Electronic Warfare Aircraft

[AC130]

With the upcoming addition of the F-35 and its advanced features like the AN/ASQ-239 ew suite bringing offensive electronic warfare, it could be a good time to introduce specialized electronic attack aircraft like the EF-111 and/or EA-6B to DCS. 

[AndyJWest]

Good luck finding any documentation...

[twistking]

9 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

Good luck finding any documentation...

Fair. Could be interesting as AI aircraft though...

[Kang]

Could be interesting, but would require the whole EW side of things in DCS to at least have a simple modeling that is reasonably consistent throughout the world.

Not even talking about the whole multiplayer balance thoughts that I understand many people don't care about, but in any scenario such a concept would be wildly disappointing if it was only effective for a select few targets and others were completely immune.

[twistking]

Just now, Kang said:

[...] but in any scenario such a concept would be wildly disappointing if it was only effective for a select few targets and others were completely immune.

Amen! DCS needs consistency... and i'm not even a PvP guy.

[Silver_Dragon]

19 minutes ago, twistking said:

Amen! DCS needs consistency... and i'm not even a PvP guy.

This isn't about "balance," it's about reality. If you can't build something because there's no documentation (since much of that information is classified), then good luck trying to invent its functionality on your own (it's like trying to add both elctronic offensive and defensive capabilities to a ship)...

[MAXsenna]

This isn't about "balance," it's about reality. If you can't build something because there's no documentation (since much of that information is classified), then good luck trying to invent its functionality on your own (it's like trying to add both elctronic offensive and defensive capabilities to a ship)...

He never mentioned "balance", he specifically wrote consistency, and in this context it means that it should be on the same level of "reality" across all the modules.
You are of course correct about the documentation.

Cheers!

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[tora117]

On 9/27/2025 at 3:26 PM, AndyJWest said:

Good luck finding any documentation...

If ED actually has the documentation they claim to have to model the F35, modeling other older EW aircraft should be a breeze.

[draconus]

4 hours ago, tora117 said:

If ED actually has the documentation they claim to have to model the F35, modeling other older EW aircraft should be a breeze.

This is your false assumption.

[twistking]

A Vietnam Era SEAD/EW bird should be doable. Even if public documentation might be limited, the EW capabilities of those vintage jets could be guesstimated rather well i believe...

 

[Dragon1-1]

The problem is, capabilities are one thing, how they are used is another. EW aircraft have a lot of gear that allows them a lot of control over their jammers. Even a Vientam era design will be equipped with knobs for every parameter imaginable, and those knobs would be tuned based on what the operator sees on the screen. What's classified, even for Vietnam era jammers, is how it all comes together. Radar modeling in DCS is pretty detailed on new modules, so it follows the jamming would have to be, too.

[twistking]

2 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

The problem is, capabilities are one thing, how they are used is another. EW aircraft have a lot of gear that allows them a lot of control over their jammers. Even a Vientam era design will be equipped with knobs for every parameter imaginable, and those knobs would be tuned based on what the operator sees on the screen. What's classified, even for Vietnam era jammers, is how it all comes together. Radar modeling in DCS is pretty detailed on new modules, so it follows the jamming would have to be, too.

Good point (unfortunately).

[upyr1]

16 minutes ago, twistking said:

A Vietnam Era SEAD/EW bird should be doable. Even if public documentation might be limited, the EW capabilities of those vintage jets could be guesstimated rather well i believe...

We discussed Wild Weasels here. 

 

We have two discussions about the F-4G here 

I'm skeptical about getting full EW or Wild Weasel module. However I don't see why we couldn't have these planes as AI assets. We'd need a better EW modeling.

I'd love to have the EB-66 and EA-3 for Vietnam era missions

[upyr1]

11 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

The problem is, capabilities are one thing, how they are used is another. EW aircraft have a lot of gear that allows them a lot of control over their jammers. Even a Vientam era design will be equipped with knobs for every parameter imaginable, and those knobs would be tuned based on what the operator sees on the screen. What's classified, even for Vietnam era jammers, is how it all comes together. Radar modeling in DCS is pretty detailed on new modules, so it follows the jamming would have to be, too.

9 hours ago, twistking said:

Good point (unfortunately).

The EB-66 and EA-3 had a crew of 7. So even if all the information needed was open source, any module would require the AI to do most of the lifting. Which is why it would make way more sense to use that to improve the AI. The best I think we could get would be the Wild Weasels. They were two seaters on the blue side we have the base aircraft for one already in the game and another in the pipe. 

[twistking]

2 hours ago, upyr1 said:

[...] They were two seaters on the blue side we have the base aircraft for one already in the game and another in the pipe. 

You mean the Phantom? What other weasel is in the pipe? 

[draconus]

5 minutes ago, twistking said:

You mean the Phantom? What other weasel is in the pipe? 

Technically we have none and none is planned. But the general types we have are F-4 and F-16, with A-6 coming soon.

[Dragon1-1]

10 hours ago, upyr1 said:

The EB-66 and EA-3 had a crew of 7. So even if all the information needed was open source, any module would require the AI to do most of the lifting. Which is why it would make way more sense to use that to improve the AI. 

But that's the problem. What do those seven people do? You've got an AI aircraft that represents seven people operating a huge number of radio antennas, looking at the signals they receive and responding to that in real time. So we need to distinguish between what the aircraft theoretically can do, and what it would actually do in a real battlefield situation. They can choose to jam some frequencies but not others, interfere with comms and employ various EW techniques, at different power levels on different frequencies. The AI needs to make all those decisions in a believable way, but even this level is problematic, because those details are all classified. 

[zerO_crash]

On 9/28/2025 at 7:54 PM, Silver_Dragon said:

This isn't about "balance," it's about reality. If you can't build something because there's no documentation (since much of that information is classified), then good luck trying to invent its functionality on your own (it's like trying to add both elctronic offensive and defensive capabilities to a ship)...

 

Precisely brother!

 

People don't understand that trying to make one common system is indeed what ruins consistency. That because now you start discriminating individual system features in order to attempt a generalized approach. Why even bother making multiple EW aircraft, if they1l all fit the same bill with the same/similar capabilities?! Short-sighted thinking has never worked in the long run. 

 

Throw the notion of "balance" away. DCS will never have units respective to their counterparts for mainly political- and confidentiality reasons. EW is an even bigger problem, as there is even less information regarding it, than aircraft that we cannot currently get. Documentation isn't everything either; norms, practices and generally info that SME's would besit is scarce at best. I won't say never, as ED F-35 has surprised those of us being with the simulator since its inception the most, but I highly doubt they'd venture into this field for many years to come. 

 

I'll also add that this is a very niche field too. Not only do the aircraft often require multiple crew members (with modern aircraft, this is less of a problem due to automatization), but it would be an incredible niche in what already is a niche product. I cannot see such an aircraft selling enmasse, given the fact that it wouldn't carry any weapons.

Edited 20 hours ago by zerO_crash

[upyr1]

21 hours ago, twistking said:

You mean the Phantom? What other weasel is in the pipe? 

Then technically we might have 3 in the works. The original Wild weasel was the F-100F they didn't have ARMS so they attacked sams with cluster bombs. They were retired as Wild Weasles very early on, my dad started EWO training in the summer of 1966 and the Hun had just been retired as a Wild Weasel. We have a single seat Hun in the pipe but some of the code could be reused

EF-4C they were converted towards the end of Rolling Thunder 

of course we have the F-4E which were converted into the F-4G

21 hours ago, draconus said:

Technically we have none and none is planned. But the general types we have are F-4 and F-16, with A-6 coming soon.

I didn't say we had a weasel in the pip just the base aircraft used for weasels in the Pipe and we have the F-100

[upyr1]

10 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

But that's the problem. What do those seven people do? You've got an AI aircraft that represents seven people operating a huge number of radio antennas, looking at the signals they receive and responding to that in real time. So we need to distinguish between what the aircraft theoretically can do, and what it would actually do in a real battlefield situation. They can choose to jam some frequencies but not others, interfere with comms and employ various EW techniques, at different power levels on different frequencies. The AI needs to make all those decisions in a believable way, but even this level is problematic, because those details are all classified. 

Getting something good enough for DCS is going to be a lot easier to do with an AI only module than it would be with a flyable module.