Is a F-4G too classified?

[Oldcrow Jr. 62]

First for background, my father during his career as an Officer in the Air Force, was a Electronic Warfare Officer.Did time as an EWO in B-52's (combat missions over Vietnam) and as a Crew Coordinator in RC-135's, plus other EW assignments. When we talked about his job over the years, he told m, what he could, that not only did Weasel's attack SAM Sites, but also tried to jammed them to reduce the threat to a manageable level. Not only did they (F-4G's) destroy the sites, but also helped keep them off the air (threat of destruction) but also limit their ability to track any targets. And also it was a cat and mouse game of bluff and counter bluff. So over time I learned the basics about EW and am not an expert in the subject matter, but do understand the basics. 

There were a number of tactics and methods to defeat SAM site's. One person touched on one technique, Jamming a signal using raw return power to block the signal and remove range information but still having a direction to the target from the emitter. Other techniques were range gate stealing and shifting. That's where the on board equipment would capture the signal, change it's wave form, pulse length and other characteristics and transmit it back. This basically modified the signal to show either a different range, speed and location to the sending transmitter. Another form was to shift the signal into a different wavelength to basically remove the return signal from the spectrum in a form that the other processor could not use, and remove the side lobes from also being used to detect targets. They also captured the signal, adjusting the dwell time, velocity and other modifications would create a false target, a false speed and direction. And many other methods that he could not talk about.

So for us to have an effective F-4G in DCS a number of things would need to be put in place first. First, as pointed out, we'd need a human interface on the Red side. Second, we'd need to have DCS actually develop a better ECM / Jamming system than we currently have. Third, DCS would need to develop the actual simulation of the different pulse's, pulse widths, frequencies and frequency shifts and emitter/antenna characteristics for each emitter. Fourth, the ability to interact with the emitted signal, and change it as pointed out above. Fifth,develop an effective ECCM environment to assist in the defeat of the ECM measures and allow the Radars to effectively engage targets. And finally, develop the Home on Jam ability for the missile's capable of using this ability to work.

In summary, I would love to see an F-4G, EA-6B, EA-18 Growler,  F-16 weasel and other countries aircraft in the game. With that being said, there is a lot more foundation work that needs to be developed than presently exists in the game right now. Even if, and that's a big IF, it could be developed, even the unclassified stuff might be not allowed to be used as it is the basis for the follow on and currently used equipment being used. ECM is and was not created in a vacuum. As technology developed, counters to the technology developed and the cycle repeats itself continually.

So, even if we could simulate some of this, I believe it would be at best an oversimplified version that would not truly represent what we would want, and realistically be "gamed"  to provide an unrealistic implementation and situations that are not found in the real or simulated world. And I don't see DCS spending valuable resources, money or personnel to do this since we've still got unfinished modules needing attention, long standing bugs to fix and new modules/ terrains/features still being worked on which we know about, and probably don't know about.

Just my two cents worth.

 

Edited December 22, 2023 by Oldcrow Jr. 62

[Dragon1-1]

I believe we could settle for a simulation of the primitive Vietnam era EW environment. Those early techniques are relatively well documented, and the war happened long enough ago that we can count on information from the era being declassified, either by FOIA request or simply because enough time had passed. This is also a fairly well known period in air warfare, and also one of the most interesting ones.

For anything newer, a lot is classified, but an accurate model of Vietnam era EW could possibly be extended with available data and educated guesswork. DCS modern era is primarily a US-dominated environment where the greatest threats were asymmetrical, and therefore EW being incomplete should not affect tactics as much. There are exceptions, but overall, I think that it's quite possible to come up with something that would work well.

[Harlikwin]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

I believe we could settle for a simulation of the primitive Vietnam era EW environment. Those early techniques are relatively well documented, and the war happened long enough ago that we can count on information from the era being declassified, either by FOIA request or simply because enough time had passed. This is also a fairly well known period in air warfare, and also one of the most interesting ones.

For anything newer, a lot is classified, but an accurate model of Vietnam era EW could possibly be extended with available data and educated guesswork. DCS modern era is primarily a US-dominated environment where the greatest threats were asymmetrical, and therefore EW being incomplete should not affect tactics as much. There are exceptions, but overall, I think that it's quite possible to come up with something that would work well.

From the soviet side, tons of documents are available on ECM/EW/Sam stuff well past VN...

Literally manuals are out there for all of the single digit soviet sams, with EW stuff baked in. Same for red ARM's, same for jammers like the 141, etc.

The way ED/DCS handles sams/ECM overall is generally really bad and mostly IMO it is not a documentation problem, its a developer/talent problem.

 

I mean, when your "simulator" can't simulate clouds, how good is it gonna do with more complex things.

Edited December 23, 2023 by Harlikwin

[upyr1]

21 hours ago, Oldcrow Jr. 62 said:

First for background, my father during his career as an Officer in the Air Force, was a Electronic Warfare Officer.Did time as an EWO in B-52's (combat missions over Vietnam) and as a Crew Coordinator in RC-135's, plus other EW assignments. When we talked about his job over the years, he told m, what he could, that not only did Weasel's attack SAM Sites, but also tried to jammed them to reduce the threat to a manageable level. Not only did they (F-4G's) destroy the sites, but also helped keep them off the air (threat of destruction) but also limit their ability to track any targets. And also it was a cat and mouse game of bluff and counter bluff. So over time I learned the basics about EW and am not an expert in the subject matter, but do understand the basics. 

There were a number of tactics and methods to defeat SAM site's. One person touched on one technique, Jamming a signal using raw return power to block the signal and remove range information but still having a direction to the target from the emitter. Other techniques were range gate stealing and shifting. That's where the on board equipment would capture the signal, change it's wave form, pulse length and other characteristics and transmit it back. This basically modified the signal to show either a different range, speed and location to the sending transmitter. Another form was to shift the signal into a different wavelength to basically remove the return signal from the spectrum in a form that the other processor could not use, and remove the side lobes from also being used to detect targets. They also captured the signal, adjusting the dwell time, velocity and other modifications would create a false target, a false speed and direction. And many other methods that he could not talk about.

So for us to have an effective F-4G in DCS a number of things would need to be put in place first. First, as pointed out, we'd need a human interface on the Red side. Second, we'd need to have DCS actually develop a better ECM / Jamming system than we currently have. Third, DCS would need to develop the actual simulation of the different pulse's, pulse widths, frequencies and frequency shifts and emitter/antenna characteristics for each emitter. Fourth, the ability to interact with the emitted signal, and change it as pointed out above. Fifth,develop an effective ECCM environment to assist in the defeat of the ECM measures and allow the Radars to effectively engage targets. And finally, develop the Home on Jam ability for the missile's capable of using this ability to work.

In summary, I would love to see an F-4G, EA-6B, EA-18 Growler,  F-16 weasel and other countries aircraft in the game. With that being said, there is a lot more foundation work that needs to be developed than presently exists in the game right now. Even if, and that's a big IF, it could be developed, even the unclassified stuff might be not allowed to be used as it is the basis for the follow on and currently used equipment being used. ECM is and was not created in a vacuum. As technology developed, counters to the technology developed and the cycle repeats itself continually.

So, even if we could simulate some of this, I believe it would be at best an oversimplified version that would not truly represent what we would want, and realistically be "gamed"  to provide an unrealistic implementation and situations that are not found in the real or simulated world. And I don't see DCS spending valuable resources, money or personnel to do this since we've still got unfinished modules needing attention, long standing bugs to fix and new modules/ terrains/features still being worked on which we know about, and probably don't know about.

Just my two cents worth.

 

 

I don't expect to ever see an HI G, however I'd love to see as many EW changes as  possible so that we can at least get AI EW aircraft 

13 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

I believe we could settle for a simulation of the primitive Vietnam era EW environment. Those early techniques are relatively well documented, and the war happened long enough ago that we can count on information from the era being declassified, either by FOIA request or simply because enough time had passed. This is also a fairly well known period in air warfare, and also one of the most interesting ones.

For anything newer, a lot is classified, but an accurate model of Vietnam era EW could possibly be extended with available data and educated guesswork. DCS modern era is primarily a US-dominated environment where the greatest threats were asymmetrical, and therefore EW being incomplete should not affect tactics as much. There are exceptions, but overall, I think that it's quite possible to come up with something that would work well.

I'd love to have the EB-66 and F-105G, I don't know if we can but I'd love to see someone do a FOIA request, the worst thing that will happen is they say no. 

11 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

From the soviet side, tons of documents are available on ECM/EW/Sam stuff well past VN...

Literally manuals are out there for all of the single digit soviet sams, with EW stuff baked in. Same for red ARM's, same for jammers like the 141, etc.

The way ED/DCS handles sams/ECM overall is generally really bad and mostly IMO it is not a documentation problem, its a developer/talent problem.

 

I mean, when your "simulator" can't simulate clouds, how good is it gonna do with more complex things.

 

The real question is how many of these manuals are leaks vs real open-source material. I remember some time ago there was the SAM simulator I'd love to see the author convert that into a DCS module 

[upyr1]

On 8/18/2023 at 9:37 PM, Kalasnkova74 said:

It’s not enough just to have the F-4G. DCS needs much higher fidelity SAM and IADS threats to fight against. So HB couldn’t just make an F-4G and call it good- they’d have to work with ED to basically build an entirely new library of threats to electronically fight. “Starbaby” has a lot of videos describing the cat and mouse game between IADS operators and the Weasels. Good SAM operators would do tricks like fire a missile blind and then illuminate the target at the last moment to deny RWR alerts, or launching from one site using terminal radar guidance from a different one to dodge ARMs. That’s why the APR-47 in the F-4G was so complex: you needed that kit to effectively fight SAM shooters who want to survive and win too. It’s also why the F-16/HARM combination doesn’t replace what was lost when the F-4G was retired, but that’s a topic for another day. 

Even if there are no plans for a G we need a better EW environment 

[upyr1]

On 12/21/2023 at 7:08 PM, Slick_441 said:

What about a module preset option that would allow us to use the AGM-88 and AN/ALQ-184 Long if so desired? Servers can already restrict certain weapons, so 'retro' servers can still restrict to the Shrike. The HARM firing process would also be a compromise, basically you'd be firing a Shrike model that looks and performs as close as possible to the AGM-88 in speed, range and tracking ability.

I call it the "F-faux G"  

At a certain point we're going to have to do things like this if we ever want to see F-4G's, EA-6B's or other heavily classified airframes in DCS and I'm okay with that. 

I think this is a good argument for the advanced Phantom 2K-type upgrades if we can't get the G. No USAF version of the E ever carried the HARM so there is no realistic interface. However, I would have to double-check if there is any advanced upgrade used by a foreign air force that uses the HARM. 

[Harlikwin]

On 12/23/2023 at 5:33 AM, upyr1 said:

I don't expect to ever see an HI G, however I'd love to see as many EW changes as  possible so that we can at least get AI EW aircraft 

I'd love to have the EB-66 and F-105G, I don't know if we can but I'd love to see someone do a FOIA request, the worst thing that will happen is they say no. 

The real question is how many of these manuals are leaks vs real open-source material. I remember some time ago there was the SAM simulator I'd love to see the author convert that into a DCS module 

Given that you can goto a library and check them out, yeah I'd say they are open source. 

[Kev2go]

. Razbams Radar modeling on the M2K and now the Apg70 has set a new benchmark for radar simulation in DCS , Heatblur is now setting a new benchmark for RWR simulation with An/APR46 for the F4E, and they said they were willing to go open source with thier code to ED, so a similar baseline can be applied to other RWR 's on other modules. 

 

i think once these 2 things complete the prerequisite is already there to move on to modeling more authentic Electronic warfare, jammers etc. 

[Harlikwin]

On 12/28/2023 at 4:15 PM, Kev2go said:

. Razbams Radar modeling on the M2K and now the Apg70 has set a new benchmark for radar simulation in DCS , Heatblur is now setting a new benchmark for RWR simulation with An/APR46 for the F4E, and they said they were willing to go open source with thier code to ED, so a similar baseline can be applied to other RWR 's on other modules. 

 

i think once these 2 things complete the prerequisite is already there to move on to modeling more authentic Electronic warfare, jammers etc. 

Too bad ED is not using those models for their stuff and has doubled down on FC3 quality radars.

[upyr1]

On 12/28/2023 at 5:15 PM, Kev2go said:

. Razbams Radar modeling on the M2K and now the Apg70 has set a new benchmark for radar simulation in DCS , Heatblur is now setting a new benchmark for RWR simulation with An/APR46 for the F4E, and they said they were willing to go open source with thier code to ED, so a similar baseline can be applied to other RWR 's on other modules. 

 

i think once these 2 things complete the prerequisite is already there to move on to modeling more authentic Electronic warfare, jammers etc. 

Awesome according to this post 

 

there might be someone developing the Thud. I'd love to have have the F-105G and F-4G but the Phantom I don't think would be possible 

On 12/24/2023 at 11:47 AM, Harlikwin said:

Given that you can goto a library and check them out, yeah I'd say they are open source. 

If we get a C module then maybe an EF-4C would cool

[Kev2go]

On 12/29/2023 at 8:25 PM, Harlikwin said:

Too bad ED is not using those models for their stuff and has doubled down on FC3 quality radars.

ED has made some improvements in their radars as well even if it isn't razbam tier. . I noticed that detection ranges will vary depending on RCS and a % chance of detection will increase the closer you are. 

Edited January 1 by Kev2go

[Omega417]

On 12/23/2023 at 6:33 AM, upyr1 said:

..... I don't know if we can but I'd love to see someone do a FOIA request, the worst thing that will happen is they say no.

You could always win the "CIA Excellence in Journalism" award for your efforts

[Temetre]

Am 6.9.2023 um 21:31 schrieb upyr1:

I think lack of information might be the main issue. 

It definitively is a main issue, but whatever Heatblur does, they have to do the economic calculation as well. They cant make a module thats not financially viable.

Obviously we cant know how the calculation on that would looke on an F-4G, but I suspect it would be a much harder sell than an F-4E or F-4J/S.

Am 31.12.2023 um 06:31 schrieb Kev2go:

ED has made some improvements in their radars as well even if it isn't razbam tier. . I noticed that detection ranges will vary depending on RCS and a % chance of detection will increase the closer you are. 

Yes, Viper/Hornet radars have been improved massively. The biggest issue of DCS is probably that orientation of aircraft has no effect on RCS currently. Even Mirage just does some naive assumptions about detection range depending on aspect, because theres nothing hardcoded or so.

Edited January 4 by Temetre

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, Temetre said:

It definitively is a main issue, but whatever Heatblur does, they have to do the economic calculation as well. They cant make a module thats not financially viable. Obviously we cant know how the calculation on that would looke on an F-4G, but I suspect it would be a much harder sell than an F-4E or F-4J/S.

If we do have enough information, would you be interested in the G? 

[Slick_441]

6 hours ago, upyr1 said:

If we do have enough information, would you be interested in the G? 

If a G was possible it would be a day one purchase for me. Even if some avionics/systems needed to be a 'best guess'.

[Temetre]

Am 4.1.2024 um 14:48 schrieb upyr1:

If we do have enough information, would you be interested in the G? 

 Id be curious, but not willing to spend money on the module. Im pretty sure the F-4G would require a dedicated human backseater thats willing to learn the Gs backseat operation, and thats something very rare. I feel thats way more niche than eg F-14 or F-4E backseaters.

So no, Id probably never get to "really" use the F-4G in the way its supposed to be used. 

 

Obviously that might create a bias in me, but IIRC ED once said something like only 10-15% of DCS' players ever step into an online server. Then consider the filters, how many of those:

1. Play reguarly with the same people

2. Wanna be mostly in the backseat

3. Wanna learn the F-4G EW equipment operation, which is apparently extremely theory-heavy and requires you to do stuff like identify radars by ear

Obviously theres gonna be some people, and theres nothing wrong with this. If HB can make a 4G for them, cool. But thats gotta be a tiny target audience, compared to something like the F-4E.

[Kalasnkova74]

4 hours ago, Temetre said:

Obviously that might create a bias in me, but IIRC ED once said something like only 10-15% of DCS' players ever step into an online server. Then consider the filters, how many of those:

1. Play reguarly with the same people

2. Wanna be mostly in the backseat

3. Wanna learn the F-4G EW equipment operation, which is apparently extremely theory-heavy and requires you to do stuff like identify radars by ear

 

That’s putting it mildly. Electronic Warfare Officer training was a dedicated months long course in the USAF, starting with memorizing every threat and tactical radar system sound signature. Quick, anyone here know off the top of their head what a “Teamwork” I-band tracking radar sounds like vs a “Low Blow”?  
 

Then came tactics, which is going to be the real obstacle to playing a hypothetical F-4G model well. What frequencies to focus on, when to manipulate them, which threat emitters to prioritize or ignore, and how to suppress them are all “inside baseball” tips that are A) still used today in some ways by multiple nations and B) probably classified. 
 

So a viable F-4G model at minimum would require a VERY involved AI EWO (not WSO!) and a total overhaul of RedFor threat systems to provide a realistic challenge. That task too will encounter classification obstacles (unless Russia /China decides to Ok release of double digit SAM data). 

I’ve little doubt there’s people out there like Mike “Starbaby” Pietrucha who’d love playing an EWO in a realistic F-4G (to say nothing of an ECR Tornado/ F-16 CJ/ E/A-18) , but that’s a very niche market and would be capital intensive to create. 

 

[Dragon1-1]

Learning to tell the radar types by ear isn't as big an obstacle as it seems, given the limited number of systems we have in DCS. This is pretty much what Viggen drivers already have to do. PRF tones are relevant for many early RWRs. Yes, there'd be a lot of theory on EW involved, but it's not like prospective EWOs are going to be averse to learning about stuff. DCS, being a study sim, involves a lot of learning things already.

As for tactics? We can develop our own. At first, EWOs in Vietnam didn't have anyone to tech them how to best fight Vietnamese radars, this was uncharted territory. If we had a proper SAM threat environment (single digit Russian SAMs are pretty well documented in open source literature) DCS userbase would soon develop their own bag of tricks. The F-4G is not something that would be counted on to suppress double digit SAMs, anyway, or be particularly good at doing that.

[streakeagle]

Based on past statements, ED is never going to attempt to realistically simulate electronic warfare for security reasons. So, DCS World will always remain more of an entertaining and realistic game than a true simulation of air combat from Vietnam to the present. If you are presently enjoying DCS World with its current missile seeker and radar implementation, then you have already accepted the fact that DCS World is more of a game than simulator and always will be. If you can accept that fact, then you should also be able to accept the idea that an F-4G could be implemented in a way that would be fun and useful in the game, despite being far from 100% realistic. I am among those that would gladly buy any historical wild weasel variants including but not limited to the F-105G and F-4G.

Wild weasel type missions are already fun and challenging in DCS World. Third party scripts make a huge difference for the problem of IADS behavior. The oversimplified and inaccurate EW modeling in DCS can make it too hard with super lethal SAMs or too easy with excessively effective jamming. Missions can be scripted in a way to move the difficulty level as desired to get the right play balance for fun and/or realism without worrying about all of the things that are modeled incorrectly or not at all. I would love to be able to model missions with the early F-100 WW, F-105F, and F-105G WW, as well as the experimental F-4C WW and final F-4G WW. As long as the RWR/ESM equipment provides information that looks/sounds reasonably similar, I could live with existing methods of modeling jamming effects.

One additional consideration is that the F-4G generally retains all F-4E capabilities aside from losing the internal gun. From a multiplayer/gaming perspective, that makes it versatile even if in reality they were exclusively employed as wild weasels.

Edited January 6 by streakeagle

[SgtPappy]

22 hours ago, streakeagle said:

Based on past statements, ED is never going to attempt to realistically simulate electronic warfare for security reasons. So, DCS World will always remain more of an entertaining and realistic game than a true simulation of air combat from Vietnam to the present. If you are presently enjoying DCS World with its current missile seeker and radar implementation, then you have already accepted the fact that DCS World is more of a game than simulator and always will be. If you can accept that fact, then you should also be able to accept the idea that an F-4G could be implemented in a way that would be fun and useful in the game, despite being far from 100% realistic. I am among those that would gladly buy any historical wild weasel variants including but not limited to the F-105G and F-4G.

Wild weasel type missions are already fun and challenging in DCS World. Third party scripts make a huge difference for the problem of IADS behavior. The oversimplified and inaccurate EW modeling in DCS can make it too hard with super lethal SAMs or too easy with excessively effective jamming. Missions can be scripted in a way to move the difficulty level as desired to get the right play balance for fun and/or realism without worrying about all of the things that are modeled incorrectly or not at all. I would love to be able to model missions with the early F-100 WW, F-105F, and F-105G WW, as well as the experimental F-4C WW and final F-4G WW. As long as the RWR/ESM equipment provides information that looks/sounds reasonably similar, I could live with existing methods of modeling jamming effects.

One additional consideration is that the F-4G generally retains all F-4E capabilities aside from losing the internal gun. From a multiplayer/gaming perspective, that makes it versatile even if in reality they were exclusively employed as wild weasels.

 

As mentioned a few times before, I think this is why DCS does Cold War combat so well - say 70's and earlier, through to WW2. ECM was just starting to show up in meaningful ways (debatable, I know) during the Vietnam War and many assets we have in the game often didn't carry any ECM during this time.

That said, I believe that ECM could be vastly improved and simulated to at least a more realistic degree than what it is now. We have the basics of deception jamming in public documents that would work on certain radar systems more effectively than others but it would be such a massive task, I can understand that it isn't the focus right now. Another user mentioned that we even have lots of information for early SAM sites that could be simulated very accurately - theoretically, if not practically. I think it can be done but maybe not just at this moment.

[streakeagle]

13 minutes ago, SgtPappy said:

As mentioned a few times before, I think this is why DCS does Cold War combat so well - say 70's and earlier, through to WW2. ECM was just starting to show up in meaningful ways (debatable, I know) during the Vietnam War and many assets we have in the game often didn't carry any ECM during this time.

That said, I believe that ECM could be vastly improved and simulated to at least a more realistic degree than what it is now. We have the basics of deception jamming in public documents that would work on certain radar systems more effectively than others but it would be such a massive task, I can understand that it isn't the focus right now. Another user mentioned that we even have lots of information for early SAM sites that could be simulated very accurately - theoretically, if not practically. I think it can be done but maybe not just at this moment.

We all know it can be much more realistically modeled. I have two huge books that are like bibles on ECM and ECCM for engineers entering that field. The fundamental techniques used and the equations that determine their effectiveness are straightforward. But ED doesn't want to make it more realistic. It is a conscious choice.

The old board game series Air Superiority/Air Strike/Speed of Heat has better modeling of ECM/ECCM than DCS World. Strike Fighters 2 (a self described "lite" sim) has better ECM modeling than DCS World. DCS sets the bar pretty low.

Edited January 7 by streakeagle

[SgtPappy]

34 minutes ago, streakeagle said:

We all know it can be much more realistically modeled. I have two huge books that are like bibles on ECM and ECCM for engineers entering that field. The fundamental techniques used and the equations that determine their effectiveness are straightforward. But ED doesn't want to make it more realistic. It is a conscious choice.

The old board game series Air Superiority/Air Strike/Speed of Heat has better modeling of ECM/ECCM than DCS World. Strike Fighters 2 (a self described "lite" sim) has better ECM modeling than DCS World. DCS sets the bar pretty low.

 

Ah apologies then, I had maybe misunderstood from your previous post that security reasons were preventing ED from doing it but perhaps your points are not mutually exclusive. ED perhaps doesn't want to even look at it partly because of security reasons even though we know it can be done.

Just another reason for me to beckon to everyone to come join the early Cold War servers! After the F-4, I think they'll be packed

[Dragon1-1]

On 1/6/2024 at 5:17 PM, streakeagle said:

Based on past statements, ED is never going to attempt to realistically simulate electronic warfare for security reasons.

I don't think that's quite what they said, unless we're talking strictly modern platforms. Vietnam era, such as Phantom, should be fair game, and quite frankly, a lot of what this kind of ECM amounted to is well known and documented. The games Vietnamese SA-2 crews played with the Weasels are all documented in unclassified historical sources. Those early techniques are largely obsolete, so there's no "security reasons" not to make them.

The problem is probably that ED currently has too much on its plate to take on overhauling of another major system. ECM systems that can be simulated were very manual. Today, computers and complicated algorithms do most of the legwork, but in Vietnam era it was man versus man. ELINT was done by literally posting a guy with an antenna somewhere in the bush, who tried to catch Vietnamese transmissions and, together with another station, triangulate their origin. They'd listen in on them, too. Wild Weasel EWOs listened to PRF tones and turned dials, while SAM crews looked at their oscilloscope-like displays and tried to decide what they should shoot and what's trying to shoot them. Properly simulating that would no doubt take some doing, maybe more than ED can spare time to do right now.

Edited January 9 by Dragon1-1

[Harlikwin]

3 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

I don't think that's quite what they said, unless we're talking strictly modern platforms. Vietnam era, such as Phantom, should be fair game, and quite frankly, a lot of what this kind of ECM amounted to is well known and documented. The games Vietnamese SA-2 crews played with the Weasels are all documented in unclassified historical sources. Those early techniques are largely obsolete, so there's no "security reasons" not to make them.

The problem is probably that ED currently has too much on its plate to take on overhauling of another major system. ECM systems that can be simulated were very manual. Today, computers and complicated algorithms do most of the legwork, but in Vietnam era it was man versus man. ELINT was done by literally posting a guy with an antenna somewhere in the bush, who tried to catch Vietnamese transmissions and, together with another station, triangulate their origin. They'd listen in on them, too. Wild Weasel EWOs listened to PRF tones and turned dials, while SAM crews looked at their oscilloscope-like displays and tried to decide what they should shoot and what's trying to shoot them. Properly simulating that would no doubt take some doing, maybe more than ED can spare time to do right now.

 

Yup entirely this. Like ED could do VN era ECM/EW/SAM stuff, but its a huge task. Frankly I think they will come up with some rock/paper/scissors solution, which if  done well might be ok. But it also means getting every 3rd party on board and having realistic jamming effects etc on their scopes. And it also means updating the entire way SAMs/IADS works in DCS as well. And then adding AI standoff jammers and so forth. I.e. crazy complex and debatably "fun". 

Edited January 9 by Harlikwin

[Dragon1-1]

In fact, something tells ma 3rd party would have to lead the way on this. Someone, like, I don't know, the guys making the F-4 and A-6, them being notable aircraft from the era.  

There was talk of an IADS module at one point, but it seems to have died. I think that module makers would implement that if realistic jamming was a core feature. Right now, everyone is kind of doing their own thing with it, and that's not particularly helpful. To further complicate matters, ED aircraft (besides the F-5E) are largely modern ones with fancy displays that filter most stuff going on the display, and can tell when they're being jammed in some cases. Meanwhile, on older scopes, jamming tends to result in a trippy-looking mess on the radar display. This tends to be more complex to implement.