Is a F-4G too classified?

[Kalasnkova74]

31 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

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.

Here’s a SAM simulator video from YT showing an S75 Dvina. Coding all the radars, SAM systems and sensors, connections and modes alone is a HUGE task. Hell, just coding the S75 throughly enough to be relevant would be equal effort as HB’s F-4E project. 
 

Even if we handwave the massive logistical task of building player-useable RedFor SAM modules, the other side of the equation has to be built also. IRL, making an F-4G meant taking apart an F-4E at Ogden logistics center and rebuilding it with the APR sensor suite. The meat puppets up front needed a dedicated transition course just to learn the basics of using the F-4G. 
 

All that means HB would have to start from scratch modeling the F-4G (flight model is different from the F-4E because of the APR-47’s avionics in the nose, reducing nose authority vs the standard F-4E) , and intellectually the same goes for the people paying money to participate. Think learning to fly the jet is hard? Try doing that effectively AND understanding the Electromagnetic Spectrum so in a turn with the RWR going off you know which threat to prioritize or ignore. It’s a lot more brainpower than pointing the radar at a blip & launching an AIM-120 in the bozosphere.

Bottom line- making an F-4G (or any EW aircraft) needs a solid groundwork of full fidelity, player controllable SAMs+ long range radars AND common behavior logic in DCS so  all the other modules experience the same realistic threats. It’s a lot of work, and I can easily see how this project just isn’t gonna pay the bills vs the cost.

[Harlikwin]

3 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

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.

Yup, the IADS guys bailed, no one knows why. I think they took one look at the spaghetti and bailed myself, or maybe not. While most of the earlier missile systems are known, plenty of the later ones are still sensitive. 

But ultimately its a very non trivial task. 

Consider the DCS SA-2, like literally the oldest, widest used SAM system in the world, totally disrespected in DCS. In DCS the model of how an SA-2 processes targets and engages them has little to do with reality. Its like a hold over from whatever 90's sam code they have. In DCS its oh look mr search radar with the 2 picks you up lat ti dah I'm flying along and there is that 2 over there, whatever. Oh and then see this it locks you when you are in max range [2]. That might be worrysome but I have time, and finally brrrring there goes the launch and here comes mr telephone pole so I have to do drop a few chaff and point at the ground. The missile will "lead" me and crash into the ground long before it hits me cuz its using prop-nav.  

In reality, the actual site would not be radiating at all, the fan-song is an engagement radar only, you wouldn't know it was there (unless intel told you). The EWR "search radar" would literally be miles away from the site, and it would likely be a set of EWR's some transmitting some held in reserve some moving to a new location. So, then the battery commander gets a call, hey you've got some poor hapless schmuck inbound, he will be in your engagement envelope in 5 minutes, currently heading is 345 speed 500, altitude 10k. Battery commander trains the Fan-song radar at the location where you will as reported by the EWR. When the in-range command is given, boom lights on. In "search mode" they will localize you fairly quickly, since they already know fairly well where to lock, and bang "track".  Now launch, but your RWR may or may not know about it since the missile is command guided to an intercept point using one of 3 "lead modes" that I will over simplify to Prop nav, 1/2 prop nav, and the 3 point (draw a line between the radar the missile and you) mode.  If the lead is actually enough the command channel for the missile is a narrow beam the RWR may not catch initially. 

What that SA-2 launch looks more like this, oh well, yep there are some search radars out there... La-ti-dah... Oh a 2 on the RWR uh... And few seconds later the [2], hmm thats  a problem, oh look I see big smoke trails... Wait smoke trails, crap... Now the RWR goes brrring when they are more than halfway to me. Dive and chaff, crap they are headed straight for me since the SAM operator isn't a moron and has switched them to 3 point so it won't fly into the ground... BIG boom, now I'm dead. 

So even for a simple and extremely well known system its really badly modeled, both from the engagement sequence standpoint and especially from the missile guidance standpoint.

This is also assuming a modern RWR that knows the missile, knows all the frequencies used and so forth. VN era RWR's would not always know this stuff, for example the launch detect stuff had to be added to earlier RWRs that only could detect the track radar, and of course none of them cared about the search radars.

And then modeling the ECM to use against these, you have to consider ok, how good is the operator, and oh wait which version of the sa-2 do we have to consider because for example some of them had ECCM to angle jamming techniques that were commonly employed and so on and so forth. Or another common technique is actually to mess with the radio-prox fuse to get it to detonate early (also why everyone went to optical fuses) etc. So it gets stupidly complicated stupidly fast. And I think the average joe DCS player clamoring for better ECM modeling has 0 clue. 

 

 

Edited January 10 by Harlikwin

[Dragon1-1]

5 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

And I think the average joe DCS player clamoring for better ECM modeling has 0 clue. 

That's why I think this should be fixed, people have no idea how big a thing this was. Yes, what version of SA-2 would matter then, and quite frankly, this would be a good thing. We would need models for earlier versions of the SAMs. The version of SA-2 that we have is vastly more modern than what was used in Vietnam, BTW. 

That said, you're wrong on account of the engagement flow. Before SA-2 could engage an EWR contact, it'd have to acquire it with its own search radar. SA-2 had the P-12  SR colocated with the battery:

This is the typical hexagonal SA-2 layout, and you can see the Spoon Rest off to the side, and the Fan Song surrounded by the launchers. The thing is, the SR was generally connected with the command vans via physical cables, just like the FCR and the launchers. So, the whole thing simply couldn't be spread over a few kilometers. More than that, sites were fixed and in many cases, fairly easy to spot from air. The Fan Song would generally not be used in search mode, this is what Spoon Rest was for. After all, if the guy flying at you is a Weasel, then he's just waiting for that "2" on his RWR to launch a Shrike your way, or to dodge the missile and serve you some CBUs, since now he knows where you are. In fact, any decent Phantom driver would know that a "2" on RWR pretty much equals "take it down right now or you'll be dead". It did have some settling time, just like most missiles of the era (basically, it needed to keep you locked up a few seconds before it actually shot at you), but if you're not specifically trying to hit the site, a Fan Song turning on is a cue for you to scram.

Modern SAMs can have the SR located a long distance from the battery, and the SA-10 has some nice features, including being able to datalink several battalions together. However, for early SAMs, you generally have a lot of different radars on site, and they'd be talking to the EWR by phone. A site could have low and high altitude search radars, a heightfinder (an important class of radar that we don't have in DCS), and a dedicated IFF antenna, in addition to the FCR. Taking those out would degrade the battery in different ways, and would add up to a rather complex EW picture for the EWO to decipher.

[Harlikwin]

14 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

That's why I think this should be fixed, people have no idea how big a thing this was. Yes, what version of SA-2 would matter then, and quite frankly, this would be a good thing. We would need models for earlier versions of the SAMs. The version of SA-2 that we have is vastly more modern than what was used in Vietnam, BTW. 

That said, you're wrong on account of the engagement flow. Before SA-2 could engage an EWR contact, it'd have to acquire it with its own search radar. SA-2 had the P-12  SR colocated with the battery:

This is the typical hexagonal SA-2 layout, and you can see the Spoon Rest off to the side, and the Fan Song surrounded by the launchers. The thing is, the SR was generally connected with the command vans via physical cables, just like the FCR and the launchers. So, the whole thing simply couldn't be spread over a few kilometers. More than that, sites were fixed and in many cases, fairly easy to spot from air. The Fan Song would generally not be used in search mode, this is what Spoon Rest was for. After all, if the guy flying at you is a Weasel, then he's just waiting for that "2" on his RWR to launch a Shrike your way, or to dodge the missile and serve you some CBUs, since now he knows where you are. In fact, any decent Phantom driver would know that a "2" on RWR pretty much equals "take it down right now or you'll be dead". It did have some settling time, just like most missiles of the era (basically, it needed to keep you locked up a few seconds before it actually shot at you), but if you're not specifically trying to hit the site, a Fan Song turning on is a cue for you to scram.

Modern SAMs can have the SR located a long distance from the battery, and the SA-10 has some nice features, including being able to datalink several battalions together. However, for early SAMs, you generally have a lot of different radars on site, and they'd be talking to the EWR by phone. A site could have low and high altitude search radars, a heightfinder (an important class of radar that we don't have in DCS), and a dedicated IFF antenna, in addition to the FCR. Taking those out would degrade the battery in different ways, and would add up to a rather complex EW picture for the EWO to decipher.

P-12 is the EWR...

It doesn't need to be co-located. 

And yes they did co-locate it early on, then they figured out, oh wait, this is a bad idea for exactly the reasons you laid out. And yes I'm well aware that we have like a mid/late 70's SA-2.

Also my engagement flow was a bit satirized to what I see the average DCS guy doing online. 

But the problems with IADS modeling and SAM guidance are very real in addition to the various RWR issues. Various early RWR's couldn't even detect certain SAM radars due to frequency issues or PRF issues and so forth, so it was a constant game of catch up. Which is why these days you have planes and satellites hoovering up every erg of energy from the Ukraine or Israeli conflict looking for new things, old things, unknown things etc.

 

Edited January 11 by Harlikwin

[Dragon1-1]

8 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

P-12 is the EWR...

It doesn't need to be co-located. 

Not in this case, the P-12 on the illustration functions as a search and target acquisition radar for the battery. And yes, with Vietnam era SA-2 and low digit SAMs in general, it does need to be colocated (because, again, cables), not sure about the one we have, though. If it's not, you're doing part of SR's work using the FCR, which is extremely dangerous and only done in emergencies (read: actual SR ate an ARM). The EWRs would be a P-14, or a P-12+P-15 pair, located at the regimental HQ. That's also where a secondary IFF radar would sit. Remember, SAMs have to worry about friendly fire, too, and have to be damn sure that the target they were ordered to shoot is really the same the FCR is looking at. The SR was only moved away from the battery when the technology allowed doing this (and with SA-10, they can also move the FCR away, which makes for some nasty surprises for the Weasels).

In general, early RWRs were designed to warn against imminent attack, not provide SA. In fact, that's still its primary role, and also why you have to press a button to show search radars on modern RWRs. Detecting longer wavelengths, such as those generally used by EWRs and SRs, was not a design parameter. Only dedicated EW planes, such as Weasels, could detect those emissions. BTW, ELINT was already in full swing in Vietnam, from ground ADF stations listening in and trying to pinpoint Vietnamese comms, to early spy satellites such as Canyon, SAMOS and POPPY tracking radar emissions.

[Kalasnkova74]

Another point of complexity are tactical choices by SAM operators. Example- Syrians in the Bekaa Valley anchored their sites and stuck to the manual. They paid the price for that. 

Serbians (and the Vietnamese) didn’t, and not only moved their sites relatively quickly (Colonel Zoltan Dani even drilled his missile company to pack up faster than the Russian manuals claimed) but used “Maverick-style” moves like getting non-electronic airborne target cues from spotters, launching their missiles first, timing the flight manually, then activating their acquisition radar where they expected the target to be. This tactic bagged future USAF Chief of Staff David Goldfien & two hits on F-117s during Allied Force.

Thats just two case studies of people doing “unexpected” things with these weapons systems to thwart very competent EW assets. Modeling these RW capabilities would be difficult to impossible, plus a more realistic IADS implementation also would make the game a difficult experience for new and inexperienced players (much like real life, ironically). 

 

[Harlikwin]

5 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Not in this case, the P-12 on the illustration functions as a search and target acquisition radar for the battery. And yes, with Vietnam era SA-2 and low digit SAMs in general, it does need to be colocated (because, again, cables), not sure about the one we have, though. If it's not, you're doing part of SR's work using the FCR, which is extremely dangerous and only done in emergencies (read: actual SR ate an ARM). The EWRs would be a P-14, or a P-12+P-15 pair, located at the regimental HQ. That's also where a secondary IFF radar would sit. Remember, SAMs have to worry about friendly fire, too, and have to be damn sure that the target they were ordered to shoot is really the same the FCR is looking at. The SR was only moved away from the battery when the technology allowed doing this (and with SA-10, they can also move the FCR away, which makes for some nasty surprises for the Weasels).

In general, early RWRs were designed to warn against imminent attack, not provide SA. In fact, that's still its primary role, and also why you have to press a button to show search radars on modern RWRs. Detecting longer wavelengths, such as those generally used by EWRs and SRs, was not a design parameter. Only dedicated EW planes, such as Weasels, could detect those emissions. BTW, ELINT was already in full swing in Vietnam, from ground ADF stations listening in and trying to pinpoint Vietnamese comms, to early spy satellites such as Canyon, SAMOS and POPPY tracking radar emissions.

Yeah the early ones were, AFAIK the later ones could  be remoted by at least a few km. And yes multiple EWR's cueing. 

[Harlikwin]

1 hour ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

Another point of complexity are tactical choices by SAM operators. Example- Syrians in the Bekaa Valley anchored their sites and stuck to the manual. They paid the price for that. 

Serbians (and the Vietnamese) didn’t, and not only moved their sites relatively quickly (Colonel Zoltan Dani even drilled his missile company to pack up faster than the Russian manuals claimed) but used “Maverick-style” moves like getting non-electronic airborne target cues from spotters, launching their missiles first, timing the flight manually, then activating their acquisition radar where they expected the target to be. This tactic bagged future USAF Chief of Staff David Goldfien & two hits on F-117s during Allied Force.

Thats just two case studies of people doing “unexpected” things with these weapons systems to thwart very competent EW assets. Modeling these RW capabilities would be difficult to impossible, plus a more realistic IADS implementation also would make the game a difficult experience for new and inexperienced players (much like real life, ironically). 

 

Yeah thats the other thing, how you simulate "doctrine" and good vs bad vs innovative crews/armies. The other thing that we also lack in DCS is sam site ARM countermeasures/decoys.  Serbians lost very few sam sites to US forces despite 400 HARMs fired, both because they had good crews/doctrine and decoys/CM's. 

 

6 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

 The SR was only moved away from the battery when the technology allowed doing this (and with SA-10, they can also move the FCR away, which makes for some nasty surprises for the Weasels).

There is no "technology" for this. Its literal HS trig, and trust me SAM guys knew how to do trig. It was automated pretty quickly as well. Beyond that it was communication links that could be field telephones, or radios, or later microwave datalinks. 

[Dragon1-1]

2 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

There is no "technology" for this.

Of course there is, you even mentioned it:

2 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

microwave datalinks. 

Voice links like telephones and radios would be insufficient for deconflicting and ensuring proper IFF on a complex battlefield. For running a SAM battery without a colocated SR, you need some sort of datalink that can reliably transmit the radar picture to a batter CP. Until wireless links came along, this involved a cable, limiting how far away the SR could be. Even if you could aim the FCR roughly at a contact passed on by a telephone or voice radio, you would have to scan a patch of the sky in order to actually find and lock it. On equipment we're talking about, this would take a nontrivial amount of time and expose the FCR to a counterattack, which is, needless to say, suboptimal. In addition, an FCR would not be optimized for searching (they have a narrow, highly directional beam) and thus take longer than a dedicated battery SR would have.

2 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

Yeah thats the other thing, how you simulate "doctrine" and good vs bad vs innovative crews/armies.

AI skill levels and mission scripting. In dynamic campaign it's harder, of course, but then, for dynamic campaign it would have to a be flag for the AI. CMANO has a multitude of doctrine options that control things like that, and DCS would require something similar for DC. For scripted missions, SAM AI can already be scripted into not being completely suicidal, although it's still lacking in finesse (and triggers break annoyingly often).

[streakeagle]

Well, today's news informs us that ED is going to focus on improving electronic warfare. As such, there is surely a role for Wild Weasels like the F-4G in the future. The problem is how many years before this becomes a reality? DCS development tends to move at a glacial pace. I remember when the A-10C was coming out with the promise of a Nevada terrain with the F-16 and AH-64 just over the horizon. A lot of years passed before all of those things became a reality. I am not getting any younger.

[Harlikwin]

28 minutes ago, streakeagle said:

Well, today's news informs us that ED is going to focus on improving electronic warfare. As such, there is surely a role for Wild Weasels like the F-4G in the future. The problem is how many years before this becomes a reality? DCS development tends to move at a glacial pace. I remember when the A-10C was coming out with the promise of a Nevada terrain with the F-16 and AH-64 just over the horizon. A lot of years passed before all of those things became a reality. I am not getting any younger.

Yeah I'm curious to see what it will look like to be honest. The HB RWR stuff should be a pretty solid basis for ARM's/RWR's and other things. Frankly at this point I'd just love some AI units that can do OECM, and for DECM jammers to actually do DECM things vs OECM things.

[streakeagle]

If ED can reasonably model ECM/ECCM up to the 1970s, I would be very happy. Once the US took losses from SA-2s, jamming, chaff, etc. became important. Of course, the USAF and USN disagreed on the best way to handle the problem. Both used stand-off jammers in what was essentially specialized versions the same aircraft: the A-3 and B-66. But the USAF believed in using large, fixed formations of aircraft with noise jammers providing mutual coverage along with chaff corridors (like B-17s and B-24s with defensive guns). The USN liked giving each aircraft deceptive jammers and chaff dispensers.

I don't know how far they are willing to go, but if they could model everything form Vietnam to the ALQ-101/119/131 series of pods and ALQ-100/126/135 series of internal jammers, that would cover my areas of interest. 

Edited January 13 by streakeagle

[upyr1]

On 1/9/2024 at 2:08 PM, 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

Except fir the EF-4C the Phantom  did most of  its weasel work in the 1980s and 90s. 

[upyr1]

8 hours ago, streakeagle said:

the USAF and USN disagreed on the best way to handle the problem. Both used stand-off jammers in what was essentially specialized versions the same aircraft: the A-3 and B-66.

the A-3 and B-66 weren't the same aircraft they just looked the same. The Destroyer was a death trap with barely functional engines that were known flame out on a regular basis that the usaf ditched asap becuse the engines were deadlier than the north Vietnamese air defenses while the Skywarior was a reliable aircraft that barely missed desert storm. 

[streakeagle]

8 hours ago, upyr1 said:

the A-3 and B-66 weren't the same aircraft they just looked the same. The Destroyer was a death trap with barely functional engines that were known flame out on a regular basis that the usaf ditched asap becuse the engines were deadlier than the north Vietnamese air defenses while the Skywarior was a reliable aircraft that barely missed desert storm. 

The B-66 didn't just look similar, it was a direct derivative of the A-3 in the same way the F-4C/D was a direct derivative of the F-4B. Of course, the USAF made some alterations to suit its needs just as it did with the F-4. But they were just as much the same airframe as the F-4J and F-4E. Despite any differences incurred by USAF requirements, for my purposes they were the same aircraft employed the same way in Vietnam: standoff jamming.

If DCS World provided an A-3 in its dual-role tanker/jammer configuration, I would gladly use it as a stand-in for the B-66. Re-skinned for USAF, it would be more than close enough.

Edited January 14 by streakeagle

[streakeagle]

If I can only have one, the EKA-3B Skywarrior would be the best choice: it was a full-fledged tanker and doubled as a standoff jammer while orbiting near the coast of Vietnam: 

The EB-66 looked a little different, but an EKA-3B in USAF colors would be good enough for me: 

[streakeagle]

Adding enough EW modeling to support Wild Weasels isn't enough. By Vietnam, you need to model the effects of jamming pods, internal jammers, chaff corridors, and standoff jammers to replicate real-world combat results. ED's current implementation of the SA-2 produces exceptionally high kill rates. If you create a mission with realistic SA-2 site density, unprotected flights of USAF F-4s and F-105s would never have gotten through in the Rolling Thunder campaign. 1972 Linebacker I missions, which relied heavily on EW capabilities, would be impossible to model accurately. For now, the only way to recreate such missions is to use a lot less SA-2 sites and/or use scripting to simulate jamming, which limits SA-2 active operation.

ED has quite a bit of work to do given their stated intention to model EW more realistically. While I am eager to see the results, I won't be holding my breath waiting for it. It could be years before tangible results are released into beta with most of the bugs worked out.

Edited January 14 by streakeagle

[Kalasnkova74]

3 hours ago, streakeagle said:

Adding enough EW modeling to support Wild Weasels isn't enough. By Vietnam, you need to model the effects of jamming pods, internal jammers, chaff corridors, and standoff jammers to replicate real-world combat results. ED's current implementation of the SA-2 produces exceptionally high kill rates. If you create a mission with realistic SA-2 site density, unprotected flights of USAF F-4s and F-105s would never have gotten through in the Rolling Thunder campaign. 1972 Linebacker I missions, which relied heavily on EW capabilities, would be impossible to model accurately. For now, the only way to recreate such missions is to use a lot less SA-2 sites and/or use scripting to simulate jamming, which limits SA-2 active operation.

ED has quite a bit of work to do given their stated intention to model EW more realistically. While I am eager to see the results, I won't be holding my breath waiting for it. It could be years before tangible results are released into beta with most of the bugs worked out.

 

Heres a video Link from players engaging a SAM site. It illustrates why this effort is a much bigger task than many realize. Would a competent SAM operator continue to transmit knowing there’s ARM- equipped aircraft in the vicinity? Nope! They’d shut down , and use alternative engagement techniques which don’t rely on radar. 
 

None of that real world tactical logic is modeled in game, and it would need to be for the EW framework to be complete. 
 

[Harlikwin]

1 minute ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

Heres a video Link from players engaging a SAM site. It illustrates why this effort is a much bigger task than many realize. Would a competent SAM operator continue to transmit knowing there’s ARM- equipped aircraft in the vicinity? Nope! They’d shut down , and use alternative engagement techniques which don’t rely on radar. 
 

None of that real world tactical logic is modeled in game, and it would need to be for the EW framework to be complete. 
 

It gets sorta complex, even stuff that uses optical tracking still uses a uplink to control the missile, which can be detected and jammed in some cases. 

[upyr1]

14 hours ago, streakeagle said:

The B-66 didn't just look similar, it was a direct derivative of the A-3 in the same way the F-4C/D was a direct derivative of the F-4B. Of course, the USAF made some alterations to suit its needs just as it did with the F-4. But they were just as much the same airframe as the F-4J and F-4E. Despite any differences incurred by USAF requirements, for my purposes they were the same aircraft employed the same way in Vietnam: standoff jamming.

If DCS World provided an A-3 in its dual-role tanker/jammer configuration, I would gladly use it as a stand-in for the B-66. Re-skinned for USAF, it would be more than close enough.

I am familiar with the history of the B-66 my dad was an EWO on an EB-66 shortly after he graduated from the USAF Academy and before he went to medical school. Comparing the A-3 and B-66 to the F-4B and C is not an accurate comparison. First the B-66 and A-3 had almost no parts commonality and second The F-4C wasn't known for having flameouts on take-off. The B-66 was heavier with less powerful and reliable engines they used the same engines as the F3H while the A-3 used the same engines as the Buff 

14 hours ago, streakeagle said:

If I can only have one, the EKA-3B Skywarrior would be the best choice: it was a full-fledged tanker and doubled as a standoff jammer while orbiting near the coast of Vietnam: 

The EB-66 looked a little different, but an EKA-3B in USAF colors would be good enough for me: 

An A-3 in USAF liveries would be a way more reliable plane. 

Edited January 15 by upyr1

[streakeagle]

20 hours ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

Heres a video Link from players engaging a SAM site. It illustrates why this effort is a much bigger task than many realize. Would a competent SAM operator continue to transmit knowing there’s ARM- equipped aircraft in the vicinity? Nope! They’d shut down , and use alternative engagement techniques which don’t rely on radar. 
 

None of that real world tactical logic is modeled in game, and it would need to be for the EW framework to be complete. 
 

There are already multiple scripts available that simulate IADS to a decent level including shutting down radar when an ARM is in the air. Skynet is one of them, MOOSE includes a similar library, MANTIS. While a properly implemented IADS does a better job of engaging them enemy, it is also more vulnerable: the scripts tie in power, command & control, etc. So, you can degrade the IADS by taking out different components.

[streakeagle]

11 hours ago, upyr1 said:

I am familiar with the history of the B-66 my dad was an EWO on an EB-66 shortly after he graduated from the USAF Academy and before he went to medical school. Comparing the A-3 and B-66 to the F-4B and C is not an accurate comparison. First the B-66 and A-3 had almost no parts commonality and second The F-4C wasn't known for having flameouts on take-off. The B-66 was heavier with less powerful and reliable engines they used the same engines as the F3H while the A-3 used the same engines as the Buff 

An A-3 in USAF liveries would be a way more reliable plane. 

 

The B-52 we have in game is very different from the B-52 of the Vietnam era. Completely different engines, very different nose and tail. Yet, as an AI aircraft it looks and acts like a B-52, especially with period correct liveries. Overall, the airframe is the same. The A-7 was based on the aerodynamics of the F-8, but are physically totally different airframes neither one can adequately perform the others' role. The physical differences between the B-66 and the A-3 are minor for game purposes no different than the generations of the B-52. An A-3 in a B-66 livery orbiting near a Hanoi strike providing stand-off jamming would not be an obvious difference until you get close enough to see the tail and nose differences. The 3-view from a distance would be almost indistinguishable unless you could make out the engine pods. Right now, I am stuck with using an S-3 as a tanker/standoff jammer stand-in for the EKA-3 and the B-66. I would prefer to have both in the game, but the EKA-3 can be dressed up to act as a B-66. Whereas a B-66 was not a tanker nor was it carrier based. So, if I can only have one, I would gladly take the EKA-3 and happily use it as a B-66.

[Omega417]

If we do get a 1970s EW picture, I feel the F-4C Wild Weasel IV would fit perfectly. Modified F-4C, extra antenna, extra systems, etc. Not too powerful, got just enough systems to be deadly to SAM sites.

[Dragon1-1]

On 1/14/2024 at 4:56 PM, streakeagle said:

ED's current implementation of the SA-2 produces exceptionally high kill rates.

That's because it's not the principal Vietnam model, but a late 60s upgrade vastly superior in just about every aspect. The war was over by the time Vietnam got any of those. The SA-2F that we have is basically the most mature version of the system (although there were some even later upgrades). Notably, it included ways to overcome jamming that could be used to completely shut down previous versions of the missile.

[streakeagle]

5 hours ago, Omega417 said:

If we do get a 1970s EW picture, I feel the F-4C Wild Weasel IV would fit perfectly. Modified F-4C, extra antenna, extra systems, etc. Not too powerful, got just enough systems to be deadly to SAM sites.

I would love to see this aircraft modeled as well as possible in DCS World.

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

That's because it's not the principal Vietnam model, but a late 60s upgrade vastly superior in just about every aspect. The war was over by the time Vietnam got any of those. The SA-2F that we have is basically the most mature version of the system (although there were some even later upgrades). Notably, it included ways to overcome jamming that could be used to completely shut down previous versions of the missile.

That makes sense, as almost everything else in DCS World is the last/best variant rather than what actually saw extensive frontline use.