ECM 2.0

[golfsierra2]

I like the new EW settings , and I'm curious the new burn through range is decided by the target RCS or My radar's power or both are effected?

 

I should be calculated from

- the ECM pod transmitting power

- your radar transmitting power

- the distance between you and the opponent

- the RCS of the opponent's aircraft

[Renato71]

I have not spent much time in a2a combat, so I do not have much online experience with ECM blinkers, but something just occured to me when I read sobek's post:

(...) electronic device designed to disrupt a radar can do it's job quite more effectively if the user does not turn it off while it's doing what it was built to do.

 

Now, if we all agree that:

1. no flightsim is simulating ECM properly/realistically, and

2. ECM spamming (E-E-E-E-E-E-E) is disrupting a lock in BVR

 

... then ECM blinking is in a fact the most realistic thing that you can have in FC, right?

 

I mean, the way ECM is working in FC, it only (a) reduces lock range and (b) enables HOJ. And we all agree that "real ECM does more than that". So? Whats the problem with ECM blinking?

[monotwix]

 

I mean, the way ECM is working in FC, it only (a) reduces lock range and (b) enables HOJ. And we all agree that "real ECM does more than that". So? Whats the problem with ECM blinking?

 

Because players use too many of their missiles on the blinking thing.

[Renato71]

Because players use too many of their missiles on the blinking thing.

 

But, ain't that the purpose of real ECM?

[monotwix]

The real ECM is yet to be identified or verified.

Edited November 28, 2009 by monotwix

[thaFunkster]

Actually yes, it is. What's the problem with putting a target box on it? It's the same as saying 'the emitter is in that direction', just adding one more dimension to it, which the radar can easily do.

 

Well, only realistic if the system is able to gauge relative elevation. If not, then vertical line would be more realistic than a box.

[Frostie]

Well, only realistic if the system is able to gauge relative elevation. If not, then vertical line would be more realistic than a box.

If it can gauge horizontally I don't see much difference in it gauging vertically. :)

[Frostie]

But, ain't that the purpose of real ECM?

I should imagine IRL the jammer automatically combats the radar and the radar combats the jammer, the radar for a contact and the jammer to deny a contact. What happens in LO when blinking occurs is just the jammers part of attack without the radar automatically fighting back, so this can be concluded as totally unrealistic.

[monotwix]

Why is it a vertical line and not horizontal and vertical? I.e you’d have a crosshair for every jammer.

[monotwix]

If it jams really hard then send a countermeasure unit IMO.

[Total]

I was Electronic Warfare in the Navy. I controlled the ECM system aboard both an LHD and a CVN. I was also in charge of controlling the EA-6B when they were aloft.

 

Going straight to ECM Active was a great way to fry a high voltage power supply or two. Turning ECM on and off repetatively was going to waste some TWT's. The TXT's were int he final stage before the altered signal was transmitted out the radome.

 

We had to go to ECM Standy to allow the HV PSU's to warm up and to allow the TWT's to warm up. 15 seconds, in my experience, is being generous. When in a hostile enviroment, we would keep the system in standby. Even on the EA-6B Prowler, the AN/ALQ-99 needed a warm up time.

 

The ECM "bumping" that has been used in LockOn, while an effective tactic in the game, is by no means realistic. All that would do in real life is really piss off the ground crew when you landed as well as ticking off your air wing commander at the money you'd be costing them.

 

While LockOn is not totally realistic (no flight sim is, not even the coveted Falcon), this a step in that direction.

[golfsierra2]

We had to go to ECM Standy to allow the HV PSU's to warm up and to allow the TWT's to warm up. 15 seconds, in my experience, is being generous. When in a hostile enviroment, we would keep the system in standby. Even on the EA-6B Prowler, the AN/ALQ-99 needed a warm up time.

One could overcome this delay or at least shorten it significantly by having the TX parts active all the time, but sending the output signal into a dummy load instead of the antennas.

 

I was I-HAWK TCO some decades ago, and we had our tracking radars and ROR in STBY, meaning the output power was only sent into the antenna when you switched from STBY to ON.

[Total]

In standby, were were no processing a signal. It was only preheating the components. Our dummy load was a seperate piece of gear only used in testing.

 

Some radar systems had a dummy load. Others would just kill the pretrigger in standby. This kept the magnetron from going pffft when it went active.

[A.S]

Intersting thread, let´s see how the practical implementations turn out once released.

Looking forward to discover more changes then just added "delays" in order to assure better gameplay.

Wonder if i still will be able to lock a jammer signals from 100nm.....etc etc....and few other things...

Edited November 29, 2009 by A.S

[159th_Viper]

Assume this all would apply to Bombers as well?

 

If so - No More Two-Run-ECM TOR kills and the like :thumbup:

[GGTharos]

Someone whisper in your ear that you can't lock up a range-jamming strobe from 100nm? What's the difference between a jamming strobe at 20nm and 100nm?

 

Intersting thread, let´s see how the practical implementations turn out once released.

Looking forward to discover more changes then just added "delays" in order to assure better gameplay.

Wonder if i still will be able to lock a jammer signals from 100nm.....etc etc....and few other things...

[Pilotasso]

hes recalling some features of LRM ECM/ECCM

[Frostie]

It bugs me when people suggest it should be like this in Lockon because it is in Falcon, they forget that Falcon is just a game and its actually not real. Yeah the buttons do the right thing but the radar logic is no better if not worse than lockon's.

[Aeroscout]

It bugs me when people suggest it should be like this in Lockon because it is in Falcon, they forget that Falcon is just a game and its actually not real. Yeah the buttons do the right thing but the radar logic is no better if not worse than lockon's.

+1

[A.S]

no comment

Edited December 2, 2009 by A.S

[thaFunkster]

I was Electronic Warfare in the Navy. I controlled the ECM system aboard both an LHD and a CVN. I was also in charge of controlling the EA-6B when they were aloft.

 

Going straight to ECM Active was a great way to fry a high voltage power supply or two. Turning ECM on and off repetatively was going to waste some TWT's. The TXT's were int he final stage before the altered signal was transmitted out the radome.

 

We had to go to ECM Standy to allow the HV PSU's to warm up and to allow the TWT's to warm up. 15 seconds, in my experience, is being generous. When in a hostile enviroment, we would keep the system in standby. Even on the EA-6B Prowler, the AN/ALQ-99 needed a warm up time.

 

The ECM "bumping" that has been used in LockOn, while an effective tactic in the game, is by no means realistic. All that would do in real life is really piss off the ground crew when you landed as well as ticking off your air wing commander at the money you'd be costing them.

 

While LockOn is not totally realistic (no flight sim is, not even the coveted Falcon), this a step in that direction.

 

Great Total, thanks for sharing your experience.

 

So could you suggest any ways that it could be implemented more realistically in game?

 

PS: EA-6s are great, I love those things.

[Total]

One thing that any sim is going to have a problem with is ECM modeling.

 

It's alot more than just "jamming a radar". There's different ypes of jamming. It does alot more than just create noise.

 

Here is one technique. It's called RGPO or Range Gate Pull Off

 

 

 

The ECM system receives the target emitter, then duplicates and amplifies the signal. It's a synthesizer at it's basic element. It then creates an offset. In the example above, the target signal is a Bravo Scan. aka Horizontal scanning radar. When the target radar receives the signal, it sees the target as being on a different azimuth (bearing from origin). The ECM system "walks" this offest out to a predefined limit, resets, and repeats the process. The goal of RGPO is to pull an incoming missile off it's course.

 

In the case of a missile homing radar, that horizontal window is going to be VERY narrow. RGPO is designed to open up that window. Get the missile to fly off course so you can evade (if in an aircraft) or get a hard kill with CIWS (if on a ship).

 

Now, there's many more techniques and not every technique is used the same. It depends on the radar. The "what technique to use and how to use it" are all defined in the software of the ECM system.

 

Now, throw in HOJ (Home On Jam) and you have to employ this technique in a tactical manner. Pull the missile off course with RGPO until the ECM system detects a change in operation of the seeker. Then it will disengage ECM or go to another technique. This causes the HOJ to shut off and the seeker to go active again.

 

Alot of missiles have an active seeker, are locked before they leave the rail, have chaff discrimination, and HOJ all in one convenient, high speed, death delivering package.

 

Here's why flight sim develoeprs cannot get this realistically modeled into the game: Everything about ECM techniques against specific emitters is classified. They get their hands on that and then put it into the game, then that can put them into a sticky situation.

 

In the case of LockOn, a 15 second warm up time is a good decision. Putting in this warmup time will get rid of the ECM On/Off/On/Off (repeat) exploit.

 

While realistically, pulsing ECM techniques definitely exists, the aircraft targeting and seeker radar models in LockOn, Falcon, etc etc are all modeled incomplete. Making a pulsing of ECM an exploit instead of realistic. If it were realistic, then the seekers and targeting radars would have the ways to combat the technique built in. It would take the power of the entire engine just to model the targeting and seeker radars, ECM techniques, radar cross section of chaff types, Infrared signatures, and overall radar propogation.

 

Hope this all makes sense :)

Edited November 30, 2009 by Total

[GGTharos]

You don't need to go that far though. :)

 

You can model a lot of EW with some simple programming tricks ... or should I say 'simple'. I won't really go into it, other than to say you could make things look realistic at least somewhat, though you definitely couldn't realistically portray 'this side vs. that side' ... and of course, for the most part we don't really know what techniques an ECM/ECCM uses - it's guesswork, but it can still be made to be 'gee whiz'.

[Total]

Hehehe, that it can and it does look "gee whiz"

 

As a former EW whose job is was to fry radars, it's fun being on the other side of it ingame :D

 

Although I do admit in taking great pride in the time that a Foruno radar got on the same bearing as a test signal we were jamming and it was running the same Frew and PRF (system hadn't processed the circular scan yet). The smoke coming from the bridge of that fishing boat caused a good bit of laughter in the module LOL!

Edited November 30, 2009 by Total

[A.S]

Thanks Total for that short and clear explantion.

Precise and a joy to read unlike some other ridiculing replies from

so called "self proclaimed experts". :smilewink: whos greatest radar expierience

might have been the micorwave in the kitchen.

Edited December 2, 2009 by A.S