Improved EW and Sead.

[upyr1]

I know there was talk about an iad before. Hopefully we'll see that in dcs core.

Here my wishlist 

Jammer planes. 

Unless this is already modeled unless an ai aircraft has the proper ew gear the range of a sam should be unknown.

Sam operators should shut their radars down if they think an arm or sead flight is targeting them. Also if possible they should keep their radars off if they have a data link.

Less accurate aaa.

 

[SilentSparrow]

I think that ALQ-99s are too classified for now, maybe in the future we can get proper EW. But IADS should be in DCS, IDK why it isn’t yet even with Skynet IADS and Dynamic Campaign.

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, SilentSparrow said:

I think that ALQ-99s are too classified for now, maybe in the future we can get proper EW. But IADS should be in DCS, IDK why it isn’t yet even with Skynet IADS and Dynamic Campaign.

 

They might be too classified for a flyable mod however what's stopping them from being AI?

[Silver_Dragon]

3 hours ago, upyr1 said:

They might be too classified for a flyable mod however what's stopping them from being AI?

The problem has ED like implement realism features, no a "placebo" with insight to put them into modules. Many of EW, ECM and ECCM has classified and very low material has available by open sources.

The situation about Jammers has not only a problem about aircrafts, other systems as land and sea use Jammers (all missing on ships) and Decoys (The missing GEN-X decoy on Hornet)

[bies]

2 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

The problem has ED like implement realism features, no a "placebo" with insight to put them into modules. Many of EW, ECM and ECCM has classified and very low material has available by open sources.

The situation about Jammers has not only a problem about aircrafts, other systems as land and sea use Jammers (all missing on ships) and Decoys (The missing GEN-X decoy on Hornet)

Newer systems are classified, but many 1970-1980s are not and could be modeled in reasonably realistic way.

[F-2]

21 minutes ago, bies said:

Newer systems are classified, but many 1970-1980s are not and could be modeled in reasonably realistic way.

If they are not too many people have shared them.

 

 

 

what I’ve come across

 

AD0526139 Evaluation of ECM Pod Performance with Various Formations (Phase 1) 5/1/1973

 

TACTICAL FIGHTER WEAPONS CENTER NELLIS AFB NV 109 pages

 

ADB186362 U.S. Japan FS-X (FSX) Program Technology Bibliography: IEWS (Integrated Electronic Warfare System)

 

126 pages

 

 

 

ADB199302  U.S. Japan FS-X (FSX) Program Technical Abstracts, Volume 2, Subject: 17. Integrated Electronic Warfare System (IEWS). 

 

 

AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS CENTER WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB OH FS-X PROGRAM (JAPAN)

5/1/1995 6 pages

I haven’t gotten any of these in my hand to date though I’m working on the last two if someone wants to try for the first.

 

 

also some radars have lots of detailed information in the public domain. N019 has a book on it, modeling it in a very detailed way would make it comparatively easy to model its reaction to electronic interference.

[upyr1]

3 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

The problem has ED like implement realism features, no a "placebo" with insight to put them into modules. Many of EW, ECM and ECCM has classified and very low material has available by open sources.

 

 

This is why I don't believe a flyable jammer will ever be possible. However given how ECM works in DCS AI jamers might work

3 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

The situation about Jammers has not only a problem about aircrafts, other systems as land and sea use Jammers (all missing on ships) and Decoys (The missing GEN-X decoy on Hornet)

 

They needed to be added too then. 

1 hour ago, bies said:

Newer systems are classified, but many 1970-1980s are not and could be modeled in reasonably realistic way.

 

I say time for a FOIA request on the Thud Weasel and EB-66

[SilentSparrow]

On 5/6/2023 at 3:45 AM, Silver_Dragon said:

The problem has ED like implement realism features, no a "placebo" with insight to put them into modules. Many of EW, ECM and ECCM has classified and very low material has available by open sources.

The situation about Jammers has not only a problem about aircrafts, other systems as land and sea use Jammers (all missing on ships) and Decoys (The missing GEN-X decoy on Hornet)

Placebo is fine, ED is doing that with the Meteor (Yes, ED manages all weapons).

On 5/6/2023 at 7:31 AM, upyr1 said:

This is why I don't believe a flyable jammer will ever be possible. However given how ECM works in DCS AI jamers might work

They needed to be added too then. 

I say time for a FOIA request on the Thud Weasel and EB-66

Not possible, FOIA does not extend to the military. If it did then the Chinese would have filed a FOIA request for the F-35 10 years ago and learned everything (They didn't). Many things in the military are no secret, but the specifics are. And that's why FOIA doesn't extend to the military.

[F-2]

46 minutes ago, SilentSparrow said:

Placebo is fine, ED is doing that with the Meteor (Yes, ED manages all weapons).

Not possible, FOIA does not extend to the military. If it did then the Chinese would have filed a FOIA request for the F-35 10 years ago and learned everything (They didn't). Many things in the military are no secret, but the specifics are. And that's why FOIA doesn't extend to the military.

Yes FOIA does apply to the military, they can refuse of releasing it will be harmful to national security but they are legally obliged to review it. I even posted three documents they are not classified.

[upyr1]

13 hours ago, SilentSparrow said:

Not possible, FOIA does not extend to the military. If it did then the Chinese would have filed a FOIA request for the F-35 10 years ago and learned everything (They didn't). Many things in the military are no secret, but the specifics are. And that's why FOIA doesn't extend to the military.

 

 

 

 

 

 The F-35 is still in service while the EB-66 and F-105G were retired in the 1970s so there might be a lot of declassified material. The worse thing that happens if we try is the request gets denied. 

Edited May 10, 2023 by upyr1

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

20 hours ago, upyr1 said:

 The F-35 is still in service while the EB-66 and F-105G were retired in the 1970s so there might be a lot of declassified material. The worse thing that happens if we try is the request gets denied. 

 

I'd doubt it, but it can't hurt to try.

It's key to remember that age isn't necessarily a good mile-marker for whether or not something will be declassified. After all, legacy systems like that stay classified as they may still be in use with allies. When time comes around for them to finally retire them? So much time may have passed that the system itself is relegated to obscurity and thus remains classified not out of intention but rather apathy.

Still can't hurt to ask.

[upyr1]

3 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

I'd doubt it, but it can't hurt to try.

It's key to remember that age isn't necessarily a good mile-marker for whether or not something will be declassified. After all, legacy systems like that stay classified as they may still be in use with allies. When time comes around for them to finally retire them? So much time may have passed that the system itself is relegated to obscurity and thus remains classified not out of intention but rather apathy.

Still can't hurt to ask.

 

As I said earlier, there is nothing to lose in making the request. Worst thing that happens is it gets denied because the systems are still classified. 

[F-2]

36 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

As I said earlier, there is nothing to lose in making the request. Worst thing that happens is it gets denied because the systems are still classified. 

You could ask DTIC to run a search of documents in the DOD database based on keywords, for example “ECM” “EB-6” etc and they will search and give you a spreed sheet telling you if a document is classified, export controlled, etc.

 

also even if a document is classified, they still have to review it for you.

[upyr1]

18 hours ago, F-2 said:

You could ask DTIC to run a search of documents in the DOD database based on keywords, for example “ECM” “EB-6” etc and they will search and give you a spreed sheet telling you if a document is classified, export controlled, etc.

 

also even if a document is classified, they still have to review it for you.

 

https://discover.dtic.mil/results/?q=eb-66#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=eb-66&gsc.page=1 here is what searching their page came up with

[F-2]

2 hours ago, upyr1 said:

https://discover.dtic.mil/results/?q=eb-66#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=eb-66&gsc.page=1 here is what searching their page came up with

That’s excellent but you can send a FOIA to DTIC with terms you want searched. For example I sent a request asking them to search some terms related to Soviet aircraft and they sent this

 

https://www.mediafire.com/file/n272j3f5twukeww/FOIA+UL+Bib+2023-36-1,FOIA+UL+Bib+2023-36-2,FOIA+UL+Bib+2023-36-3.zip/file

 

you can see they can search the whole DoD not just their website.

if you ask they to search certain aircraft or systems you will get a similar list and can focus your request there.