Is a F-4G too classified?

[NoodI]

not a suggestion just wondering if its too classified 

Edited December 18, 2022 by NoodI

[RichCotte]

Let’s hope not.  

[Czechnology]

I would imagine not, but i'm sure someone will bring up like... "well everything except the AX/NPG-897 which does [insert something e-war]"

[Zergburger]

we would need real radar simulations in order for the F-4G to be viable. For example, part of the back seat electronics include what is essentially an oscilloscope to view the waveform of any radar being seen by the EW suite, and you can dynamically select any of them on the fly. If you want to get an idea of how poorly suited the F-4G would be to the current version of DCS:World, take a look at this:

 

[sparrow88]

6 hours ago, Zergburger said:

we would need real radar simulations in order for the F-4G to be viable. For example, part of the back seat electronics include what is essentially an oscilloscope to view the waveform of any radar being seen by the EW suite, and you can dynamically select any of them on the fly. If you want to get an idea of how poorly suited the F-4G would be to the current version of DCS:World, take a look at this:

 

If Viggen's RWR can have differend sounds for each radara and its mode I dont see why F4 cannot have different oscilloscope screen readings for them

[Czechnology]

8 hours ago, sparrow88 said:

If Viggen's RWR can have differend sounds for each radara and its mode I dont see why F4 cannot have different oscilloscope screen readings for them

The only way to say it is that it's just different. The viggen noises aren't (to my understanding) raw feedback of the radar sounds converted, if they are color me stupid, but the noises would still be different. The F-4G's antenna does just that, so instead of the beeps, squeaks, and squeals of the viggen's rwr, we get very individual sounds and patterns for almost every single radar. Referencing the "Starbaby Interview" from youtube, who was an F-4G backseater, some radars had a specific growl, others sounded like a bongo drum, etc. Everything from the big search radars to the smallest ones mounted on speed boats, we in theory should be able to hear the individual sound of and they should be distinct enough that we can tell the difference between them. 

Meanwhile, listen to these http://www.viggentools.se/. I can barely tell the difference between any of them. There's IS a pattern to them that a deeper noise is usually a gun AAA radar, and a long tone is a search radar and short tones are track radars... But past the tone differences it's hard to pick up on anything else. Best example I can give is alternate between the Shilka, Vulcan, and Gepard radars. If you can reliably tell the difference between them you're a sharper ear than me. 

[Elf1606688794]

6 hours ago, Czechnology said:

The only way to say it is that it's just different. The viggen noises aren't (to my understanding) raw feedback of the radar sounds converted, if they are color me stupid, but the noises would still be different. The F-4G's antenna does just that, so instead of the beeps, squeaks, and squeals of the viggen's rwr, we get very individual sounds and patterns for almost every single radar. Referencing the "Starbaby Interview" from youtube, who was an F-4G backseater, some radars had a specific growl, others sounded like a bongo drum, etc. Everything from the big search radars to the smallest ones mounted on speed boats, we in theory should be able to hear the individual sound of and they should be distinct enough that we can tell the difference between them. 

Meanwhile, listen to these http://www.viggentools.se/. I can barely tell the difference between any of them. There's IS a pattern to them that a deeper noise is usually a gun AAA radar, and a long tone is a search radar and short tones are track radars... But past the tone differences it's hard to pick up on anything else. Best example I can give is alternate between the Shilka, Vulcan, and Gepard radars. If you can reliably tell the difference between them you're a sharper ear than me. 

Very interesting, thanks.

[DSplayer]

7 hours ago, Czechnology said:

The only way to say it is that it's just different. The viggen noises aren't (to my understanding) raw feedback of the radar sounds converted, if they are color me stupid, but the noises would still be different. The F-4G's antenna does just that, so instead of the beeps, squeaks, and squeals of the viggen's rwr, we get very individual sounds and patterns for almost every single radar. Referencing the "Starbaby Interview" from youtube, who was an F-4G backseater, some radars had a specific growl, others sounded like a bongo drum, etc. Everything from the big search radars to the smallest ones mounted on speed boats, we in theory should be able to hear the individual sound of and they should be distinct enough that we can tell the difference between them. 

Meanwhile, listen to these http://www.viggentools.se/. I can barely tell the difference between any of them. There's IS a pattern to them that a deeper noise is usually a gun AAA radar, and a long tone is a search radar and short tones are track radars... But past the tone differences it's hard to pick up on anything else. Best example I can give is alternate between the Shilka, Vulcan, and Gepard radars. If you can reliably tell the difference between them you're a sharper ear than me. 

IIRC the older RWR that the F-4E is going to give audio feedback as raw radar sounds. I also think the RWR handoff for the F-16 should also give raw radar sounds to a degree too but I'm not too sure.

[sparrow88]

On 12/20/2022 at 1:18 AM, Czechnology said:

Meanwhile, listen to these http://www.viggentools.se/. I can barely tell the difference between any of them. There's IS a pattern to them that a deeper noise is usually a gun AAA radar, and a long tone is a search radar and short tones are track radars... But past the tone differences it's hard to pick up on anything else.

I am not exactly sure how is this relevant... My point is that from developers perspective there is no much difference between providing a sound file for each radar picked up by RWR and providing frequency data for oscilloscope to show. They can even simulate doppler effect by distorting these frequences accordingly.

[Harlikwin]

On 12/19/2022 at 2:03 AM, Zergburger said:

we would need real radar simulations in order for the F-4G to be viable. For example, part of the back seat electronics include what is essentially an oscilloscope to view the waveform of any radar being seen by the EW suite, and you can dynamically select any of them on the fly. If you want to get an idea of how poorly suited the F-4G would be to the current version of DCS:World, take a look at this:

 

Yup 100% true.

I honestly don't want to see a F4G in DCS at this point. Not until we have some better radar and actual SAM and IADS simulation.

 

 

[elchacal]

On 12/19/2022 at 6:03 AM, Zergburger said:

we would need real radar simulations in order for the F-4G to be viable. For example, part of the back seat electronics include what is essentially an oscilloscope to view the waveform of any radar being seen by the EW suite, and you can dynamically select any of them on the fly. If you want to get an idea of how poorly suited the F-4G would be to the current version of DCS:World, take a look at this:

 

Great Stuff! 

Edited December 23, 2022 by elchacal

[F1GHTS-ON]

Doesn't need to be declassified. 

Simple solution would be an AI F-4G only, i.e some 3D modelling, but allow the AI be either programable in Mission Planning or reactive to threat radars as a default setting. Whilst these forums seem to attract a significant number of "purists" who would call foul, the reality is none of them have flown an F-4G, their knowledge of Radar Suppression is from what they've read in open source etc. F-4Gs represented top end technology 40 years ago - their replacement in USAF was the F-16 (which is modelled pretty well in DCS already - as a SINGLE seat. I can't even begin to imagine how complicated creating a JESTER to operate the back seat would be for a "G"). 

IMHO. majority of DCS players are content with current "noise" only Jammers and relatively simple ARM missiles that the developers have provided. AI, or even a MOD that allows a "cheat" of allowing an F-16/18 type MFD for the back seat for HARMs might meet your requirements..... . 

[exhausted]

The F-4G would be an awesome addition to DCS as it would expand warfare into a new and fascinating area of air warfare.

[Kalasnkova74]

I think the trouble with an F-4G is you  need a human to run the APR suite- and a human on the ground to work the IADS for a challenge.  What made the Wild Weasel F-4G work was the expert in the back dueling with the savvy SAM operator(s) who’d change freqs, shut down and illuminate on a different frequency, and other shifty tactics. 
 

On second thought, DCS would honestly need a distinct “Electronic Combat” mode to enable players to pick being SAM operators or Wild Weasel / SEAD. It would give planes like the F-4G, E/A-6A and E/A-6B, Tornado ECR and others a place to shine. As is right now I’m not sure an EW/SEAD platform fits the game. 

[Scott-S6]

6 hours ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

On second thought, DCS would honestly need a distinct “Electronic Combat” mode to enable players to pick being SAM operators or Wild Weasel / SEAD. It would give planes like the F-4G, E/A-6A and E/A-6B, Tornado ECR and others a place to shine. As is right now I’m not sure an EW/SEAD platform fits the game. 

It would also give Combined Arms a much better reason to exist.

[Stackup]

6 minutes ago, Scott-S6 said:

It would also give Combined Arms a much better reason to exist.

Everything that I've heard tells me that Combined Arms is significantly lacking in some areas so it would need an overhaul to be able to properly simulate the radar sites that the Ewar systems would be countering.  All that stuff is on ED's end though as that would be an addition to one of their modules and the base game itself. 

[Scott-S6]

54 minutes ago, Stackup said:

Everything that I've heard tells me that Combined Arms is significantly lacking in some areas so it would need an overhaul to be able to properly simulate the radar sites that the Ewar systems would be countering.  All that stuff is on ED's end though as that would be an addition to one of their modules and the base game itself. 

It's lacking in lots of areas. I think they really didn't have a good idea of what it was supposed to be. A nice clear mission statement might be able to redeem it.

[upyr1]

On 12/18/2022 at 1:44 PM, NoodI said:

not a suggestion just wondering if its too classified 

 

I'm sorry but this would be an awesome idea if we can have the G just saying

[upyr1]

On 12/26/2022 at 10:29 AM, F1GHTS-ON said:

Doesn't need to be declassified. 

Simple solution would be an AI F-4G only, i.e some 3D modelling, but allow the AI be either programable in Mission Planning or reactive to threat radars as a default setting. Whilst these forums seem to attract a significant number of "purists" who would call foul, the reality is none of them have flown an F-4G, their knowledge of Radar Suppression is from what they've read in open source etc. F-4Gs represented top end technology 40 years ago - their replacement in USAF was the F-16 (which is modelled pretty well in DCS already - as a SINGLE seat. I can't even begin to imagine how complicated creating a JESTER to operate the back seat would be for a "G"). 

IMHO. majority of DCS players are content with current "noise" only Jammers and relatively simple ARM missiles that the developers have provided. AI, or even a MOD that allows a "cheat" of allowing an F-16/18 type MFD for the back seat for HARMs might meet your requirements..... . 

I have suggested the ai only approach we would need the AI to make range and barring calls 

[RaceFuel85]

Classification is only one part of the story, ITAR is another factor that can block even non-class materials from getting used. 

[exhausted]

On 1/10/2023 at 10:47 AM, RaceFuel85 said:

Classification is only one part of the story, ITAR is another factor that can block even non-class materials from getting used. 

Could you explain that? It is my understanding that ITAR is an export restriction, not an issue for the importer. That is to say, if you receive it from the US then it's the exporter's problem and not yours. Also, what about data? Does ITAR prohibit the export of unclassified nontangible information?

[LanceCriminal86]

ITAR includes nontangible things like information, yes. Even knowledge on systems or technology, working out of country as a contractor or individual can be considered "exporting" that information and controlled or barred by the State Department under ITAR. Most common place I see that is around night vision technology, where there are restrictions on even letting non-US Citizens look through a set of say Generation 3 NV devices, or any manuals or documentation for them. Look at the pages for some of the big night vision vendors like TNVC or Night Vision Incorporated on their Legal or FAQ pages. In that specific case the risk is that allowing a foreign entity to look through the same level or higher of NV tubes used by the US military may give them an understanding of how far and how clearly US forces can see in different light conditions, depth of field, field of view, etc.

So, even if a manual gets an approval for declassification by the Navy or USAF, ITAR could still say that while it's declassified and appropriate for say "US Persons" to have, review, consume, etc. it may not be legal or approved for non-US persons to do the same. So forwarding a copy to a company based out of Europe could definitely run afoul of ITAR. That's where any requests for manuals would have to be carefully done to ensure that it can be shared to non-US Persons.

[Biggus]

Question arising from ignorance:  How confident are we that the HTS on the Viper is actually accurately modelled?  I know DCS strives for realism in most things, but EW related topics seem to be something of a fudge at times.  If the Viper HTS is a simplified abstraction of reality, would we as a community accept something similar in an F-4G?

[Aussie_Mantis]

most of the manuals shouldn't be. I have seen more than a few weapons delivery and dash-ones for the F-4G.

[JB3DG]

15 hours ago, Aussie_Mantis said:

most of the manuals shouldn't be. I have seen more than a few weapons delivery and dash-ones for the F-4G.

Nothing to be found on the APR-38 or APR-47. Those things are classified way more secret than even many of the weapons. ECM/EW is the most sensitive aspect of all military aircraft.