investigating ECM break lock techniques using Mode 1 and Mode 2 are wholly ineffective.

[WHOGX5]

After doing some tests where I fly in a straight line towards an SA-5, I have come to a few conclusions about ECM performance in regards to the DCS AN/ALQ-184. I have attached 5 different track files from the 5 tests. I did every test twice, and the results were identical indicating that ECM in DCS is very likely to be deterministic, so I've only attached one set of tracks. During the tests I was flying at approximately FL250 at a speed of about M0.8.

Test 1 - No ECM, Result: Stable lock at 75 nautical miles.

Test 2 - ECM in Mode 1, Result: Stable lock at 72 nautical miles.

Test 3 - ECM in Mode 2, Result: Stable lock at 72 nautical miles.

Test 4 - ECM in Mode 3, Result: Stable lock at 31 nautical miles.

Test 5 - ECM in Mode 3, but I only turn it on after being locked by the SA-5 and turn it off again after a lock has been broken, Result: Stable lock at 72 nautical miles.

As you can see, there are a few take aways from these tests. Firstly, as most of you probably know, the difference between Mode 1 and Mode 2 is that Mode 2 will silence your radar in order to increase ECM performance, but according to these tests, it makes no difference whatsoever performance wise. Therefore there is no reason to ever use Mode 2, as it is objectively worse than Mode 1.

On a similar note, in Test 5 where the Mode 3 barrage jam is manually activated in order to emulate Mode 2, you can see that it has the exact same performance as both Mode 1 and Mode 2.

Lastly, there is no real reason to use Mode 1 or Mode 2 at all, as they only shorten the max range for an SA-5 to acquire a stable l ock by ~4% in exchange of decreasing the performance of, or even inhibiting, your radar. The only really effective jamming tactic is Mode 3 barrage jamming before being locked up by the enemy emitter. As soon as you've been locked, you may as well turn off your ECM to prevent home-on-jam shots as your ECM will not be able to break the lock again until you've reached a distance of within ~4% of max lock range, at which point you're pretty much out of harms way anyways.

I obviously don't have any real life data on AN/ALQ-184 effectiveness against an SA-5, and since ED does not specify which variant of the Spoon Rest track radar they've simulated for the DCS SA-5 it's hard to even make an uneducated guess, but based on this test my personal opinion is that the effectiveness of barrage jamming seems to at least be within the confines of reason, whilst Mode 1 and Mode 2 break lock techniques are completely ineffective. The effectiveness of Mode 1 and Mode 2 should be increased with Mode 2 being closer in performance to Mode 3, whilst Mode 1 should have a slight decrease in performance compared to Mode 2 as a result of not silencing the radar. My guess is also that Mode 1 would have a much bigger decrease in performance against emitters with a similar frequency to the F-16CM-50s AN/APG-68V(5) radar (around 10-26 GHz according to public sources), but remain near equally effective against emitters using other radar bands as Mode 2.

SA-5_TEST_Mode_2.trk SA-5_TEST_Mode_3.trk SA-5_TEST_Mode_3_Break_Lock.trk SA-5_TEST_No_ECM.trk SA-5_TEST_Mode_1.trk

[BIGNEWY]

Hi, 

I will ask the team, but it will be difficult for me to suggest any change be made based on your assumptions, if you do have any evidence regarding the SA-5 please PM me. 

thank you 

[NineLine]

Previous post is hidden for review, will unhide if deemed legit. Thanks 

[JTFF - Raph]

9 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Previous post is hidden for review, will unhide if deemed legit. Thanks 

Hi Nineline,

No problems everything is from my personnal learning or public DBs (no shenanigans with dorking etc). I do not have access to any classified data so I am sure it will be fine.

I will wait for your feedbacks guys and as said I would be happy to help further.

 

Have a nice day 

[WHOGX5]

On 3/25/2024 at 3:22 PM, BIGNEWY said:

Hi, 

I will ask the team, but it will be difficult for me to suggest any change be made based on your assumptions, if you do have any evidence regarding the SA-5 please PM me. 

thank you 

My community has done some more testing to check the effectiveness of the AN/ALQ-184 against different threats in DCS. As you can see, in its current state, the AN/ALQ-184 in DCS is practically useless in Mode 1 and Mode 2 against all concievable threats, and should never be used in those modes in its current state as it only really decreases/inhibits your own radar performance but not the enemies. Mode 3 barrage jamming is the only effective method if it is activated before you get locked (same performance as Mode 1 and Mode 2 if activated after lock), but it really only has a tactical impact against very long range SAMs like the SA-5 and SA-10. For most medium and short range SAM systems, even Mode 3 has a negligable impact if any at all and should probably not be used.

Seeing as the AN/ALQ-184 is quoted, in real life, as being extremely effective and being a main contributor to the extremely low kill rate of SAM systems against platforms carrying this jamming system (primarily wild weasel F-16CM-50's), it has to be markedly more effective than it currently is in DCS. I think it's fair to say that electronic warfare is the single most important aspect of aerial warfare in today's age, and seeing as just the AN/ALQ-184 program alone has cost billions of dollars and ended up being equipped on the US Air Force's premiere SEAD platform, it must bring with it a major tactical advantage, which we don't see in DCS at the moment.

You also have to remember that the AN/ALQ-184 in DCS seemingly has 360 degree coverage. In real life, it uses Rotman lenses fore and aft, meaning that it cannot jam threats off to the sides, or above/below the host aircraft. Based on public information about Rotman lenses in the scientific field, we know that they have the ability to jam multiple emitters in multiple bands simultaneously, with quite a wide field of view but with a dropoff in effective radiated power towards the edges of it's field of view, at very high angles. This should reasonable mean that, in real life, the AN/ALQ-184's tactical use has to be great enough to make it worthwhile for a pilot to point his aircraft towards or away from an emitter after getting locked up, and also make it effective enough to be used on wild weasel F-16C's whose sole job is to fly in and get locked up and shot at by various SAM systems. Currently in DCS, seeing as Mode 3 is the only effective mode, you have to completely inhibit your own radar and HTS pod and fly around blind to get any use out of ECM, making you wholly ineffective as a wild weasel. Whether you are in Mode 1, 2 or 3, you cannot expect to break locks at any meaningful range, meaning that you need to constantly barrage jam before being locked up to get any protection at all, and even this would only result in SAM systems launching in home-on-jam mode or enemy signal interception systems triangulating your position in real time.

Anyways, here are the experimentally acquired values in DCS:

ECM Mode     Max lock distance     Max stable lock distance

---SA-2

OFF     27.5 nm     27.5 nm
Mode 1     27.5 nm     27.5 nm
Mode 2     27.5 nm     27.5 nm
Mode 3     24 nm         24 nm

---SA-3

OFF     14.5 nm     14.5 nm
Mode 1     14.5 nm     14.5 nm
Mode 2     14.5 nm     14.5 nm
Mode 3     14.5 nm     13 nm

---SA-5

OFF     75 nm         75 nm
Mode 1     75 nm         72 nm
Mode 2     75 nm         72 nm
Mode 3     31 nm         31 nm

---SA-6

OFF     24 nm         24 nm
Mode 1     24 nm         24 nm
Mode 2     24 nm         23 nm
Mode 3     21 nm         21 nm

---SA-8

OFF     11.5 nm     11.5 nm
Mode 1     11.5 nm     11.5 nm
Mode 2     11.5 nm     11.5 nm
Mode 3     10.8 nm     10.8 nm

---SA-10

OFF     35 nm         35 nm
Mode 1     35 nm         32 nm
Mode 2     35 nm         35 nm
Mode 3     24.5 nm     24.5 nm

---SA-11

OFF     21 nm         21 nm
Mode 1     21 nm         18 nm
Mode 2     21 nm         18 nm
Mode 3     15.5 nm     15.5 nm

---SA-15

OFF     10 nm         10 nm
Mode 1     10 nm         8 nm
Mode 2     10 nm         8 nm
Mode 3     6.5 nm         6.5 nm

---SA-19

OFF     6 nm         6 nm
Mode 1     6 nm         6 nm
Mode 2     6 nm         6 nm
Mode 3     6 nm         6 nm

[NineLine]

Thanks all, we are taking a good look at this now.

[RyanR]

Is there trouble with the 184 and other modules that use it? A-10, for example?

I've noticed (by accident, really) that only mode 3 really seems to work. Nice to see some data.

Does the 131 have similar issues? Should I give it a try?

-Ryan

 

 

 

[Moonshine]

they are all the same currently. just a different look. there isnt even a difference between the 184 long or short pod. dont know about the A-10 though. maybe there it performs. doubtful though

[JTFF - Raph]

3 minutes ago, RyanR said:

Is there trouble with the 184 and other modules that use it? A-10, for example?

I've noticed (by accident, really) that only mode 3 really seems to work. Nice to see some data.

Does the 131 have similar issues? Should I give it a try?

-Ryan

Hello @RyanR 

I dont know if WHOGX5 did some tests on the 131 version, personnally I didn't.

In fact we see that the actual implementation of the 184 is not really acurate and we are trying to give them more data.

 

My last post is under examination so we don't know exactly how ED wants to implement EW, at least what degree of fidelity they are targeting and what type of data they are looking for if needed.

I don't think there is really a bug with the actual pod but maybe there is ?

As you can see you may have to jam with XMIT 3 which seems to be more acurate at this moment.

 

Let us know if you have better results with the 131 but I am pretty sure that 131, 184 short and 184 long have the same code 

 

Kind regards

[RyanR]

3 hours ago, JTFF - Raph said:

Let us know if you have better results with the 131 but I am pretty sure that 131, 184 short and 184 long have the same code 

 

 

Fun experiment! I'm such a newbie with EW, that I find this stuff super interesting. I hadn't "flown" with a 131 since my Falcon days in the 1980's. It's been WWII stuff ever since.

I had pretty much the same results with the 131: 72nm with 0, 1, and 2. And 30nm in position #3. At 30nm, it's a double edged sword, because the SA-5 will let a missile rip.... and you're kinda boned at that point. It does make sense that you're going to get locked up at the same point regardless with the ECM not transmitting. The 131 wasn't great at breaking the lock.

I'm including a TRK that shows a problem at the very end: Sometimes after running the ECM in vairious positions, I can't seem to get the FCR to come back to life, no matter what I do. Sometimes it comes back to life, sometimes it simply won't. I can only restore the radar by turning the ECM completely off. In the track file below, you can see this problem half way through when I decided to see how dangerous an SA-5 was up close, and engage it with guns. I fumbled with all the CMDS knobs/switches before simply turning the ECM so I could use the radar to drive the gun pipper. Apologies if this is hijacking the thread.

-Ryan

 

 

 

radar issue.trk

[JTFF - Raph]

Hello I took a look back in DCS F-16's manual to check if we had an overview of the actual implementation of the ECM pod. I finally found it, they updated this section. Here is what they are trying to simulate at this moment :

XMIT 1 : Deception jamming with degraded FCR (simulates the fact that the FWD antenna is not used to prevent jamming of front onboard transceivers)
XMIT 2 : Deception jamming with FCR put in standby (simulates onboard transceiver jamming). FWD antenna inhibited if AIM-120 weapon profile is selected (like XMIT 1)
XMIT 3 : Continuous noise jamming with BT range (barrage, spot or sweep spot)

So if the two deceptions modes are working, we could be locked but we should be inducing error to the tracking radar. The SA-5 is not HOJ capable so we might be able to see missiles passing arround us. For an SA-10 it should be able to shoot at us weather we are jamming or not.

Edit for deception : If we are locked we can disrupt it, but if we are not we can create multiple false targets to mask us, forcing the victim to handle multiple targets, find the true target or do some HOJ.


ED own documentation

My conclusions for now :

- In modes 1 and 2 the tracking radars should have "false targets" and it might disrupt a lock or missile guidance (except for HOJ)
- The actual ECM coverage is not accurate (omnidirectionnal instead of directional to the front and aft)
- We do not know what type of deception jamming ED wants to or are already simulating, so it is hard to tell what behavior we can expect from tracking radars or FCR

I will give it a try when I have more time.

@RyanR Your problem must be caused by the FCR being turned to STBY. As you can see the documentation ED is 'turning off' the FCR to simulate it is completely jammed by your pod. You should have your FCR operating but degraded in mode 1, or in mode 2 with AIM-120 selected only. With ECM not transmitting you should have acccess to your FCR with its full power.

EDIT : this is explained that all actual EW pods in DCS are identical, excepted for weight and drag values.
EDITED and corrected wrong sentences

Edited Thursday at 04:36 PM by JTFF - Raph

[NineLine]

As tagged, we are investigating, thanks. 

[RyanR]

12 hours ago, JTFF - Raph said:

- In modes 1 and 2 the tracking radars should have "false targets" and it might disrupt a lock or missile guidance (except for HOJ)
- The actual ECM coverage is not accurate (omnidirectionnal instead of directional to the front and aft)
- We do not know what type of deception jamming ED wants to or are already simulating, so it is hard to tell what behavior we can expect from tracking radars or FCR

 

 

Your points make total sense. What the SAM site "sees" is a black box. The fact that the RWR is screaming doesn't meant that the there's still a hard lock.  As end users, we'd almost need to do a long distance merge with another human in a plane with a good radar (e.g. F-18). See what happens, and at what distances with each of the three ECM modes.

-Ryan

[Oldcrow Jr. 62]

I've read what you all have posted. There is one element of ECM that you might not be considering.

With respect to jamming an enemy ground radar signal, this radiated signal strength is a function of range and output power of the Antenna. This radiated Power will fall off due to atmospheric conditions and propagation physics. The farther away from a ground radar antenna which is broadcasting, the less power propagated from your jamming antenna you will need to effectively override the radars signal, and affect the return signal to the ground radar. As you get closer to the source of the Radar signal, the stronger that signal will be, and thus more power radiated from your ECM antenna is needed to overcome and affect that signal you will need. At some point, the Ground Radar, will effectively "burn through" your ECM output, as that signal will be stronger than your countering signal. When this "burn through" occurs you no longer are able to "jam" the signal, thus making your ECM ineffective.

I am not sure how DCS models ECM and Radar Signals, but is it possible that you have actually passed this "burn through" point, and thus seeing the results you are talking about? 

Again, that is my basic understanding of Radar's and ECM, so if I am in error with respect to this, please feel free to correct me.

 

 

 

[JTFF - Raph]

3 hours ago, Oldcrow Jr. 62 said:

I've read what you all have posted. There is one element of ECM that you might not be considering.

With respect to jamming an enemy ground radar signal, this radiated signal strength is a function of range and output power of the Antenna. This radiated Power will fall off due to atmospheric conditions and propagation physics. The farther away from a ground radar antenna which is broadcasting, the less power propagated from your jamming antenna you will need to effectively override the radars signal, and affect the return signal to the ground radar. As you get closer to the source of the Radar signal, the stronger that signal will be, and thus more power radiated from your ECM antenna is needed to overcome and affect that signal you will need. At some point, the Ground Radar, will effectively "burn through" your ECM output, as that signal will be stronger than your countering signal. When this "burn through" occurs you no longer are able to "jam" the signal, thus making your ECM ineffective.

I am not sure how DCS models ECM and Radar Signals, but is it possible that you have actually passed this "burn through" point, and thus seeing the results you are talking about? 

Again, that is my basic understanding of Radar's and ECM, so if I am in error with respect to this, please feel free to correct me.

 

 

 

@Oldcrow Jr. 62

You are absolutely right, regarding noise jamming this relies on signal/noise. On a barrage jamming the BT is far away, in spot jamming the BT is closer to the victim (because you are either spreading your energy or concentrating it). Some previous posts are hidden but it seems BT range is hardcoded and active in DCS.

Regarding deception you don't need that much power, you just catch the signal, process it, inject error and send it back.

Kind regards

[Corrigan]

The important insight in the above reasoning is that the signal strength of the radar return goes as the fourth power of the distance to the target, but the signal strength of the target's jammer only as the second power.