Ahogephilia Posted October 29, 2022 Posted October 29, 2022 I ... tested. F-14B / ALT 16,000ft / M1.0 vsF-16C : 27.5NM vsF-15C : 22.5NM vsSu-34 : 23.0NM AWG-9 not good as I thought. Can it be better if JAM/JET function added?
lunaticfringe Posted October 29, 2022 Posted October 29, 2022 Just now, Ahogephilia said: I ... tested. F-14B / ALT 16,000ft / M1.0 vsF-16C : 27.5NM vsF-15C : 22.5NM vsSu-34 : 23.0NM AWG-9 not good as I thought. Can it be better if JAM/JET function added? Those burn through values are built into DCS and all radars honor them; they're not radar system dependent and the AWG-9 doesn't alter them in any fashion due to its performance. 3
Ahogephilia Posted October 29, 2022 Author Posted October 29, 2022 (edited) 12 minutes ago, lunaticfringe said: Those burn through values are built into DCS and all radars honor them; they're not radar system dependent and the AWG-9 doesn't alter them in any fashion due to its performance. wow... Thx for your answer. Edited October 29, 2022 by Ahogephilia
captain_dalan Posted October 30, 2022 Posted October 30, 2022 9 hours ago, Ahogephilia said: wow... Thx for your answer. You are not alone there, we are all in the same bucket: Welcome back to the stone age. Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache
IronMike Posted October 30, 2022 Posted October 30, 2022 44 minutes ago, captain_dalan said: You are not alone there, we are all in the same bucket: Welcome back to the stone age. That complaint about the F-16s radar has nothing to do with our radar, unless you meant how jamming is modeled in DCS in general, but the commen it links to is a bit confusing. Heatblur Simulations Please feel free to contact me anytime, either via PM here, on the forums, or via email through the contact form on our homepage. http://www.heatblur.com/ https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/
Xl-45 Posted October 30, 2022 Posted October 30, 2022 Some more numbers: Those comparisons were made using AI told to "ECM = Always Use" F-14 Burn-Through against jamming FIGHTER 1 (F16/F18/MiG-29/MiG-21/F-14): 29 nm F-14 Burn-Through against jamming FIGHTER 2 (F-15C/JF-17/Su-27/M-2000C): 23 nm F-14 Burn-Through against jamming TACTICAL BOMBER (Tu-95): 12 nm I just find it weird that a target as big and as old as a Tu-95 can jam the F-14, which was built to counter it, until 12 nm but i don't have any evidence to say the contrary and that's DCS. It's also interesting that F-15C's / M-2000C's internal jammer are more efficient than F-16's ECM POD and i can't see any reasons behind that. 2
Naquaii Posted October 30, 2022 Posted October 30, 2022 1 hour ago, Xl-45 said: Some more numbers: Those comparisons were made using AI told to "ECM = Always Use" F-14 Burn-Through against jamming FIGHTER 1 (F16/F18/MiG-29/MiG-21/F-14): 29 nm F-14 Burn-Through against jamming FIGHTER 2 (F-15C/JF-17/Su-27/M-2000C): 23 nm F-14 Burn-Through against jamming TACTICAL BOMBER (Tu-95): 12 nm I just find it weird that a target as big and as old as a Tu-95 can jam the F-14, which was built to counter it, until 12 nm but i don't have any evidence to say the contrary and that's DCS. It's also interesting that F-15C's / M-2000C's internal jammer are more efficient than F-16's ECM POD and i can't see any reasons behind that. Just keep in mind that this is not an F-14 thing, it's a generic DCS thing as we're directly using the API to get these ranges. 1 1
captain_dalan Posted October 30, 2022 Posted October 30, 2022 11 hours ago, IronMike said: ...unless you meant how jamming is modeled in DCS in general, but the commen it links to is a bit confusing. Yep, this exactly. 1 Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache
lunaticfringe Posted October 30, 2022 Posted October 30, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, Xl-45 said: I just find it weird that a target as big and as old as a Tu-95 can jam the F-14, which was built to counter it, until 12 nm but i don't have any evidence to say the contrary and that's DCS. It's also interesting that F-15C's / M-2000C's internal jammer are more efficient than F-16's ECM POD and i can't see any reasons behind that. Because these are getting into very rough approximations of two key factors that matter over simple RCS and SNR: available power and integration. A four or eight engined strategic bomber is going to have substantially higher power generation than a fighter with one or two blowers. Subsequently, the EW package is going to have more wattage to pump out, and the jamming hardware is going to be designed to use this. These systems also tend to be designed with more overhead towards the number of systems they can simultaneously challenge; where a fighter's accessory pod can lay down opposing 'trons at one or two opposing emitters, the system carried by a mid-90s and forward B-52 is going to be able to lay hurt on multiple SAM systems and an interceptor or two at a time as a matter of need. And that capability also needs computation to dictate the how, where, and when- again, necessitating more juice. This is also why fighter size aircraft carrying dedicated standoff jammer systems have accessory generator power right on the pods; ALQ-99 and NGJ, anyone? F414s and J52s just don't have the accessory power to drive that much capability, hence the props on the nose, or the internal turbine system of the NGJ. As to integration, I would direct your attention to how TEWS and ASPJ function versus attaching an accessory pod. The former two systems aren't simply receiving emissions and deciding themselves where to toss signals once they're switched on; good internal fighter systems know the location of the jets own receivers, get additional signals from the radar, and then control the jammer and DDS in unison to shape the defensive presentation for best effect, rather than the pod not getting any of that data and effectively freelancing. The integration makes a difference in the outcome and effectiveness. These factors all go into what a substantively modeled EW environment would take. The problem is in getting those numbers, or convincingly faking them with reasonable assumptions. Generational (years, not power), processing, all of that is different to account for as well, and much of it overlaps and change outcomes. And that's just not a place ED is at currently. Edited October 30, 2022 by lunaticfringe 1 2
Xl-45 Posted October 31, 2022 Posted October 31, 2022 20 hours ago, lunaticfringe said: Because these are getting into very rough approximations of two key factors that matter over simple RCS and SNR: available power and integration. A four or eight engined strategic bomber is going to have substantially higher power generation than a fighter with one or two blowers. Subsequently, the EW package is going to have more wattage to pump out, and the jamming hardware is going to be designed to use this. These systems also tend to be designed with more overhead towards the number of systems they can simultaneously challenge; where a fighter's accessory pod can lay down opposing 'trons at one or two opposing emitters, the system carried by a mid-90s and forward B-52 is going to be able to lay hurt on multiple SAM systems and an interceptor or two at a time as a matter of need. And that capability also needs computation to dictate the how, where, and when- again, necessitating more juice. This is also why fighter size aircraft carrying dedicated standoff jammer systems have accessory generator power right on the pods; ALQ-99 and NGJ, anyone? F414s and J52s just don't have the accessory power to drive that much capability, hence the props on the nose, or the internal turbine system of the NGJ. As to integration, I would direct your attention to how TEWS and ASPJ function versus attaching an accessory pod. The former two systems aren't simply receiving emissions and deciding themselves where to toss signals once they're switched on; good internal fighter systems know the location of the jets own receivers, get additional signals from the radar, and then control the jammer and DDS in unison to shape the defensive presentation for best effect, rather than the pod not getting any of that data and effectively freelancing. The integration makes a difference in the outcome and effectiveness. These factors all go into what a substantively modeled EW environment would take. The problem is in getting those numbers, or convincingly faking them with reasonable assumptions. Generational (years, not power), processing, all of that is different to account for as well, and much of it overlaps and change outcomes. And that's just not a place ED is at currently. Thanks, it was an interesting read, i understand better why bombers can have such a low burn-through, especially with noise jamming it seems. I am still surprised that there are two ECM Burn-Through default values for fighters (dictated by ED like Naquaii said) and it seems unlikely to me that other devs proved that "A" jammer has better power input and integration than "B" jammer to ED thus having lower burn-through values, but i may be wrong. I just hope that we'll see better integration in the future, along with Chaff overhaul.
Recommended Posts