Jump to content

ALQ-184 Position 3 Mode and FCR


Comrade Doge

Recommended Posts

    Hello everyone, I am sure many players have been most pleased with the addition of a substantial depth to our beloved F-16 Electronic Warfare capabilities, opening up a new field to explore. This post is intended to seek some extra details and clear up some confusion about the ALQ-184 ECM pod, namely it's effect on the onboard sensors. Let us begin.

    As we have been informed by Matt Wagner's recent videos and Mini Updates, the ALQ-184 has 2 main modes of transmission:

  1. Self Protection Jammer (SPJ) mode
  2. Barrage Noise Jammer mode

    One of Wags' videos explains what they mean, SPJ mode attempting to break a radar lock on the aircraft, and Noise Jammer mode denies radar range information from hostiles. 

    In terms of the ECM's interference with the onboard sensors such as the FCR, HTS and HARM, the 184 seems to have another 2 modes of operation, as explained by Matt:

  1. Radar Priority mode
  2. ECM Priority mode

    To explain how these modes work, here is a quote from one of Wags' Mini Updates: When in ECM Priority, the FCR and HARM/HTS are silenced; When in Radar Priority and the jammer is transmitting and ownship radar and HARM/HTS performance is reduced by 40%.

    Currently in DCS it seems that the Noise Jammer mode, in Position 3 on the ECM panel, functions in ECM Priority, turning off the FCR. The other SPJ mode can function in both Radar Priority or ECM Priority, using switches 1 and 2 respectively.

    The interesting behaviour arises when selecting Position 3 Noise Jammer, beginning transmission, then switching to Position 1, which now allows the FCR to operate. Position 1 seems to now work as the Radar Priority mode toggle instead of enabling the SPJ mode, when ECM is still transmitting in Noise Jammer mode. I am uncertain if this is correct behaviour.

On one hand it would make sense to have the Position switches be multi purpose, and make them double as toggling the Radar Priority mode when transmitting Noise, as there is no Position 4 to enable Radar Priority in Noise Jammer mode. I also have my concerns that the Noise Jammer mode should function in Radar Priority in the first place, it being in ECM Priority and disabling the FCR, HTS and HARM is not mentioned anywhere by Wags, quite the contrary, he has told us that Barrage Noise Jammer mode is intended to be turned on, and left on as a preemptive measure, which would be unwise to do if it would turn off all the sensors, as it does in DCS.

    As a summary, the main question is: is it correct that switching from Position 3 to Position 1, while ECM still transmits in Noise Mode, enables the FCR to function?

    I am aware that things may still be work in progress, this post is intended to clarify some details about the workings of the ALQ-184, as it is a complex system that I am sure required a lot of development time. Best of luck with the module moving forwards, and happy holidays!

ECM.trk


Edited by Comrade Doge
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/24/2021 at 9:30 AM, Comrade Doge said:

    Hello everyone, I am sure many players have been most pleased with the addition of a substantial depth to our beloved F-16 Electronic Warfare capabilities, opening up a new field to explore. This post is intended to seek some extra details and clear up some confusion about the ALQ-184 ECM pod, namely it's effect on the onboard sensors. Let us begin.

    As we have been informed by Matt Wagner's recent videos and Mini Updates, the ALQ-184 has 2 main modes of transmission:

  1. Self Protection Jammer (SPJ) mode
  2. Barrage Noise Jammer mode

    One of Wags' videos explains what they mean, SPJ mode attempting to break a radar lock on the aircraft, and Noise Jammer mode denies radar range information from hostiles. 

    In terms of the ECM's interference with the onboard sensors such as the FCR, HTS and HARM, the 184 seems to have another 2 modes of operation, as explained by Matt:

  1. Radar Priority mode
  2. ECM Priority mode

    To explain how these modes work, here is a quote from one of Wags' Mini Updates: When in ECM Priority, the FCR and HARM/HTS are silenced; When in Radar Priority and the jammer is transmitting and ownship radar and HARM/HTS performance is reduced by 40%.

    Currently in DCS it seems that the Noise Jammer mode, in Position 3 on the ECM panel, functions in ECM Priority, turning off the FCR. The other SPJ mode can function in both Radar Priority or ECM Priority, using switches 1 and 2 respectively.

    The interesting behaviour arises when selecting Position 3 Noise Jammer, beginning transmission, then switching to Position 1, which now allows the FCR to operate. Position 1 seems to now work as the Radar Priority mode toggle instead of enabling the SPJ mode, when ECM is still transmitting in Noise Jammer mode. I am uncertain if this is correct behaviour.

On one hand it would make sense to have the Position switches be multi purpose, and make them double as toggling the Radar Priority mode when transmitting Noise, as there is no Position 4 to enable Radar Priority in Noise Jammer mode. I also have my concerns that the Noise Jammer mode should function in Radar Priority in the first place, it being in ECM Priority and disabling the FCR, HTS and HARM is not mentioned anywhere by Wags, quite the contrary, he has told us that Barrage Noise Jammer mode is intended to be turned on, and left on as a preemptive measure, which would be unwise to do if it would turn off all the sensors, as it does in DCS.

    As a summary, the main question is: is it correct that switching from Position 3 to Position 1, while ECM still transmits in Noise Mode, enables the FCR to function?

    I am aware that things may still be work in progress, this post is intended to clarify some details about the workings of the ALQ-184, as it is a complex system that I am sure required a lot of development time. Best of luck with the module moving forwards, and happy holidays!

ECM.trk 70.74 kB · 3 downloads

 

My 2 cents and as I understand it (and I might be wrong):

Mode 1: SPJ with Radar priority - When ECM is active we have a penalty of 40%.

Mode 2: SPJ with ECM priority - Radar and HTS inoperable when ECM is active

Mode 3: Barrage Jamming - Noise jamming on all bands denying range information but possibly allowing azimuth and potential HOJ.

 

As such, what you are obeserving surely must be a bug.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
On 12/24/2021 at 8:30 AM, Comrade Doge said:

As a summary, the main question is: is it correct that switching from Position 3 to Position 1, while ECM still transmits in Noise Mode, enables the FCR to function?

To use ECM and the FCR position 1 is the correct position, I will check with Wags later today for more information. 

Edit: Checked with Wags, this is correct as is based on the ECM tech we can currently support.

thanks

  • Like 1

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

To use ECM and the FCR position 1 is the correct position, I will check with Wags later today for more information. 

Edit: Checked with Wags, this is correct as is based on the ECM tech we can currently support.

thanks

Thank you for taking the time to read through this and reach out to Wags. I'm glad it's correct, it seemed like an exploit to me at first. Have a fantastic new year!

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

So with the new ECM pod, we have mode 1, 2, and 3. In my understanding, mode 1 is radar priority, which allows you to use your AA radar but with lowered radar power/detection range? Mode 2 is jammer priority, which only allows you to use your AA radar when Aim-120 is selected? However, mode 1 and 2 can only be used in semi or automatic modes, and you can't really manually power it on (make ECM pod trasmit) using CMS aft, instead the pilot can only command to activate it, and the ECM will only transmit when your jet is being hard locked (STT) by air threats (let's only talk about air to air for now). 

Well, I guess mode 1 and 2 are only useful when you are facing threats that do not have Fox 3 capability, becuase air threats that can only fire Fox 1 have to hard lock (STT) you to engage you using their radar missiles, which allows your jammer to deny their track/shots before their radar can burn through. However, if you are facing enemy that can fire Fox 3 using TWS modes, your jammer is simply useless in mode 1 and 2 since it won't transmit until the enemy Fox 3 goes pitbull. In my understanding, when that happens jamming is pointless since their radar has already burned through and their Fox 3 is close to hitting you. So I guess it's better to switch the jammer off and try to notch the missile and releasing chaff? Or just turn away? 

This leaves us with mode 3, which we can manually command the jammer to transmit without having to wait for the enemy to hard lock/STT you. However, in mode 3 we can't use the radar so we also lose the option to enage enemy while denying their track/shots before their radar burn through. So mode 3 gives us no advantage in BVR enagement besides protecting you from long range shots? I mean if you want to engage the enemy from long distance, let's say 30-40 miles, you have to switch the jammer off, which allows the enemy to enage you as well. Even after firing your Fox 3, if you switch the jammer on again, you lose radar track and makes you unable to support your Aim-120 before pitbull, which just gives you low pk. 

So it just seems to me that ECM pod is only useful in AG scenarios. In BVR, bringing a jammer does not really gives you an advantage when facing a enemey with Fox 3 capabilty that does not bring a jammer. Besides, ECM pod also adds drag. 


Edited by SCPanda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • SCPanda changed the title to Question about the newly added ECM pod: operation and tactics in BVR scenarios

I don't have a full grasp on the ALQ-184 (both IRL and in DCS) but I venture it does more than noise jamming. In mode 1 and 2 it could, for example, use a velocity gate pulloff (VGPO) on the incoming missile (SCPanda's post). This mode does not rely on overpowering the enemy radar with wattage as does noise jamming. Therefore burn through range is not an issue. 


Edited by Sinclair_76
clarification
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Sinclair_76 said:

I don't have a full grasp on the ALQ-184 (both IRL and in DCS) but I venture it does more than noise jamming. In mode 1 and 2 it could, for example, use a velocity gate pulloff (VGPO) on the incoming missile (SCPanda's post). This mode does not rely on overpowering the enemy radar with wattage as does noise jamming. Therefore burn through range is not an issue.

1) I'm pretty sure that's not simulated in DCS.
2) Even if it is simulated, it doesn't mattter for Fox3 shots, as there is no hardlock that triggers the jammer to transmit.

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

2) Even if it is simulated, it doesn't mattter for Fox3 shots, as there is no hardlock that triggers the jammer to transmit.

What we can do right now, based on what BIGNEWY has confirmed, is to make the jammer trasmit in pos 3 in CMS manual mode, and then switch to pos 1 to be able to used radar to enage air targets I think. It's a bit complicated to use, but after you set it up, you just leave it on until you get close with your enemy and you just turn the jammer off using CMS right, since the enemy radar has already burned through your jammer, it's best to turn it off. After you killed the enemy and done with the engagement, just reset the jammer for the next enagement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Sinclair_76 said:

Wouldn't the SPJ trigger when the fox 3 goes active?

Yes, but the Fox 3 would already be inside the burnthrough range at this point (as @SCPanda said) and thus the jammer would be ineffective.


Edited by QuiGon

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/17/2022 at 6:50 AM, Sinclair_76 said:

I don't have a full grasp on the ALQ-184 (both IRL and in DCS) but I venture it does more than noise jamming. In mode 1 and 2 it could, for example, use a velocity gate pulloff (VGPO) on the incoming missile (SCPanda's post).

Yes, the AN/ALQ-184 is a deception and noise jammer, and in positions 1 and 2 it most likely has several techniques available depending on the threat emitter.

The techniques generally rely on receiving returns from the threat RADAR, amplifying them and repeating them, but altering them in such a way to feed the RADAR false information, thus providing deception.

I'll try and provide a brief summary of techniques in the spoiler below, but none of them are simulated in DCS save for maybe the Mirage (which models range-gate pull-off, at least according to its manual, on its RADAR).

For the Hornet and F-16, their jammers at least try to emulate track-breaking, but on AI RADARs only (and I'm fairly sure it's just a probability that the jammer breaks the lock).

Spoiler
  • Range gate pull-off (RGPO) - works against RADARs using pulse ranging via a range gate (i.e pulse RADARs or FM ranging doppler, possibly phase coded ranging CW RADARs, like the 5N62). This produces greatly amplified, simulated returns, but are gradually delayed in order to deceive the RADAR about the jammer's range.

The idea is to overpower the skin return and capture the RADAR's range gate (which is how it tracks targets in range), pull it off of the target and then stop transmitting, such that the RADAR finds no targets within the range gate, and thus tracking is broken and the RADAR has to revert back to an acquisition mode.

  • Velocity gate pull-off (VGPO) - works against RADARs using a doppler velocity gate/range rate gate, associated with something like CW RADARs (such as the 5N62V). The idea is similar to the above, only instead of delaying the simulated return, it changes its frequency - increasing and decreasing it, giving the RADAR erroneous closure rate data, and pulling the velocity gate off the target.
  • Inverse con-scan - angle deception technique against conventional conical scanning RADARs, which nutate their mainlobe about the target, generating an AM signal whose phase encodes position information.

Inverse con-scan measures the scanning rate of the conical scanning, and transmits a simulated return 180° out-of-phase (essentially an inversion of the skin return and what the RADAR should see - so the jammer outputs a strong signal when the received signal from the RADAR is weak, and vice versa).

Depending on the strength of the jamming the RADAR might not make any angle corrections at all (flat signal), or make angle corrections in the complete opposite direction to what it should - driving the RADAR off of the target.

  • Swept square wave (SSW) - this is a similar technique to inverse con-scan, but for for CORSO RADARs (Conical On Receive Only).

As the name suggests, these RADARs only perform conical scanning on the receive side - this denies the jammer the ability to measure the scanning rate of the RADAR. The jammer still produces an inverted, simulated return as with inverse con-scan, but repeats them at a frequency that corresponds to the estimated scanning rate of the RADAR (this most likely depends on intelligence and classification). The repetition frequency of the simulated return is increased and decreased - somewhere within the range, it'll match the scanning rate of the RADAR, and will provide the most angle deception.

  • Monopulse cross-polarisation - this technique is another angle deception technique working against monopulse RADARs, these RADARs separate their beams into parts that are sent out at slightly differing directions and the beams are differentiated typically by polarisation.

By comparing the respective phase and/or amplitude of each of the beams it's possible to measure the direction to the target away from the RADAR's boresight, and thus make angle corrections to track it.

The idea is to produce a strong cross-polarised signal, which will produce a strong output in one of the beams that is off the target, by doing this, the RADAR is deceived into making angle corrections that aren't in the true direction of the target, thus driving the beam away from it.

 

Quote

This mode does not rely on overpowering the enemy radar with wattage as does noise jamming. Therefore burn through range is not an issue.

Sadly no, in order for these techniques to work effectively, the signal they produce must be larger than the true skin return of the RADAR, if the true skin return is larger than the jamming signal, it's more likely that the RADAR will track that instead of the signal from the jammer, thus providing no deception.

Spoiler

Just as examples:

  • With the RGPO/VGPO techniques, if the jamming signal is weaker than the true skin return, it's more likely that the jammer won't capture the range/velocity gate, in order to pull it off of the target, or that the RADAR will reject the jamming signal.
  • With the inverse con-scan technique, if the inverted jamming signal is weaker than the true skin return, the RADAR will still generate an amplitude modulated signal whose phase still encodes the true position of the target (it'll just be weaker), so it will still make the angle corrections it should. The same is true for the SSW technique and the monopulse technique - the RADARs still produce an overall signal (albeit weaker), that still has encodes the true target parameters.

 

On 1/17/2022 at 10:12 AM, Sinclair_76 said:

Wouldn't the SPJ trigger when the fox 3 goes active?

Yes.

A fox 3's RADAR is just like any other tracking RADAR, and still uses the same techniques to track targets. All the jammer needs to have available is information about the RADAR and the ability to classify it, so it can employ the proper techniques.

But you have to factor the signal-to-jamming ratio of the RADAR - fox 3's enable at very close ranges (typically under 10 nmi for our missiles), so they'll receive a strong skin return from the target, if the jammer doesn't overpower these (which is reasonably likely, unless you've got a strong jammer) the techniques most likely won't be effective for the reasons above.

Also note that jammers we have (including the AN/ALQ-184) only cover a sector in front and behind the aircraft.


Edited by Northstar98
grammar
  • Like 3

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Yes, the AN/ALQ-184 is a deception and noise jammer, and in positions 1 and 2 it most likely has several techniques available depending on the threat emitter.

The techniques generally rely on receiving returns from the threat RADAR, amplifying them and repeating them, but altering them in such a way to feed the RADAR false information, thus providing deception.

I'll try and provide a brief summary of techniques in the spoiler below, but none of them are simulated in DCS save for maybe the Mirage (which models range-gate pull-off, at least according to its manual, on its RADAR).

For the Hornet and F-16, their jammers at least try to emulate track-breaking, but on AI RADARs only (and I'm fairly sure it's just a probability that the jammer breaks the lock).

  Hide contents
  • Range gate pull-off (RGPO) - works against RADARs using a range gate (i.e pulse RADARs or FM/phase ranging doppler or CW RADARs). This produces greatly amplified, simulated returns, but are gradually delayed in order to deceive the RADAR about the jammer's range. The idea is to capture the RADAR's range gate, pull it off the target and then stop transmitting, such that the RADAR finds no targets within its resolution cell, and has to revert back to acquisition.
  • Velocity gate pull-off (VGPO) - works against RADARs using a doppler velocity gate/range rate gate, used in CW RADARs (such as the 5N62V). The idea is similar to the above, only instead of delaying the simulated return, it changes its frequency, giving the RADAR erroneous closure rate data, and pulling the velocity gate off the target.
  • Inverse con-scan - angle deception technique against conventional conical scanning RADARs, which nutate their mainlobe about the target producing an AM signal that encodes position information. Inverse con-scan measures the period and of the conical scanning, and transmits a simulated return 180° out-of-phase (essentially an inversion of what the RADAR should see, so the jammer outputs a strong signal when the received signal from the RADAR is weak, and vice versa), depending on the strength of the jamming the RADAR might not make any angle corrections at all, or make angle corrections in the opposite direction to what it should - driving the RADAR off of the target.
  • Swept square wave (SSW) - this is a similar technique to inverse con-scan, but for for CORSO RADARs (Conical On Receive Only), as the name suggests, these RADARs only have a conical scanning receiver, this denies the jammer the ability to measure the scanning rate of the RADAR, so the jammer produces inverted, simulated returns at a frequency that corresponds to an estimated scanning rate of the RADAR. The repetition frequency of the simulated return is increased and decreased - somewhere within the range, it'll match the scanning rate of the RADAR, where the technique is most effective.
  • Monopulse cross-polarisation - this technique is another angle deception technique working against monopulse RADARs, these RADARs separate their beams into parts that are sent out at slightly differing directions, the beams are differentiated typically by polarisation, by comparing the respective phase and/or amplitude of each of the beams it's possible to measure the direction to the target away from the RADAR's boresight, and thus make angle corrections to track it). The idea is to produce a strong cross-polarised signal, which will produce a strong output in one of the beams that is off the target, by doing this, the RADAR is deceived into making angle corrections that aren't in the true direction of the target, thus driving the beam away from it.

 

Sadly no, in order for these techniques to work effectively, the signal they produce must be larger than the true skin return of the RADAR, if the true skin return is larger than the jamming signal, it's more likely that the RADAR will track that instead of the signal from the jammer, thus providing no deception.

  Hide contents

Just as examples:

  • With the RGPO/VGPO techniques, if the jamming signal is weaker than the true skin return, it's more likely that the jammer won't capture the range/velocity gate, in order to pull it off of the target, or that the RADAR will reject the jamming signal.
  • With the inverse con-scan technique, if the inverted jamming signal is weaker than the true skin return, the RADAR will still generate an amplitude modulated signal whose phase still encodes the true position of the target (it'll just be weaker), so it will still make the angle corrections it should. The same is true for the SSW technique and the monopulse technique - the TRADARs still produce an overall signal (albeit weaker), that still has encodes the true target parameters.

 

Yes.

A fox 3's RADAR is just like any other tracking RADAR, and still uses the same techniques to track targets. All the jammer needs to have available is information about the RADAR and the ability to classify it, so it can employ the proper techniques.

But you have to factor the signal-to-jamming ratio of the RADAR - fox 3's enable at very close ranges (typically under 10 nmi for our missiles), so they'll receive a strong skin return from the target, if the jammer doesn't overpower these (which is reasonably likely, unless you've got a strong jammer) the techniques most likely won't be effective for the reasons above.

 

Splendid summary! I am most pleased to find that this thread has become packed with useful information like the above.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:
Quote

This mode does not rely on overpowering the enemy radar with wattage as does noise jamming. Therefore burn through range is not an issue.

Sadly no, in order for these techniques to work effectively, the signal they produce must be larger than the true skin return of the RADAR, if the true skin return is larger than the jamming signal, it's more likely that the RADAR will track that instead of the signal from the jammer, thus providing no deception.

What I was getting at, poorly I might add, is that noise jamming is very inefficient compared to deceptive jamming as you lose a huge amount of power covering the whole spectrum instead of jamming a specific frequency. That is assuming mode 3 is pure barrage jamming since it operates without receiving any signal. 

Where I meant that burn through range is not as issue, i specifically meant it for fox 3 missiles. The power generation in combination with their antenna size (which I would say is roughly equal compared to the -184 emitter) means that I don't think they can overpower the -184 J/S ratio even at short ranges. It is the missiles ECCM capabilities that are the real problem. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am 12.1.2022 um 10:35 schrieb SCPanda:

So with the new ECM pod, we have mode 1, 2, and 3. In my understanding, mode 1 is radar priority, which allows you to use your AA radar but with lowered radar power/detection range? Mode 2 is jammer priority, which only allows you to use your AA radar when Aim-120 is selected? However, mode 1 and 2 can only be used in semi or automatic modes, and you can't really manually power it on (make ECM pod trasmit) using CMS aft, instead the pilot can only command to activate it, and the ECM will only transmit when your jet is being hard locked (STT) by air threats (let's only talk about air to air for now). 

Well, I guess mode 1 and 2 are only useful when you are facing threats that do not have Fox 3 capability, becuase air threats that can only fire Fox 1 have to hard lock (STT) you to engage you using their radar missiles, which allows your jammer to deny their track/shots before their radar can burn through. However, if you are facing enemy that can fire Fox 3 using TWS modes, your jammer is simply useless in mode 1 and 2 since it won't transmit until the enemy Fox 3 goes pitbull. In my understanding, when that happens jamming is pointless since their radar has already burned through and their Fox 3 is close to hitting you. So I guess it's better to switch the jammer off and try to notch the missile and releasing chaff? Or just turn away? 

This leaves us with mode 3, which we can manually command the jammer to transmit without having to wait for the enemy to hard lock/STT you. However, in mode 3 we can't use the radar so we also lose the option to enage enemy while denying their track/shots before their radar burn through. So mode 3 gives us no advantage in BVR enagement besides protecting you from long range shots? I mean if you want to engage the enemy from long distance, let's say 30-40 miles, you have to switch the jammer off, which allows the enemy to enage you as well. Even after firing your Fox 3, if you switch the jammer on again, you lose radar track and makes you unable to support your Aim-120 before pitbull, which just gives you low pk. 

So it just seems to me that ECM pod is only useful in AG scenarios. In BVR, bringing a jammer does not really gives you an advantage when facing a enemey with Fox 3 capabilty that does not bring a jammer. Besides, ECM pod also adds drag. 

 

ECM works fine in AA and AG mode. Both noise jamming and SPJ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

For the Hornet and F-16, their jammers at least try to emulate track-breaking, but on AI RADARs only (and I'm fairly sure it's just a probability that the jammer breaks the lock).

At least with the F-16 it actually works against other players as well, as I've found out recently.

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

At least with the F-16 it actually works against other players as well, as I've found out recently.

Interesting, is it certain aircraft in particular?

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Interesting, is it certain aircraft in particular?

I dunno. Me and a buddy only tested it with F-16s and were suprised to see that it is actually working.

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I found some small glitch during learning course of using ECM and pod. Not sure if its really a bug, but seems so.

When setting CMDS mode knob:

- In Semi-automatic and Automatic (Self -Protection Jammer) all buttons combos works fine.

- In Manual mode (Barrage Noise Mode) I can only turn it ON when ECM XMIT switch is on position 3 (which is OK).

The problem is that it does not turn OFF (goes to Stand-By) to stop transmitting jamming signals, when moving same switch to positon 2 or 1.

You can see for your self how all the combos look like on the video bellow:

 

f16_ecm_pod_issue.trk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...