[ATTN ALL DEVS] F-105D, F & G "THUD" THUNDERCHIEF ENGINEERING & PERFORMANCE DATA DUMP (upd. 2025MAY26)

[Blaze1]

9 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

The entire concept of electronic warfare (EW) has to be built by ED at the core first. It's pointless to try to model an EB-66, F-105G, F-4G, or EA-6B if it doesn't have the necessary electronic jamming and SIGINT functionality at its core.

Absolutely.  At this point it would be best to model the F-105D and or F.  The vast majority of the sensors and functions in the rear of an F-105G, simply would serve zero function in DCS.

[Silver_Dragon]

8 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

That's why I asked. Buy I have confidence in Grinneli. I'm sure the team can do it.  

Yeah, but means it can be done! That's my point, though I'm sure 3rd parties and not ED will take on the task. DCS didn't support four engines before, right? Now obviously it does.  

We don't have any piston-engine bombers for now. We have a four-engine turboprop cargo plane through ASC, but it's one thing to drop cargo and quite another to manage a WWII four-engine piston-engine bomber with manual systems, and a bomber cockpit systems. If this were so easy, why didn't ED make a Mosquito B.IV with a Mark XIV bomb sight?

8 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

You have access to the SDK? Now that's interesting.  

And no, I haven't had access to the SDK, although I've been in two third-party projects before, and the programmers have told me that it's a completely different world than making MODs, and that there are things ED has to implement in the core, otherwise it causes problems.

Edited Tuesday at 09:35 PM by Silver_Dragon

[upyr1]

3 hours ago, Blaze1 said:

Absolutely.  At this point it would be best to model the F-105D and or F.  The vast majority of the sensors and functions in the rear of an F-105G, simply would serve zero function in DCS.

Just a nit pick but the original F-105 Wild Weasels were F models which were unofficially called the EF-105F. That aside, I really don't consider the current state of EW to be a good reason not to do either variant of the Thud Weasel. I argue that is a good reason for ED to improve their EW modeling. Now, my question for you @Blaze1 is how much have you looked into the subject of both real world EW and how EW is modled in DCS? 

From what I see looking at DCS we don't have to deal with frequencies (we do have bands modeled as shown by the Shirke's warhead). PRF is pulse repition frequency and you can calculate the range by 1/PRF * C /2 since the PRF indicate the lenth of time it would take a radar pulse to hit something the max range and bounce back to the radar. The pannel bellow is a G- we can tell from the STARM now bellow the PRF knob we see something marked as target range, is this something the EWO had to set manually or could the Thud's EW system calculate the power and estimate the range some how? For a community mod we have a potential cheat  provided that we could script a way to pick a radar by selecting the band and PRF 

Now we look here the RWR we know the mode select DF I'd assume is diection finder and would work with the HSI like the system on the F-4 in a good enough community mod the differnce between this and the F-4's system would be to include the range. Then we have the inidcator which I'd assume is the ossiliscope with how DCS modles things now it may or may not work, it would all depend on what the EWO was actually looking at 

 

[SOLIDKREATE]

Former P-3C EWO here, well DCS is far far away from being able to be worked realistically in EW, the D & F can still work. There are a lot of factors at play here. I'll get more into it when I get home. I'm at work for 2 more hours.

[SOLIDKREATE]

OKay some things to think about concerning Electronic Warfare. RADAR Ranging (RR), Lobing (LB), and Aspect Dependency (AD). The first one I really can say if that works unless a Tester or Dev speaks on it. RR is a situation like being on the highway with other cars.

Let's imagine a Police Officer running a 'speed trap' points his emmitter at oncoming traffic. He hops on his bike when you all pass at the same speed however he/she pulls over the person next to you. Why, because of 'RR'. The car next to you was obscuring you from the beam. Think of RADAR (Radio Detection And Ranging) like a searchlight in pitch blackness. The other car basically casted a shadow on you.

'LB' Is something like a beam emitting from the dish that wraps in back on itself. You would have multiple 'Lobes'. One transmits in Elevation and the other Azimuth. This basically is how the RADR knows where a target is. Then we have Lobe Switching which nnow comes to mind but it has been over 20yrs since I have touched an AN/APS-1115. I used to know a boat load about this stuff. Not to bragg but I was top of my class 

'AD' is exactly what you think it is. Either something is coming straight at you and the return is small. Or they are moving eats to west, north to south perpendicular to you and the return in bigger. If they are in a bank it will be even bigger.

Lots of other factors for RADAR performace is the magintude, altitude, weather and even what the RADR is made of. Then we have 'Noise' to deal with as well. Just know the higher you are the farther you can see. The colder and dryer the weather (WX) is the better the RADAR works.

Now does ED going about making of that a physical part of the game code. I don't think mopst peoples PC's in here copuld handle all that math in real time.

Edited Wednesday at 09:08 AM by SOLIDKREATE

[SOLIDKREATE]

Taking a guess at how this worked.

The large screen I assume is a way to classify what king of RADAR you're hunting. Although I dont think there would be three osicciliscope type readouts/ I think each one represents the 'E-BAND, G-BAND, I-BAND. It also kind of acts like an Azimuth readout too. Basically the EWO gives the pilot course instructions. The smalled screen tyo the right is the actual Seeker Head input from the AGM-78.

I guess when uncaged it actively sweeps? I think it acts just like the damn F-5E RADAR does. You adjust the seaaker head angle na dbasically steer until the head locks on. This may not sweep like I have it depicted. The "return" may actually appear in the lower half of the screen too (derp). My assumption for the tick marks on the left screen are AZ angle. Probabaly in 5 degree increments. I think the STARM is allowed 20deg based on what Blaze posted.

Let me know guys, let's keep this going.

 

***** EDIT, I think the indicators on the right screen do move but they only move when you move them. There is the large AGM-78 panel on the right and it has both an angle adjustment knob and an AZ adjustment knob. Then again there is a Sweep Rate, Attenuation and tuning knob. Maybe it does sweep and you still move the crossshairs over the RADR return or signal spike and then lock?

 

Edited Wednesday at 10:08 AM by SOLIDKREATE

[upyr1]

13 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

And no, I haven't had access to the SDK, although I've been in two third-party projects before, and the programmers have told me that it's a completely different world than making MODs, and that there are things ED has to implement in the core, otherwise it causes problems.

This is the reason that I'd like to figure out what information is available before dismissing the G. I figure if there is enough information to do the G then If the Thud is an official module, the developer and ED to work together to make the G as realistic as possible.  If it is done as a Community module, the goal is to have something as good as the current state of ED allows. 

 

 

 

 

[Silver_Dragon]

EW core implement has been a very long claimed feature from years ago.

ED on 2020 claimed to a "We are looking for an EW specialist with knowledge of C ++", but nothing more has talked...

[upyr1]

1 minute ago, Silver_Dragon said:

EW core implement has been a very long claimed feature from years ago.

ED on 2020 claimed to a "We are looking for an EW specialist with knowledge of C ++", but nothing more has talked...

I know all that, I'm just saying that DCS : F-105 if it includes the Wild Weasel be the push to get ED to work on it  

[Silver_Dragon]

24 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

This is the reason that I'd like to figure out what information is available before dismissing the G. I figure if there is enough information to do the G then If the Thud is an official module, the developer and ED to work together to make the G as realistic as possible.  If it is done as a Community module, the goal is to have something as good as the current state of ED allows. 

If you want to make an official module as a third party, you need to contact ED, establish a team, and prove that you can make a module. Building a community module doesn't require ED authorization; it's simply making a MOD.

Officially, as far as we know, there is no 3rd party or ED making an F-105 module. A G version of an F-105 or advance EW funtionality is currently unknown.

Edited Wednesday at 11:42 AM by Silver_Dragon

[upyr1]

7 hours ago, SOLIDKREATE said:

Former P-3C EWO here, well DCS is far far away from being able to be worked realistically in EW, the D & F can still work. There are a lot of factors at play here. I'll get more into it when I get home. I'm at work for 2 more hours.

Thanks, I'm glad you are chiming in. as stated before, I know that EW is drastically simplified so there is no way we'll get a 100% realistic Wild Weasel with the current state of EW modeling. So the most important question is if there is enough information to do a FF module of either Wild Weasel variant? The next question would depend on if we have a community module or an official module. 

A community module is limited by what you can do with the exposed APIs and scripting as well as the EW modeling. The official module the developer and ED will be working together so we could get some EW improvements. At the minimum I want an AI wild weasel so let's try to at least get a community module going. 

2 hours ago, SOLIDKREATE said:

OKay some things to think about concerning Electronic Warfare. RADAR Ranging (RR), Lobing (LB), and Aspect Dependency (AD). The first one I really can say if that works unless a Tester or Dev speaks on it. RR is a situation like being on the highway with other cars.

Let's imagine a Police Officer running a 'speed trap' points his emmitter at oncoming traffic. He hops on his bike when you all pass at the same speed however he/she pulls over the person next to you. Why, because of 'RR'. The car next to you was obscuring you from the beam. Think of RADAR (Radio Detection And Ranging) like a searchlight in pitch blackness. The other car basically casted a shadow on you.

'LB' Is something like a beam emitting from the dish that wraps in back on itself. You would have multiple 'Lobes'. One transmits in Elevation and the other Azimuth. This basically is how the RADR knows where a target is. Then we have Lobe Switching which nnow comes to mind but it has been over 20yrs since I have touched an AN/APS-1115. I used to know a boat load about this stuff. Not to bragg but I was top of my class 

'AD' is exactly what you think it is. Either something is coming straight at you and the return is small. Or they are moving eats to west, north to south perpendicular to you and the return in bigger. If they are in a bank it will be even bigger.

Lots of other factors for RADAR performace is the magintude, altitude, weather and even what the RADR is made of. Then we have 'Noise' to deal with as well. Just know the higher you are the farther you can see. The colder and dryer the weather (WX) is the better the RADAR works.

Now does ED going about making of that a physical part of the game code. I don't think mopst peoples PC's in here copuld handle all that math in real time.

What might be some good easy-to-implement improvements? That would drastically improve realism without melting CPUs 

Edited Wednesday at 11:39 AM by upyr1

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, SOLIDKREATE said:

Taking a guess at how this worked.

The large screen I assume is a way to classify what king of RADAR you're hunting. Although I dont think there would be three osicciliscope type readouts/ I think each one represents the 'E-BAND, G-BAND, I-BAND. It also kind of acts like an Azimuth readout too. Basically the EWO gives the pilot course instructions.

What do you think is going on with the dial marked PRF and frequency to the left of the indicator? I'm assuming it must be a way to isolate an individual radar. You read the spikes from the indicator then dial in a specific radar and track it.

2 hours ago, SOLIDKREATE said:

The smalled screen tyo the right is the actual Seeker Head input from the AGM-78.

I guess when uncaged it actively sweeps? I think it acts just like the damn F-5E RADAR does. You adjust the seaaker head angle na dbasically steer until the head locks on. This may not sweep like I have it depicted. The "return" may actually appear in the lower half of the screen too (derp). My assumption for the tick marks on the left screen are AZ angle. Probabaly in 5 degree increments. I think the STARM is allowed 20deg based on what Blaze posted.

Let me know guys, let's keep this going.

I was assuming that was the case, it looked a bit like an ancestor of the HARM TOO page. I notced a band switch I'm guessing that is to filter out radar types. I'm wondering if the Shrike worked with that screen. I know the STARM was way more advanced than the Shrike as it was the intermediate stage of ARM evolution. 

2 hours ago, SOLIDKREATE said:

 

***** EDIT, I think the indicators on the right screen do move but they only move when you move them. There is the large AGM-78 panel on the right and it has both an angle adjustment knob and an AZ adjustment knob. Then again there is a Sweep Rate, Attenuation and tuning knob. Maybe it does sweep and you still move the crossshairs over the RADR return or signal spike and then lock?

 

 

[upyr1]

54 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

If you want to make an official module as a third party, you need to contact ED, establish a team, and prove that you can make a module. Building a community module doesn't require ED authorization; it's simply making a MOD.

I know what it would take to make an official module and I also know you don't need ED approval to make a mod. The first step would be to make the module then contact ED 

54 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Officially, as far as we know, there is no 3rd party or ED making an F-105 module. A G version of an F-105 or advance EW funtionality is currently unknown.

 

[Silver_Dragon]

2 hours ago, upyr1 said:

I know what it would take to make an official module and I also know you don't need ED approval to make a mod. The first step would be to make the module then contact ED 

 

Look, upyr1, I understand your point of view, because I also want a specialized aircraft. In this case, I'd kill for an S-3B ASW and a high-fidelity SH-60 onboard with the ability to search, detect and track submarines with its full array of sensors, weapons and 4 seat cockpit fully implemented. I love the naval environment and the fact that the ED puts personnel, means, and resources into that environment.

But I have to be realistic... I know full well that without a sonar engine, without sound propagation, without thermoclines, without meteorology, seabed, currents, temperature, maritime traffic, biologicals, implementing sonobuoys, MADs, sonars (hull, flank, and towed), submarines and their armament that work realistically, and realistic damage to ships, I will never see an S-3 module...

Yes, sometimes I seem like a damn ogre and my own biggest critic, but unfortunately I am proceeding with knowledge of the facts, because much of this functionality requires resources, which we do not currently have, and I would love to have 20, 300, or 1 billion to tell ED "find engineers, I'll put up the money for this, whatever the cost"... and not just in the naval environment, but in EW (also very necessary in the naval area), land (land modules and naval infantry), and troop transport.

Edited Wednesday at 03:13 PM by Silver_Dragon

[Blaze1]

14 hours ago, upyr1 said:

Just a nit pick but the original F-105 Wild Weasels were F models which were unofficially called the EF-105F. That aside, I really don't consider the current state of EW to be a good reason not to do either variant of the Thud Weasel. I argue that is a good reason for ED to improve their EW modeling. Now, my question for you @Blaze1 is how much have you looked into the subject of both real world EW and how EW is modled in DCS? 

From what I see looking at DCS we don't have to deal with frequencies (we do have bands modeled as shown by the Shirke's warhead). PRF is pulse repition frequency and you can calculate the range by 1/PRF * C /2 since the PRF indicate the lenth of time it would take a radar pulse to hit something the max range and bounce back to the radar. The pannel bellow is a G- we can tell from the STARM now bellow the PRF knob we see something marked as target range, is this something the EWO had to set manually or could the Thud's EW system calculate the power and estimate the range some how? For a community mod we have a potential cheat  provided that we could script a way to pick a radar by selecting the band and PRF 

Now we look here the RWR we know the mode select DF I'd assume is diection finder and would work with the HSI like the system on the F-4 in a good enough community mod the differnce between this and the F-4's system would be to include the range. Then we have the inidcator which I'd assume is the ossiliscope with how DCS modles things now it may or may not work, it would all depend on what the EWO was actually looking at 

 

 

Quote

Now, my question for you @Blaze1 is how much have you looked into the subject of both real world EW and how EW is modled in DCS?

I don't know much about how EW is modelled in DCS, other than what I've read from other members and by all accounts it's virtually non-existent.  As for real world EW, I've looked into it a bit, but not so much at the physics/academics level.

 

Quote

The pannel bellow is a G- we can tell from the STARM now bellow the PRF knob we see something marked as target range, is this something the EWO had to set manually or could the Thud's EW system calculate the power and estimate the range some how? For a community mod we have a potential cheat  provided that we could script a way to pick a radar by selecting the band and PRF 

My understanding is that the target range indicator was an estimate based on the signal/s the system was receiving.  The system used the aircraft's air data system to provide altitude, aircraft pitch data, AGM-78 seeker elevation and then the EWO could manually enter the targets altitude via the 'TGT ALT' knob in that image.

 

 

 

13 hours ago, SOLIDKREATE said:

Former P-3C EWO here, well DCS is far far away from being able to be worked realistically in EW, the D & F can still work. There are a lot of factors at play here. I'll get more into it when I get home. I'm at work for 2 more hours.

You're a former EWO!  You kept that well hidden.  Think of all the conversations that could have been had in this thread.

Edited Wednesday at 05:56 PM by Blaze1

[upyr1]

45 minutes ago, Blaze1 said:

I don't know much about how EW is modelled in DCS, other than what I've read from other members and by all accounts it's virtually non-existent.  As for real world EW, I've looked into it a bit, but not so much at the physics/academics level

I figure there isn't much too work with. We have chart for banda based on the shrike's seeker 

 

47 minutes ago, Blaze1 said:

My understanding is that the target range indicator was an estimate based on the signal/s the system was receiving.  The system used the aircraft's air data system to provide altitude, aircraft pitch data, AGM-78 seeker elevation and then the EWO could manually enter the targets altitude via the 'TGT ALT' knob in that image.

If the target range is estimated by the computer i think we have a ticket for a good enough for now community module 

[Blaze1]

14 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

IIf the target range is estimated by the computer i think we have a ticket for a good enough for now community module 

It is, based on the four parameters listed, however given the lack of EW in DCS, I still don't really see the point.  The end product would be pretty far removed from an actual F-105G's systems, so much so that it wouldn't really matter how range is supplied, because almost everything else can't be/would be wasted modelling.

[upyr1]

44 minutes ago, Blaze1 said:

It is, based on the four parameters listed, however given the lack of EW in DCS, I still don't really see the point.  The end product would be pretty far removed from an actual F-105G's systems, so much so that it wouldn't really matter how range is supplied, because almost everything else can't be/would be wasted modelling.

I think we need to back up a step and figure out if there is enough open source material to even do a weasel. 

 

 

[Blaze1]

10 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

I think we need to back up a step and figure out if there is enough open source material to even do a weasel. 

 

 

That would need to be considered, but even it there was, the EW systems would be 90% redundant.

[SOLIDKREATE]

5 hours ago, Blaze1 said:

 

You're a former EWO!  You kept that well hidden.  Think of all the conversations that could have been had in this thread.

It's been 25yrs. So, I do not know how valuable I'd be.

[upyr1]

7 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Look, upyr1, I understand your point of view, because I also want a specialized aircraft. In this case, I'd kill for an S-3B ASW and a high-fidelity SH-60 onboard with the ability to search, detect and track submarines with its full array of sensors, weapons and 4 seat cockpit fully implemented. I love the naval environment and the fact that the ED puts personnel, means, and resources into that environment.

But I have to be realistic... I know full well that without a sonar engine, without sound propagation, without thermoclines, without meteorology, seabed, currents, temperature, maritime traffic, biologicals, implementing sonobuoys, MADs, sonars (hull, flank, and towed), submarines and their armament that work realistically, and realistic damage to ships, I will never see an S-3 module...

Yes, sometimes I seem like a damn ogre and my own biggest critic, but unfortunately I am proceeding with knowledge of the facts, because much of this functionality requires resources, which we do not currently have, and I would love to have 20, 300, or 1 billion to tell ED "find engineers, I'll put up the money for this, whatever the cost"... and not just in the naval environment, but in EW (also very necessary in the naval area), land (land modules and naval infantry), and troop transport.

My position is simple, first the available documents are way more important than the current state of DCS. ED can improve EW or develop the SONAR engine, but we can't improve the available documents. Next, my expectations for official modules and community modules are different and neither set of expectations says the current state of DCS is a valid reason not to do something. I expect official developers to work with ED to implement the changes and I expect modders to do the best they can and improve things over time. 

 

[Blaze1]

12 minutes ago, SOLIDKREATE said:

It's been 25yrs. So, I do not know how valuable I'd be.

Very valuable, even just talking about basic theory and comparisons between ASW electronic equipment and Wild Weasel electronic equipment.

[upyr1]

15 minutes ago, SOLIDKREATE said:

It's been 25yrs. So, I do not know how valuable I'd be.

that's 25 years more recent than the former EWO I know

[Blaze1]

2 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

My position is simple, first the available documents are way more important than the current state of DCS. ED can improve EW or develop the SONAR engine, but we can't improve the available documents. Next, my expectations for official modules and community modules are different and neither set of expectations says the current state of DCS is a valid reason not to do something. I expect official developers to work with ED to implement the changes and I expect modders to do the best they can and improve things over time. 

 

I understand your position, but I'm of the opinion that if a developer is going to put in the hard graft to create a module, they may as well focus on one that can be modelled to a high standard from the get go, rather than putting in all the effort, then crossing their fingers praying for ED to come through sooner rather than later.

[Silver_Dragon]

1 hour ago, Blaze1 said:

I understand your position, but I'm of the opinion that if a developer is going to put in the hard graft to create a module, they may as well focus on one that can be modelled to a high standard from the get go, rather than putting in all the effort, then crossing their fingers praying for ED to come through sooner rather than later.

Considering that ED is the one creating all of DCS W's weapons and associated functionality, this could be a handicap. Another issue is that even if you have access to the SDK, you can't modify parts of the core because they're closed (most likely to prevent unscrupulous individuals from stealing parts of the simulator code or the work of other third parties, which may have "passed through" or been attempted in the early days)..

That's the point: touching things like EW, sonar, vehicle modules, naval or FPS, etc., may be beyond the reach of a third party because they can't be implemented if ED doesn't make the necessary building blocks. An example could be why Heatblur, after so many years, still doesn't have a deck crew or much of the supercarrier functionality on the USS Forrestal IA or at this time, because the M3 USS Exxes doesn't have it for WW2 either (we also don't know if the ED USS Enterprise will have it).

The panel of an F-105G very likely has specific functionality. The big question is, do we have those building blocks in the core? We haven't seen an oscilloscope of that magnitude used by any third party yet, and I'm starting to think it would be more plausible for a WW2 module, like an old A-Scope radar like an oboe navigation system.

Another point is, we know the AGM-45 has frequency seeker heads implemented, and it seems the EW and SAM radars are also implemented. How does this affect the AGM-78? What are its capabilities? Is it programmable? (Its first version, the AGM-78A-1, carried the same seeker head as an AGM-45.)

Perhaps there is some way to "force" a system-specific waveform to be created and used on the F-105G's receiver panel (or any other EW aircraft).

Here we can start asking questions.
How can we identify a specific radar?
How does this panel interact with the AGM-78's panel?
How can the weapons system interact?
How does the ECM system work?

SOLIDKREATE and Blaze1 has answered some of them....

Edited Thursday at 12:34 AM by Silver_Dragon