L166V "Ispanka" IR Jammer

[Hummingbird]

Wondering wether this will be added at some point? 

 

 

[unknown]

No, ED said this a couple times. This will not come for the Hind and they will not implement the function on the Mi-8(despite the device is modeled there).

[Harlikwin]

My understanding is that its of dubious effectiveness vs modern IR seekrs. Though really ED should add older IR sams like the redeye or early stingers or SA7 and it should be effective against those.

Though this suggests it was effective versus early stinger models.

http://www.historyisnowmagazine.com/blog/tag/Soviet-Afghan+war#.YYlllBrMKUk

Edited November 8, 2021 by Harlikwin

[Enduro14]

Hence add the old stingers in and thus the hind is functional to its proper time period,  not everyone flys at the here and now, lots of folks like the older scenarios.  Was part of a system to overall survival vs shorad’s. Should be part of dcs in my opinion.

Edited November 8, 2021 by Enduro14

[Harlikwin]

Yeah I agree it should be in the game, since it really is relevant for the hinds 80's service. Even nicer would be the old shorads. 

I think ED might be redoing IR missiles as part of the FLIR rework, so all this may end up coming. But its one of those 2 weeks questions.

And really, even in a "modern" scenario the widespread proliferation of older manpads still makes them a relevant threat. 

 

Edited November 8, 2021 by Harlikwin

[AeriaGloria]

I don’t foresee us getting 80s MANPADs until a module that needs them even more then Mi-24P Peshka is released. Like Afghanistan map or something

[Enduro14]

I Agree AeriaGloria,  but I sometimes wish I could have the Ear of the Core/Ground asset devs.  The weapons we would find in Iraq in buried caches dated all the way back to ww2 and to the most modern stuff we where using on our ODA.  So I truly hope dcs expands in scope in this regards because I can guarantee you folks that do my job now are running into all sorts of variance of weapons and equipment.  "They" acquire this stuff one way or another, OLD and New and put it into use.

  I just have a mind of, if the Variant of Airframe modelled had certain stuff and it can be dev'd properly in dcs well bring it,  expanding the left and right limit of time frame is only a good thing for Dcs.

 

Enough of my soap box 

 

pic added to show modern variants to this type of jammer are used, granted info is for Ukrainian 24, but utilizes the existing housing and wiring.

Edited November 9, 2021 by Enduro14

[Hummingbird]

Would be a nice thing to have vs older insurgent manpads

[Northstar98]

+1 but it's been said that no, we won't get it.

And AFAIK it's only useful against spin-scan AM logic seekers anyway (not that DCS goes into that much detail with regard to IR seekers - see the spoiler below), and AFAIK, there aren't a lot of missiles present in DCS that have those seekers: 9M31 (SA-9), R-3S, R-13M, R-13M1 and R-60.

What we really need are more appropriate Cold War MANPADs, in particular the hugely prolific 9K32/9K32M Strela-2/2M [SA-7a/b "Grail"] and the FIM-43C/D Redeye Block III/IV.

Spoiler

Even if we don't get a full-fidelity seeker model, like ED is attempting with the AIM-120 and what some 3rd parties are doing with their RADARs (namely RAZBAM's RDI on their Mirage 2000C and Deka's KLJ-7V1 on their JF-17), all that would be needed at minimum is to have some differentiation to IR seekers, with the different types (spin-scan AM logic, conical scan FM logic, crossed-linear tracker, rosette scanning, imaging etc) and then have jammers effective against that class, just to further differentiate them.

 

[Harlikwin]

5 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

+1 but it's been said that no, we won't get it.

And AFAIK it's only useful against spin-scan AM logic seekers anyway (not that DCS goes into that much detail with regard to IR seekers - see the spoiler below), and AFAIK, there aren't a lot of missiles present in DCS that have those seekers: 9M31 (SA-9), R-3S, R-13M, R-13M1 and R-60.

What we really need are more appropriate Cold War MANPADs, in particular the hugely prolific 9K32/9K32M Strela-2/2M [SA-7a/b "Grail"] and the FIM-43C/D Redeye Block III/IV.

  Hide contents

Even if we don't get a full-fidelity seeker model, like ED is attempting with the AIM-120 and what some 3rd parties are doing with their RADARs (namely RAZBAM's RDI on their Mirage 2000C and Deka's KLJ-7V1 on their JF-17), all that would be needed at minimum is to have some differentiation to IR seekers, with the different types (spin-scan AM logic, conical scan FM logic, crossed-linear tracker, rosette scanning, imaging etc) and then have jammers effective against that class, just to further differentiate them.

 

 

That also opens the pandoras box of what sorts of CM's are effective against which seekrs and more importantly "when". I imagine DCS doesn't want to code 50 different types of flares and release patterns. 

[Northstar98]

16 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

That also opens the pandoras box of what sorts of CM's are effective against which seekrs and more importantly "when". I imagine DCS doesn't want to code 50 different types of flares and release patterns. 

Meh, I wouldn't expect them to go all in, and if a slight improvement gets us to where want to go I'm all for it.

Even stuff like C:MO differentiates between things like single spectral and dual spectral flares and seekers - single spectral and dual spectral flares being effective against single spectral seekers (with some probability) and only dual spectral flares being effective against dual spectral seekers, with single spectral flares having much reduced probability.

It also accounts for imaging IR seekers (like the one on the AIM-9X), which are mostly immune to flares.

Here for instance, simple IR jammers that just pulse high-intensity IR would be effective against spin-scan AM logic seekers (with some probability), and ineffective against everything else.

And unless more detailed information is available, probabilities can be based on something relative ages of countermeasure and seeker, which can also apply for RADARs and ECM.

Edited November 11, 2021 by Northstar98

[Harlikwin]

2 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Meh, I wouldn't expect them to go all in, and if a slight improvement gets us to where want to go I'm all for it.

Even stuff like C:MO differentiates between things like single spectral and dual spectral flares and seekers - single spectral and dual spectral flares working against single spectral seekers (with some probability) and only dual spectral flares being effective against dual spectral seekers, and single spectral flares have much reduced probability.

Here for instance, simple IR jammers that just pulse high-intensity IR would be effective against spin-scan AM logic seekers (with some probability), and ineffective against everything else.

And unless more detailed information is available, probabilities can be based on something relative ages of countermeasure and seeker, which can also apply for RADARs and ECM.

Yeah the problem tends to be what you consider "multi-spectral" flares/chemistry vs single. And then the historical research to figure all that out, of who had what when.

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, Harlikwin said:

Yeah the problem tends to be what you consider "multi-spectral" flares/chemistry vs single. And then the historical research to figure all that out, of who had what when.

Meh, if C:MO can do it (even if assumptions are doing some heavy lifting), then I don't see why we can't, and C:MO has a far more expansive database.

The resource I'm using can be found here (or here as a direct download, you're looking for "Histoy of the Electro-Optical Guided Missiles.pdf"), which uses this as a source (at least as far as seeker technology and decoy/jammers work).

The former contains plenty of examples of missiles (the vast majority we're concerned about in DCS), and how their seekers work. Given that we know when these missiles entered service, we can make an assumption to figure out best estimates for when we'd expect single-spectral and dual-spectral flares to be in the mix - it's by no means perfect, but personally, if we can improve the fidelity, then I'd say go with it, even if we have to rely on assumptions for things we don't know.

Edited November 11, 2021 by Northstar98
added links to resources

[Harlikwin]

52 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Meh, if C:MO can do it (even if assumptions are doing some heavy lifting), then I don't see why we can't, and C:MO has a far more expansive database.

The resource I'm using can be found here (or here as a direct download, you're looking for "Histoy of the Electro-Optical Guided Missiles.pdf"), which uses this as a source (at least as far as seeker technology and decoy/jammers work).

The former contains plenty of examples of missiles (the vast majority we're concerned about in DCS), and how their seekers work. Given that we know when these missiles entered service, we can make an assumption to figure out best estimates for when we'd expect single-spectral and dual-spectral flares to be in the mix - it's by no means perfect, but personally, if we can improve the fidelity, then I'd say go with it, even if we have to rely on assumptions for things we don't know.

 

Yeah I agree as far knowing the "Broad" understanding of how seekers work when it comes to jammer effects or flare effects. Again, when it comes to things like flares people have this "color-blind" idea that its just "hot" and in reality its far far more complex. And in more cases like the docs you posted, when they show some IR image, yeah thats great, but aside from the aim-9x, a missile "doesn't" really "see" like that, especially in cluttered environments. There very real reasons IRST's were dropped by alot of nations from the 50s-90's and most of them have to do with clutter/false positives, which had fighters intercepting "hot" clouds or rocks and such. Missiles primarily worked because at very short ranges there was sufficient signal and contrast, but even then there were plenty of issues historically. 

[Northstar98]

2 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

Yeah I agree as far knowing the "Broad" understanding of how seekers work when it comes to jammer effects or flare effects. Again, when it comes to things like flares people have this "color-blind" idea that its just "hot" and in reality its far far more complex. And in more cases like the docs you posted, when they show some IR image, yeah thats great, but aside from the aim-9x, a missile "doesn't" really "see" like that, especially in cluttered environments. There very real reasons IRST's were dropped by alot of nations from the 50s-90's and most of them have to do with clutter/false positives, which had fighters intercepting "hot" clouds or rocks and such. Missiles primarily worked because at very short ranges there was sufficient signal and contrast, but even then there were plenty of issues historically. 

Well now it sounds like you're into a whole new ballgame concerning clutter, all I'm really after is improving the fidelity, no matter how slight, and all this is really doing as far as the game is concerned is adding a variable to an equation that determines the 'chance to decoy'.

Though with clutter, I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens with the IR update, hopefully it'll include things like hot rocks and hot clouds etc. 

Edited November 11, 2021 by Northstar98

[Harlikwin]

5 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Though with clutter, I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens with the IR update, hopefully it'll include things like hot rocks and hot clouds etc. 

 

Hope in one hand should probably the official anthem of DCS

 

[jojojung]

Can please somebody sum it up, why we dont get it?
In the german wikipedia article its cleary said that it is on Mi 24 D (L-166W-1AE „Ispanka“) and on the Mi 24 P (SOMS L-166W-11E „Ispanka“ or SOEP-W1AE „Lipa“)
The german Army tested both types after reunification, so they might know. So why we will not get it? Because its useless againts the MANPADS in DCS now?
Come on, thats not an argument. There might be an afganistan map in the near future. Whats up with ED?

Link: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-24#cite_note-boopidoo.com-14

[AeriaGloria]

1 hour ago, jojojung said:

Can please somebody sum it up, why we dont get it?
In the german wikipedia article its cleary said that it is on Mi 24 D (L-166W-1AE „Ispanka“) and on the Mi 24 P (SOMS L-166W-11E „Ispanka“ or SOEP-W1AE „Lipa“)
The german Army tested both types after reunification, so they might know. So why we will not get it? Because its useless againts the MANPADS in DCS now?
Come on, thats not an argument. There might be an afganistan map in the near future. Whats up with ED?

Link: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-24#cite_note-boopidoo.com-14

No offense but have you read the thread? The why is there. The Russians got uninstalled it along time ago becuase it doesn’t work on anything modern. And we don’t have the 80s missiles in DCS that it does work on 

[jojojung]

vor 6 Stunden schrieb AeriaGloria:

No offense but have you read the thread? The why is there. The Russians got uninstalled it along time ago becuase it doesn’t work on anything modern. And we don’t have the 80s missiles in DCS that it does work on 

Thanks! The answer here was that we dont get it as dicussed in other threads. Uninstalled is not correct so far. There were some Mi24p with it still equiped in the late 1990. If it was not used I'm not sure but as I said equiped for sure. There are many Fotos out there. 

I can't understand the logic behind that. ED decide to model cold war Helikopter and if you want to play cold war senarios the systems are not there. 

 

[AeriaGloria]

8FE9EB72-E5C0-424B-8D73-41F3C619343B.webp

2B208716-DB96-45C5-A8D0-EAA3505772A2.webp

Edited January 10, 2022 by AeriaGloria

[AeriaGloria]

I guess my text wasn’t added.

On your train of thought, it would’ve been nice to Atleast have the 3D model and weight added. But as it is ED said they would only add it once they add 80s SAMs, the only MANPADs such a system works on. Su-25Ts similar system works probably too well, and is likely a relic from an era when ED was less Rigorous in their simulation, the Frogfoots are simple systems simulation anyways.

ED said when they visited a Russian air base to get info for the module the hammer was removed from all aircraft, it was useless. If it was worthwhile for modern MANPADS, why do modern Hinds like Mi-35M and Mi-35P do not have it? 
 

I posted some pictures showing how old Mi-24Ps have had the jammer removed in Russian service, here are there sources. While export options would be nice, this is ED’s simulation goal, to create a representation of a craft from one country one service of one timeframe. If/when they add 80s MANPADS and add the system, we’ll be able to simulate more then one time, but I can’t see them going any farther 
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/defence-blog.com/russia-to-deliver-a-batch-of-upgraded-mi-24p-attack-helicopters-to-angola/%3famp

https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.php?aircraft_id=70
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/tass.com/defense/1075173/amp
 

An upgraded Mi-24P at MAKS 2019 with the system removed https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/mi-24p-1m/

one of the top pictures here of the P model https://www.shutterstock.com/search/mi+24

https://transport-photo.com/photo/26247/Russian-Airforce-Mi-24.html

you will see the same on all Mi-24 variants with the jammer in recent Russian service, that the jammer has been removed, I have focused on the P variant here to show that ED has only chosen the most accurate representation of those in service today 

 

Edited January 10, 2022 by AeriaGloria

[jojojung]

vor 6 Stunden schrieb AeriaGloria:

I guess my text wasn’t added.

On your train of thought, it would’ve been nice to Atleast have the 3D model and weight added. But as it is ED said they would only add it once they add 80s SAMs, the only MANPADs such a system works on. Su-25Ts similar system works probably too well, and is likely a relic from an era when ED was less Rigorous in their simulation, the Frogfoots are simple systems simulation anyways.

ED said when they visited a Russian air base to get info for the module the hammer was removed from all aircraft, it was useless. If it was worthwhile for modern MANPADS, why do modern Hinds like Mi-35M and Mi-35P do not have it? 
 

I posted some pictures showing how old Mi-24Ps have had the jammer removed in Russian service, here are there sources. While export options would be nice, this is ED’s simulation goal, to create a representation of a craft from one country one service of one timeframe. If/when they add 80s MANPADS and add the system, we’ll be able to simulate more then one time, but I can’t see them going any farther 
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/defence-blog.com/russia-to-deliver-a-batch-of-upgraded-mi-24p-attack-helicopters-to-angola/%3famp

https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.php?aircraft_id=70
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/tass.com/defense/1075173/amp
 

An upgraded Mi-24P at MAKS 2019 with the system removed https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/mi-24p-1m/

one of the top pictures here of the P model https://www.shutterstock.com/search/mi+24

https://transport-photo.com/photo/26247/Russian-Airforce-Mi-24.html

you will see the same on all Mi-24 variants with the jammer in recent Russian service, that the jammer has been removed, I have focused on the P variant here to show that ED has only chosen the most accurate representation of those in service today 

 

 

Hey I want to push it in one direction, thats OK but I can play that game too but that does not make any sense does it? There are enough photos for the opposite but thats not the point. You say "that ED has only chosen the most accurate representation of those in service today" but no Mi-24p would be in service today with these old systems that are in the DCS Mi-24P. All are modernized many times today, so your argument doesnt work. EDs Mi-24p should represent a end of the cold war / early 90s Mi-24p. And thats a good dicision! But if that discision is made you can not say only in view for the Ispanka we will model it the modern way (without it) for all the other systems we stay in the chosen timeframe early 1990s. Nobody doubt that its useless today and its removed from the modernized Hinds today.
But please stay in the discussion point and take photos of that particulare timeframe, please! Its like comparing apples with oranges just like it fits.

We want a heli for a 1980 war missions, so the Hind is not an Apache, right? But in the 1980 the Ispanka was used! So why model an old bird and take off features because that one particulare example as real life reverence doesnt have this system.
What if the dome light is out of service in this particulare real life MI-24p? Will it put out of the game?
Whats about the AGM 62 Walleye for the hornet?
Nobody doubt it was put out of service in the 1990s after the golf war and the modeled hornet is from around 2005. And guess what... Its in the game! Because someone might want to fly with a 1991 loadout. 
Why does the same principle does not work for the MI24p in an afghanistan scenario?
When ED says its because the 80s IR missiles doesnt exist at the moment and the system will be added when the SAM systems are modeled too its fine for me. Otherwise same prinicples for each modules! There are Mi-24p with the jammer, its proofen many times and it should be in the game!

Edited January 10, 2022 by jojojung

[unknown]

38 minutes ago, jojojung said:

Why does the same principle does not work for the MI24p in an afghanistan scenario?

Because the developers of the Hind are also the developed of the Mi-8. Guess what, they didn't simulate the "Ispanka" there too(but atleast you have the metal protection case for the 3D model there) with the same statement, not usefull against DCS IR-missiles represented. 

So you have 3 options now:

• wait patiently for them to expand scenarios and implement the "Ispanka" in the next 1-20 years
• give them some big $$$ as an incentive
• open your own dev team and develop your own Hind modul with "Ispanka" (a Hind-D or V would be really nice, i would by them  )

[AeriaGloria]

3 hours ago, jojojung said:

Hey I want to push it in one direction, thats OK but I can play that game too but that does not make any sense does it? There are enough photos for the opposite but thats not the point. You say "that ED has only chosen the most accurate representation of those in service today" but no Mi-24p would be in service today with these old systems that are in the DCS Mi-24P. All are modernized many times today, so your argument doesnt work. EDs Mi-24p should represent a end of the cold war / early 90s Mi-24p. And thats a good dicision! But if that discision is made you can not say only in view for the Ispanka we will model it the modern way (without it) for all the other systems we stay in the chosen timeframe early 1990s. Nobody doubt that its useless today and its removed from the modernized Hinds today.
But please stay in the discussion point and take photos of that particulare timeframe, please! Its like comparing apples with oranges just like it fits.

We want a heli for a 1980 war missions, so the Hind is not an Apache, right? But in the 1980 the Ispanka was used! So why model an old bird and take off features because that one particulare example as real life reverence doesnt have this system.
What if the dome light is out of service in this particulare real life MI-24p? Will it put out of the game?
Whats about the AGM 62 Walleye for the hornet?
Nobody doubt it was put out of service in the 1990s after the golf war and the modeled hornet is from around 2005. And guess what... Its in the game! Because someone might want to fly with a 1991 loadout. 
Why does the same principle does not work for the MI24p in an afghanistan scenario?
When ED says its because the 80s IR missiles doesnt exist at the moment and the system will be added when the SAM systems are modeled too its fine for me. Otherwise same prinicples for each modules! There are Mi-24p with the jammer, its proofen many times and it should be in the game!

 

Is there evidence that all Mi-24Ps have been upgraded to newer equipment all around? I think you over estimate the degree of Mi-24 upgrade programs, watching videos of their operations in Syria, many seem to be unchanged from service entry other then newer weapons. For example, the automatic ballistic computer wasn’t upgraded to use the S-8 rocket until Chechnya war. The avionics stayed the same, they just added another item into its memory.

So I personally believe I am staying within the correct timeframe, what upgrades where there for Mi-24P that were put in service by Russia? The PN model? Not all Mi-24Ps in service are PN, indeed the information I can find is only 14 were made/upgraded. There are Mi-35P, but those are new builds. The upgraded Mi-24P I linked earlier, that was a demonstration model displayed at MAKS 2019 and not made or delivered to anyone.

 

So as far as evidence is available, it does appear that ED modeled the Mi-24P as they currently are in Russian service. If they do make this Afghanistan map, I have no doubt they will add the necessary 1980s MANPADs and jammer. If you have any information that the Mi-24P fleet in Russian service has been upgraded, I would be very interested in that information 

[Harlikwin]

On 1/9/2022 at 6:07 PM, AeriaGloria said:

No offense but have you read the thread? The why is there. The Russians got uninstalled it along time ago becuase it doesn’t work on anything modern. And we don’t have the 80s missiles in DCS that it does work on 

 

Really. Lets have that conversation.

That form IRCM works fine on a wide variety of seekers. Which were around in the 70's 80's 90's and even modern era. They work great on anything with an AM modulated seeker, and partly why FM seekers were made, and again depending on pulse programs they can work there too. There are plenty of documents on how they work, and how well they work out there too in the professional literature. Its on ED to actually model that, which well, they don't currently.  

Or shall we talk about the ED "flare as a dice roll" IR flare model. Cuz well that largely depends on a variety of factors that are not modeled in DCS, cuz you know, "flare "programs" are "thing" not just pump out a billion flares cuz in DCS each flare has a 1/32 chance (or whatever) it is to decoy missile XYZ. 

 

Being "very nice" about it, ED's modeling of anything relating to IR missiles or IRST, or IR TGP's is not good at best.
 

Edited January 12, 2022 by Harlikwin