Is a F-4G too classified?

[upyr1]

On 8/14/2023 at 8:45 PM, Biggus said:

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?

If the HTS is a good enough abstraction, then I would accept something similar in G. 

[_BringTheReign_]

49 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

If the HTS is a good enough abstraction, then I would accept something similar in G. 

This is an excellent point

[Temetre]

Afaik the RWR-stuff in the rear of the F-4G was also insanely complicated in reality, with rear seaters having to learn a hundred plus sound signatures or so. Listen to them all flight.

I wonder if this plane might be so niche its not a viable module. Like, how many people do even want to backseat? How many want to be in the backseat of an F-4G, and reguarly stay there?

For Heatblur to do make this plane, it would have to pay back the money, and be worth to do this plane rather than the alternatives. Even if it was sold as a 3rd F-4 module (after E + Naval), it would have to compete with  modernized variants, like F-4F ICE, and earlier F-4Cs or so.

 

Not that Im against an F-4G or so. It just seems like thres a lot of "ifs" that stand in the way.

Edited August 18, 2023 by Temetre

[JB3DG]

1 hour ago, Temetre said:

I wonder if this plane might be so niche its not a viable module. Like, how many people do even want to backseat? How many want to be in the backseat of an F-4G, and reguarly stay there?

 

I don't know about the F-14 as I hardly touch it even as a pilot, but I absolutely adore being a backseater on the F-15E. I think this question will take some time to answer because until now, we haven't really had many aircraft that support multi crew period. It's one of those questions where you first have to make it a reality before you can get the answer as to how many will actually do it.

[Temetre]

vor 19 Minuten schrieb JB3DG:

I don't know about the F-14 as I hardly touch it even as a pilot, but I absolutely adore being a backseater on the F-15E. I think this question will take some time to answer because until now, we haven't really had many aircraft that support multi crew period. It's one of those questions where you first have to make it a reality before you can get the answer as to how many will actually do it.

I know theres peopel who enjoy backseating, I think its just conceptually something that appeals to a lot fewer people than flying the planes. And DCS is quite niche in the first place.

The F-15E in the backseat you got a ton of stuff you can do, many powerful features and abilities. Its probably the most exciting backseating experience you can have.

I suspect the F-4G would be more like constantly listening to RWR tones, memorizing tons of different tones, giving directions while constantly scanning. During the entirety of the flight, you gonna do that monotonous work. Of course you gonna still operate the radar or guide the rare maverick, but thats not the main job. F-4G is only made for one role really.

I cannot imagine that many people will enjoy operating a 4G that way. 

Edited August 18, 2023 by Temetre

[Kalasnkova74]

10 hours ago, JB3DG said:

I don't know about the F-14 as I hardly touch it even as a pilot, but I absolutely adore being a backseater on the F-15E. I think this question will take some time to answer because until now, we haven't really had many aircraft that support multi crew period. It's one of those questions where you first have to make it a reality before you can get the answer as to how many will actually do it.

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. 
 

Brass tacks, for the F-4G to make sense DCS needs to realistically simulate modern IADS, and enable players to act as cunning SAM shooters in MP. I think electronic warfare would be a damn fun expansion to the DCS experience - anyone game for a Tornado ECR?- but just dropping the F-4G and calling it done won’t work. 
 

 

[JB3DG]

On 8/18/2023 at 10:37 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. 
 

Brass tacks, for the F-4G to make sense DCS needs to realistically simulate modern IADS, and enable players to act as cunning SAM shooters in MP. I think electronic warfare would be a damn fun expansion to the DCS experience - anyone game for a Tornado ECR?- but just dropping the F-4G and calling it done won’t work. 
 

 

EA-6B prowler would be fun too....

[exhausted]

On 8/14/2023 at 4:30 PM, LanceCriminal86 said:

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.

What if it's already available? We are not talking about providing them with anything, we are talking about the use of regulated materials by someone who may not be exposed to US jurisdiction, like a game developer in Europe.

[Kalasnkova74]

On 8/20/2023 at 2:58 PM, JB3DG said:

EA-6B prowler would be fun too....

There’s a point to be made for DCS expanding into the ECM regime.

Electronic attack is an important capability, and a more realistic panel of intelligent SAM and AAA shooters plus ECM would only enhance the game for many people. But it would be a lot of work, and only once complete would including modules of aircraft like the F-4G, EA-6B, EA-18, Tornado ECR and others make sense. 

[Biggus]

I'm not sure if it's just me, but I'm under the impression that the EW aspect of DCS is ever so slowly improving, partly through work by third parties and partly by ED.  I agree that it's enormous work and I'm not sure it'll ever reach what would be considered "realistic", but I'm hopeful that one day I'll be assigning a standoff jamming mission to an AI EA-3D in the editor, or a chaff barrage mission to a flight of F-105s.

[Grimleo]

Using physics and public descriptions of electronic warfare (EW) techniques you should be able to make a good simulation of an EW environment.  A simulation wouldn't need to know about how EW ciphers are created and used in real life. Only that Cipher A is encrypting Blue traffic on channel 122 MHz and so on.  Combine Arms Commanders should get an interface to setup EW options. Add it to the large list of DCS improvements. 

Of course, I want inert practice nuke bombs. Anything nuke is a pole ED doesn't seem to want to touch.

 

Edited August 23, 2023 by Grimleo

[Kalasnkova74]

On 8/22/2023 at 8:58 PM, Grimleo said:

Using physics and public descriptions of electronic warfare (EW) techniques you should be able to make a good simulation of an EW environment.  A simulation wouldn't need to know about how EW ciphers are created and used in real life. Only that Cipher A is encrypting Blue traffic on channel 122 MHz and so on.  Combine Arms Commanders should get an interface to setup EW options. Add it to the large list of DCS improvements. 

Of course, I want inert practice nuke bombs. Anything nuke is a pole ED doesn't seem to want to touch.

 

 

Hafta respectfully disagree with you here. First, not all info is public domain (for obvious reasons). 
 

Next, simulating a good EW environment goes well beyond just knowing the system capabilities. The human element needs to be included too. SAM and IADS operators are people who want to survive and win too, and they play multiple tricks to meet those goals just like fighter pilots do. 
 

For every Captain Snodgrass pulling circuit breakers to max perform their jet, you’ve got a Col Zoltan Dani on the ground switching their radar on and off to deny tracking and moving their site in record time to defeat ARM tracking. DCS needs a game option where a person on the ground is manipulating controls on an IADS to  defend a given airspace, while someone in an F-4G/ EA-6A / EA-6B/ Tornado ECR/ EA-18G etc is jamming and scanning to outwit them. It’s a very cops and robbers dynamic, and really can’t be implemented with the game in its current form.  
 

For what it’s worth, I’d love to play a crafty IADS commander like Serbian Colonel Dani. Playing Wild Weasel in DCS from both sides of the fence would be a rewarding insight into how SAM operators work, and add a layer of difficulty since flying players are fighting another human who wants to win. 

[Grimleo]

4 hours ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

Hafta respectfully disagree with you here. First, not all info is public domain (for obvious reasons). 
 

Next, simulating a good EW environment goes well beyond just knowing the system capabilities. The human element needs to be included too. SAM and IADS operators are people who want to survive and win too, and they play multiple tricks to meet those goals just like fighter pilots do. 
 

For every Captain Snodgrass pulling circuit breakers to max perform their jet, you’ve got a Col Zoltan Dani on the ground switching their radar on and off to deny tracking and moving their site in record time to defeat ARM tracking. DCS needs a game option where a person on the ground is manipulating controls on an IADS to  defend a given airspace, while someone in an F-4G/ EA-6A / EA-6B/ Tornado ECR/ EA-18G etc is jamming and scanning to outwit them. It’s a very cops and robbers dynamic, and really can’t be implemented with the game in its current form.  
 

For what it’s worth, I’d love to play a crafty IADS commander like Serbian Colonel Dani. Playing Wild Weasel in DCS from both sides of the fence would be a rewarding insight into how SAM operators work, and add a layer of difficulty since flying players are fighting another human who wants to win. 

Well to start with, you have emitters and receivers that transit or receive radio waves.  Emitters transmit across certain frequency bands at a certain power. Radio waves decrease by an RW/r² law. Receivers can pick up the radio waves and process the signal based on the amplitude of the received signal. Jammers are emitters that try to overpower a signal by overpowering it with their own jammer signal. I bet you know all of this Kalasnkova74.  We have this in DCS right now. 

So, let's start with radio communication. You can jam a radio channel if you overpower the channel. At a certain point, if the Transmitting Radio gets closer to the Target Receiver and if there is enough signal power, the signal "burns through" the jammer and the channel is picked up by the receiver.  I am inclined to think that DCS has this right now.

What I have not seen in DCS is that you can encrypt a channel. AI or Players should be able to choose to encrypt a channel. So, Blue chooses to encrypt channel A. The mission can start with the A Key distributed to all Blue Forces or not. If Red tries to listen in on Channel A without the Blue Key, Red will hear garbage. I think that mission and campaign maker could have fun with distributing encrypt keys to all Blue Forces. 

I will not get into Radar right now. The concepts are similar for radar.

[Harlikwin]

On 9/2/2023 at 11:58 AM, Grimleo said:

Well to start with, you have emitters and receivers that transit or receive radio waves.  Emitters transmit across certain frequency bands at a certain power. Radio waves decrease by an RW/r² law. Receivers can pick up the radio waves and process the signal based on the amplitude of the received signal. Jammers are emitters that try to overpower a signal by overpowering it with their own jammer signal. I bet you know all of this Kalasnkova74.  We have this in DCS right now. 

So, let's start with radio communication. You can jam a radio channel if you overpower the channel. At a certain point, if the Transmitting Radio gets closer to the Target Receiver and if there is enough signal power, the signal "burns through" the jammer and the channel is picked up by the receiver.  I am inclined to think that DCS has this right now.

What I have not seen in DCS is that you can encrypt a channel. AI or Players should be able to choose to encrypt a channel. So, Blue chooses to encrypt channel A. The mission can start with the A Key distributed to all Blue Forces or not. If Red tries to listen in on Channel A without the Blue Key, Red will hear garbage. I think that mission and campaign maker could have fun with distributing encrypt keys to all Blue Forces. 

I will not get into Radar right now. The concepts are similar for radar.

 

Yeah, but it gets complicated fast. And klash is somewhat right, while the basic principles are known, alot of the necessary details, like say transmit power, or antenna gains, are not and those are rather important. Same on the SAM side, though ED could at least improve how the early single digit sams work since that documentation is out there and it would remove emberassing DCS isms, like flying the SA-2 into the ground because in DCS it uses Prop nav whereas IRL at low alt it would use a 3 point mode etc.

I mean if you got the antenna gains for the ALQ-131 along with the TX power, duty cycles and the PRF's it can handle, post em up. (this is obviously a joke, since he doesn't have that)

Edited September 3, 2023 by Harlikwin

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, Harlikwin said:

And klash is somewhat right, while the basic principles are known, alot of the necessary details, like say transmit power, or antenna gains, are not and those are rather important.

Those can be estimated given that we know things like antenna dimensions, the rough amount of power a system has available (how much a Russian diesel generator can provide, or how much a Viper can push through its rail, etc.), and the performance of other, unclassified radar systems from the era. 

[Kalasnkova74]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Those can be estimated given that we know things like antenna dimensions, the rough amount of power a system has available (how much a Russian diesel generator can provide, or how much a Viper can push through its rail, etc.), and the performance of other, unclassified radar systems from the era. 

Do you know the PRF of an SA-10 “Flap Lid” radar? Because this sort of thing won’t work with guesstimates. Perhaps a degree of accuracy is available with early Cold War stuff ,  but launching ARMs and employing jamming against anything newer than an SA-2 is going to be difficult with public domain info. We’re back to square one with DCS simulating inaccurate SAM and IADS behavior. 

Real life Wild Weasel EWOs listened to tapes of the raw PRF of every Soviet Bloc air defense system in training. They were expected to commit that data to memory before leaving the schoolhouse. The US obtains some of it via discreet surveillance from platforms like the RC-135. ED has no chance obtaining that data legally. 

[Dragon1-1]

Well, PRF tone library is, in fact, being developed by HB. This is hardly an issue exclusive to the G model Phantom, in fact, if you want a taste of how it is to play the RWR by ear, try out the Viggen. It has a PRF tone library and yes, if you want it to do you any good, you'll have to listen and memorize at least ones that you expect to encounter (the Shilka is a particularly distinctive tone, which is good because it likes to eat low flyers like Viggens for breakfast). So I suspect HB has that covered.

It is not all that hard to find out at least some of those parameters. In fact, some of the earlier radars could be picked up by civilian ham radio equipment (most famously Duga, which was an outright nuisance). Even Wikipedia gives some information on power and modulation of some early S-300 radars, although sources on that are unclear. At least the radar side of the equation could likely be implemented quite well, with estimation filling the gaps. The hardest part would most likely be techniques used to spoof those radars, since jammers are much more classified and they don't come on willy-nilly.

[Stackup]

1 hour ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

We’re back to square one with DCS simulating inaccurate SAM and IADS behavior. 

So the current way it's simulated is innaccurate.  The only people that will know the difference will be the people who actually flew the missions or operated the radars and since they won't be telling us what's modelled right or wrong, who's to say we can't make a more accurate simulation of the EW environment by guessing?  In my opinion it would be better than nothing since what we currently have isn't great. 

Why shouldn't ED or whoever else attempt to actually simulate jamming or other parts of the EW environment that could enhance gameplay in a more realistic way?  If they can't get the information, and we can't get the information, how will we know that what is produced is completely inaccurate and wrong?  The answer is we won't know because we can't know.  I'd much rather have them attempt to make it more realistic than just leave it as is.

[Kalasnkova74]

39 minutes ago, Stackup said:

Why shouldn't ED or whoever else attempt to actually simulate jamming or other parts of the EW environment that could enhance gameplay in a more realistic way? 

Because ED’s got their hands full with upcoming updates, fixes and changes to DCS. It’s not logical for them to spend limited resources changing an inaccurate IADS simulation to one marginally less inaccurate. If the work is to be done, it should be done correctly - meaning using documented and legally available data to model how the systems behave. Moving from a 20% accurate to a 68% accurate EW setup -to me - is not worth the resources when other tasks are on the update shelf. You’re certainly free to disagree with me on that determination. Ultimately ED or a third party must decide if it’s worth the development effort-  or not. 

[upyr1]

On 8/18/2023 at 9:11 AM, Temetre said:

Afaik the RWR-stuff in the rear of the F-4G was also insanely complicated in reality, with rear seaters having to learn a hundred plus sound signatures or so. Listen to them all flight.

I wonder if this plane might be so niche its not a viable module. Like, how many people do even want to backseat? How many want to be in the backseat of an F-4G, and reguarly stay there?

For Heatblur to do make this plane, it would have to pay back the money, and be worth to do this plane rather than the alternatives. Even if it was sold as a 3rd F-4 module (after E + Naval), it would have to compete with  modernized variants, like F-4F ICE, and earlier F-4Cs or so.

 

Not that Im against an F-4G or so. It just seems like thres a lot of "ifs" that stand in the way.

 

There are a lot of questions, the top two are feasibility and interest. However, even if there is enough interest to merit an F-4G module there is the question if it is feasible.  I want an AI G at the minimum, and I would like to hear what Heatblur says about the G. 

[Temetre]

Am 5.9.2023 um 15:05 schrieb upyr1:

There are a lot of questions, the top two are feasibility and interest. However, even if there is enough interest to merit an F-4G module there is the question if it is feasible.  I want an AI G at the minimum, and I would like to hear what Heatblur says about the G. 

I might be misremembering, but IIRC someone from Heatblur actually said its probably not worth it for lack of interest, besides lack of documentation.

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, Temetre said:

I might be misremembering, but IIRC someone from Heatblur actually said its probably not worth it for lack of interest, besides lack of documentation.

I think lack of information might be the main issue. 

[Harlikwin]

On 9/6/2023 at 1:31 PM, upyr1 said:

I think lack of information might be the main issue. 

Thats without a doubt 100% the case. Plus realistically ED would actually have to model how SAM radars and IADS nets actually work in detail for it to be worth it for the weasel. It could be done for the single digit sams since most of that is known, but anything even vaguely modern, probably not.

 

Edited September 9, 2023 by Harlikwin

[Slick_441]

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. 

[Furia]

I am happy with an E with realistic setup and loadouts. I‘d rather have historically accurate aircraft with its era limitations than having „generic platforms“ that can be customized creatively to something not real. This is the way most DCS modules have been created and so far it is working real nice IMHO.