS problem, not an F-18/F-14/warm-up problem.  The warm-up certainly should be removed, but the ECM/ECCM representation in the missile code should be changed. 

[Teknetinium]

Funny, you were the one that wanted 15 sec warm up and was for it when your TWS was effected in F-15, Why do you want to remove it now? What has changed regarding this topic? Why is the 15 sec not good anymore? 51PVO/100KIAP were saying from the start that 15 sec was just implemented for balancing a bias approach! Some things are fine to balance until it dont suit you. Dont worry I will point out double standards. I know you love me for that:)  

 

YES, plz remove it so we can blink to the left and right make Nato fanboys cry . ´With that goes all your credibility regarding realism with bias approach  

 

Would like a reply from ED regarding this topic as well!

Edited January 19, 2021 by Teknetinium

[GGTharos]

11 minutes ago, Teknetinium said:

Funny, you were the one that wanted 15 sec warm up and was for it when your TWS was effected in F-15,

 

You can paint it the wrong way all you want, but the fact is that ED agreed to put the delay in because the effect achieved by blinking was not intended - it made HoJ completely pointless for one.   In other words, they agreed that it was an exploit.

 

Quote

Why do you want to remove it now? What has changed regarding this topic? Why is the 15 sec not good anymore?

 

I don't want to remove it until there's a good solution to the above problem.   This isn't the same problem that it was before - at this point it's not 'I can't lock anything beyond 22nm', it's 'no RF missiles, including SAMs, can touch an aircraft doing this at any range'. 

 

Edited January 19, 2021 by GGTharos

[Teknetinium]

I dont paint, I see the hypocrisy and pointing it out. 

Edited January 19, 2021 by Teknetinium

[Falcon_S]

3 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

 

....In other words, they agreed that it was an exploit...

 

 

In other words we have now same exploit on opposite side (they not aggree?). Flanker is just HoJ target while F-14 and others blinking like devils. 

[GGTharos]

2 minutes ago, Falcon_S said:

In other words we have now same exploit on opposite side (they not aggree?). Flanker is just HoJ target while F-14 and others blinking like devils. 

 

I think they agree.  If you haven't noticed from the various posts, they didn't seem to be aware of this.

Edited January 19, 2021 by GGTharos

[Teknetinium]

14 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

 

I think they agree.  If you haven't noticed from the various posts, they didn't seem to be aware of this.

 

ED agree now when it affects Nato fanboy toys the Same way. That is Bias approach and very low by ED as many other things I will not mention here. 
 

just a reminder, people dont fly Flankers because it has only been improving to more realism . But when same realism reach Nato toys F-15 and F-18 make 30G with tanks

Edited January 19, 2021 by Teknetinium

[GGTharos]

Thanks for contributing another well thought out, relevant post with a great solution to this problem Tek!

[Teknetinium]

3 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

Thanks for contributing another well thought out, relevant post with a great solution to this problem Tek!

I dont see any solution from you! I see only bias talk that suits you! You are welcome! 

[GGTharos]

I was busy thinking one up while you're trying to make yourself look like sort of martyr.  I've already sent my suggestion to ED but obviously they'll do whatever it is they want

 

In case your curious, my proposal as a quick fix waiting for some deeper ECM/ECCM modeling was to handle rate-limiting on the missile side and add a bit of error to the seeker if the ECM is on during terminal.

 

In other words, the missiles will no longer care how often you (or anyone) blink your jammer, they'll only consider one status change every x seconds, change to some HoJ guidance profile and add a little miss distance.   It should reduce missile Pk without making them completely useless.

Edited January 19, 2021 by GGTharos

[Teknetinium]

51PVO/100KIAP have sent reports as well for 13 years, dont make of your self some sort of hero when it’s obvious what you are:) 

 

All good let the Flanker break the TWS as the F-14 dose. Im just pointing out how funny it is to watch you talk depending who it effects  
 

MP community is hunting exploiters thats how far we are in to DCS BVR code!  
 

the competitive modes are exchanged finding who is exploiting a rolle or 32sec magic INS or pulling 30Gs with tanks, list is long, Great work with your reports

Edited January 19, 2021 by Teknetinium

[Breakshot]

Modern ECM RL environment would probably make TWS at long range all but USELESS for both sides. It would probably also make long non STT 120 shots also pretty useless. As seeker lockon range would be reduced greatly.

At least we should have some form of ECM effect for REDFOR vs blue systems. The 15sec warmup is a complete joke, done for the sake of NATO fanboy cries back in the day. 0 realism logic was applied by ED.

So yes, Tek is spot on pointing out the double standards, whether you like it or not, GGTharos.

On top of this, the Russians are the ones constantly updating their ECM tech. Sorbitsya pods we have in DCS are old 90s shit. YET they are still very powerful pods. I think it only makes sense that Russians compensate their inferior missiles with better defensive doctrines and ECCM is #1 area for this.

So let's not kid ourselves. Remove 15sec warm-up and make ECM screw with TWS as it is designed to do in the first place. Those pods are not there just for pretty screenshots!! (How BLUE seem to think, all this while)

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

[GGTharos]

 

Quote

RL environment would probably make TWS at long range all but USELESS for both sides. It would probably also make long non STT 120 shots also pretty useless. As seeker lockon range would be reduced greatly.

 

One of the major things about MPRF, digital processing as well as blended data-link was huge resistance to ECM.  There are also official accounts of 120s adding ECCM against DRFM jammers... which you don't have in DCS.

 

Quote

So let's not kid ourselves. Remove 15sec warm-up and make ECM screw with TWS as it is designed to do in the first place.

 

The -34 indicates that TWS works fine with ECM and is perfectly capable of targeting them in that mode, unlike DCS where it ends up STT on them.  Certainly there are disadvantages when taking HoJ shots, and hopefully there will be an effort to model those better.

 

My suggestion covers everyone, not just 'blue'.

 

So yes, let's not kid ourselves - some people have seriously huge double standards when it comes to abusing unintended effects of the simulation, trying to justify them using some logic about 'balance' (you don't have to say the word, it's well implied ) then accusing anyone who doesn't agree of having no logic.

Edited January 20, 2021 by GGTharos

[Teknetinium]

What could you expect from GG, Jammers should help GGs AIM-120 to hit the target not the opposite. I dont know where you get all your intel regarding jammers . I bet its from advertising TV-shop brushers of F-16/F-18/F-15. 

Edited January 20, 2021 by Teknetinium

[GGTharos]

31 minutes ago, Teknetinium said:

What could you expect from GG, Jammers should help GGs AIM-120 to hit the target not the opposite. I dont know where you get all your intel regarding jammers . I bet its from advertising TV-shop brushers of F-16/F-18/F-15. 

 

But I never said any of this, you made this up.   You are a liar. 

[Teknetinium]

7 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

 

But I never said any of this, you made this up.   You are a liar. 

Show me one example or prove that aim-120 can hit a target home on jam, it is EDs world and workaround, home on jam is like homing on targets that don’t exist. 
 

Only in DCS Aim-120 hit a target home on jam  

[dundun92]

So ECM is a magic EMP pulse that disables ARH missiles, yet should leave SARH and aircraft radars alone, merely forcing it into STT? yea no thats not how it works

[dundun92]

5 hours ago, Teknetinium said:

Show me one example or prove that aim-120 can hit a target home on jam

Im not sure if this is trolling or not, but here are several of countless sources describing HOJ capabilities for the AIM-120:

"Distributed Simulation Testing for Weapons System Performance of the F/A-18 and AIM-120 AMRAAM":

 

From "AMRAAM Test Program Overview"

 

 

 

What appears to be the biggest issue is not whether the AMRAAM can HOJ, but rather the fact that jamming can cause bad datalink signals to be sent, which will make longer range shots almost impossible, but in terms of ECM magically killing AMRAAMs, no that simply isnt how it works at all.

Edited January 20, 2021 by dundun92

[Cmptohocah]

Let's not forget that ECM also effects other systems like RWRs, DLs, radios and fusing. Now I am not sure how much do the "oboard" pods do and how much it's up to designated ECM aircraft.

Edited January 20, 2021 by Cmptohocah

[Teknetinium]

18 hours ago, dundun92 said:

Im not sure if this is trolling or not, but here are several of countless sources describing HOJ capabilities for the AIM-120:

"Distributed Simulation Testing for Weapons System Performance of the F/A-18 and AIM-120 AMRAAM":

 

From "AMRAAM Test Program Overview"

 

 

 

What appears to be the biggest issue is not whether the AMRAAM can HOJ, but rather the fact that jamming can cause bad datalink signals to be sent, which will make longer range shots almost impossible, but in terms of ECM magically killing AMRAAMs, no that simply isnt how it works at all.

 

Same argument was used to implement the 15 sec warm up so you could make home on jam or having TWS working. Now you want to remove 15 sec
 

There is ways to break the home on jam as the F-14 by blinking in DCS or other measures in RL.

Just because you advertising paper say aim-120 can go around jamming dont mean that it dose it in RL or DCS. 

When flares were tested, Same outcome for Russians as Americans, testing own flares did not help the seeker in RL situation because the opponent was using other type of flares witch made the opponents flares better then expected. 

I would assume same pattern fallow other countermeasures. 
 

 

 

Edited January 21, 2021 by Teknetinium

[dundun92]

4 hours ago, Teknetinium said:

Just because you advertising paper say aim-120 can go around jamming dont mean that it dose it in RL or DCS. 

this isnt "my" advertising paper, this is actual USAF/USN documentation, and/or research papers. What else do you want?

 

4 hours ago, Teknetinium said:

When flares were tested, Same outcome for Russians as Americans, testing own flares did not help the seeker in RL situation because the opponent was using other type of flares witch made the opponents flares better then expected.

Note that this has nothing to do with general trends, but rather a specific detail of a certain IRCCM technique. The AIM-9P/L/Ms in question filtered out flares by energy rise time, or how quickly they intensified; US flares intensified much faster than Russian flares, so while it rejected US flares, the Russian flares did not intensify quickly enough to trigger the IRCCM (on a related note, there was one notable disadvantage to the russian flares. From a beam aspect, the flares exited the FoV before they could intensify, which caused them to be ineffective from that aspect). The point being, this is not a general trend, this is a specific consequence of a certain IRCCM technique. Might there be other areas of CCM where you could see a similar effect? Perhaps there are. But this is not some blanket trend you can apply to all countermeasures without specific reasons/evidence. Whether you "assume" so is irrelevant.

[Teknetinium]

31 minutes ago, dundun92 said:

this isnt "my" advertising paper, this is actual USAF/USN documentation, and/or research papers. What else do you want?

 

Note that this has nothing to do with general trends, but rather a specific detail of a certain IRCCM technique. The AIM-9P/L/Ms in question filtered out flares by energy rise time, or how quickly they intensified; US flares intensified much faster than Russian flares, so while it rejected US flares, the Russian flares did not intensify quickly enough to trigger the IRCCM (on a related note, there was one notable disadvantage to the russian flares. From a beam aspect, the flares exited the FoV before they could intensify, which caused them to be ineffective from that aspect). The point being, this is not a general trend, this is a specific consequence of a certain IRCCM technique. Might there be other areas of CCM where you could see a similar effect? Perhaps there are. But this is not some blanket trend you can apply to all countermeasures without specific reasons/evidence. Whether you "assume" so is irrelevant.

The relevance is in that I have been saying before that 15 sec was implemented that it was only bias balancing reason and had nothing to do with RL. 
 

As so many other bugs regarding missiles/jamming 

 

jammers should effect all typs of radars including aim-120s in a defensive way. At them moment the jammer in Flanker have no purpose . 

Edited January 21, 2021 by Teknetinium

[dundun92]

Just now, Teknetinium said:

The relevance is in that I have been saying before that 15 sec was implemented that it was only bias balancing reason and had nothing to do with RL. 
 

As so many other bugs regarding missiles and/jamming 

 

jammers should effect all typs of radars including aim-120s in a defensive way. At them moment the jammer in Flanker have no purpose . 

I dont think anyone is disagreeing that ECM should affect radars negatively, thats the point of ECM, but a) its not just to ARH missiles, and b), its not some EMP pulse that just kills the radar upon activation. HOJ/ECCM exists for a reason. But yes, ECM effects in game are overall very poor, inconsistent between modules and need some serious improvement, that I do agree with.