IFF "can't be done" -- bollocks

[Stretch]

Every so often someone brings up the possibility of modeling IFF systems, and the general consensus is that it can't be done in a desktop simulator. (I'm drawing from what I've read on the FF/RV/OF/AF forums). To that I say -- why not? I'm admittedly still new to Black Shark but I've read every page of every F-16 document I as a civilian could find, and there's nothing in there that precludes an exceptional modeling of IFF in a desktop sim. And the F-16's IFF interrogator/transponder is more complex than the Ka-50's transponder, so I say -- why not?

 

I don't have the Ka-50 transponder's details in front of me, but I'm assuming it responds to military and civilian interrogations (to take a NATO example, mode-3 and mode-4). Microsoft Flight Simulator already does a decent job of modeling the civilian side of IFF -- you receive mode-3 codes from your controllers and if you don't enter them into your transponder, they complain occasionally that they can't see you on radar. In real life of course, they would make you try such witch-chants as identing or recycling your transponder power, and failing that they'd kick you out of their airspace if they didn't want to deal with you. All of this can be modeled in a sim. It would be easy to have controllers ask you ident upon first contact, and have them complain when they don't see your mode-3 or mode-3/C.

 

As for military IFF ... again, don't know the details of the Black Shark so let's talk Viper. The mode-4 codes are stored encrypted and loaded into the airplane by machine, rather than entered by hand, something which is typically handled on behalf of the pilot, rather than by the pilot. So no need to model anything there. If you turn off your mode-4 ... well, that's a stickier issue. As a civilian pilot I can't say definitively what would happen but I imagine either a) your flight members/AWACS would notice and warn you over the radio, or b) your chance of getting blue-on-blue'd increases slightly (only slightly I'd say since besides IFF, other pilots rely on many other sources of information to make friendly/bandit decisions). Modeling warnings from AWACS/flight members about an incorrect IFF response is easily done; modeling the blue-on-blue is not, but I imagine there are some simplified ways to do it.

 

Feel free to correct me if I am missing something here. But it seems like IFF is not the insurmountable task people say it is.

[Panzertard]

I cant really speak for whats the real Kamov-50 is like, but what I can tell you is that if you use your ABRIS, you can use it to identify Friendly Ka-50 flights within it, as long as you all stay on the default channel.

Nice tool for MP.

 

As for other threats - I dont know.

But I assume ED had their reasons for implementing IFF as it is in the current version.

[GGTharos]

So we 'talked' IFF, now let's talk software.

 

It would be nice to have the dev time to do 'this and that'. IFF falls into 'this and that' category. It requires major surgery for AI at minimum to actually add actions and possibly dialogue and other details and events. There there's no simulator out there yet that I know of that models it as anything other than in the simplest 'I am friendly' response as opposed to the potential complications that arise from actual use of IFF.

 

I'll give you a very simple example: You're IFFing and on the same LOS you have two targets. The response comes back friendly ... but from whom? Either you mark both friendly or both enemy - and you don't know who's who. What about false returns from terrain? It can and does happen.

 

Mode 4 can do much better, but that is because mode 4 transmits position data. Even then it's not always 100% for various reasons.

[Eddie]

You are correct that the information on the functionality (for the most part) of IFF, including mode 4, is available online so in theory ED could model IFF in future aircraft (western at least).

 

The problem is (in my opinion at least) that given ED at present are producing retail sims based on products developed for military customers, and those customers are not going to allow something as protected as IFF to be modelled in a public version of software they helped to produce. Of course if we get to the point where ED run out of military customers and they start to produce sims based on publicly available information then, yes, I think it might be possible at least for ED to include things like IFF based on public info and educated guess work. But until then I don't see it happening.

 

Remeber, IFF much like some elements of datalink and radio systems in highly protected within the armed forces of any nation, it has a protection status all of it's own, seperate and above, even secret.

[Stretch]

I purposely limited the discussion to whether there's an issue over possibility, rather than framing it as a "why didn't ED do this?" type whine. Obviously in the world of combat sims, DBS radar modes look great at any angle and low-flying airplanes appear on search radar even if they match the apparent speed of ground clutter, and so forth. I'm not saying "ED should do this"; instead I'm asking if it's even possible, because I think lots of people say it isn't.

[GGTharos]

It isn't about it not being possible - ED could do it, but it would be a major effort.

[Eddie]

I'd say it's certainly possible from a technical standpoint at least, the information for the most part is there. It's the issues I mentioned above that hold it back in my view.

[EtherealN]

I'd say the only times I've seen features like that labeled as "impossible" it has been in the sense of "this is not possible, since we just don't have the resources" sense. I don't think anyone has suggested that it somehow would violate the laws of physics to do it.

[GGTharos]

It could get reasonably simple modeling, but even then it is a major effort.

You can, for example, model mode 4 as an 'I'm here' beacon that only responds if interrogated with the correct key etc. I think that wouldn't cause ED any legal trouble whatsoever, just IMHO, and further secret features are something that most of the general public wouldn't even know is missing.

The real problem is that just to start with, AI needs to be majorly re-worked to run ID matrices for example - after all, what if your IFF fails?

You plan on flying back to that PATRIOT-protected airbase still? ;)

[EtherealN]

The real problem is that just to start with, AI needs to be majorly re-worked to run ID matrices for example - after all, what if your IFF fails?

You plan on flying back to that PATRIOT-protected airbase still? ;)

 

What if IFF fails AND you didn't check that the IFF failure warning light worked when you did your pre-flight? :D

(EDIT: Maybe that's when the next RWR thread gets started...)

[GGTharos]

Not to mention you should be interrogated at take-off in order to check your IFF anyway ;)

 

What if IFF fails AND you didn't check that the IFF failure warning light worked when you did your pre-flight? :D

(EDIT: Maybe that's when the next RWR thread gets started...)

[Stretch]

Yeah that's the thing. The decision to fire on a target is based on a number of factors, some of which can be modeled, some of which can't. To name a few off the top of my head:

 

- AWACS

- Visual confirmation

- Target position and where the target was coming from

- Target aggressiveness (presence of RWR or likelihood of seeing an incoming missile launch are factors here)

- Target aspect

- IFF and IFF reliability (is the target near other aircraft or ground clutter?)

- NCTR if available and given time to process a target

- Whether or not your flight lead says he's a bandit

- etc etc etc

 

Each of these has different "weights" in a pilot's mind and can be combined together to form a likelihood-of-firing quotient. Some will have to be modeled very crudely to ensure the calculation can be performed optimally for however many AI pilots are in an arena, but it could certainly be done I think.

[EvilBivol-1]

Obviously in the world of combat sims ... low-flying airplanes appear on search radar even if they match the apparent speed of ground clutter...

Not all sims. :)

Oh and I would agree with Eddie.

[GGTharos]

It's possible ... just not easy.

Again, major AI surgery. I imagine that CPUs can handle the load for this type of thing especially if smartly implemented.

 

One problem is for example - if you take a modern sub sim like dangerous waters - a player could tell who's enemy by IDing a single line on the narrowband if he knew all opponents were of one faction for example (soviet subs have a 50hz power line, us subs 60), and attack the AI way before the AI could ID him as hostile.

[EtherealN]

Awh, EB, I was hoping for one less person on the MP servers that give me headaches through disappearing in the notch and you spoiled it. :P

[Stretch]

I think it's definitely correct that most people won't know or care what they're missing with a good, declassified mode-4 implementation. There's a lot of information about mode-4 in declassified avionics and general flight manuals, and as long as all the switches work and some "fudge factor" of failures and quirks is included, I bet you're hitting pretty close to home without endangering the lives of pilots abroad.

 

The same goes for the anti-jamming modes on radars. I know that modern fighter jets have antijamming radar modes (which no sim models). We'll never know specifically how they work and what they are, but we can make a lot of guesses. For example, it's a fair bet that one of those modes involves the pilot placing the radar cursors over a suspected target return and following that return through successive radar sweeps, manually providing the FCR with velocity vector information that the enemy's jamming is otherwise obscuring. The rest of the anti-jamming modes -- whether they're automatic or manual, how much they help and in what way -- can be fudged.

[GGTharos]

In turn, this is easily said ...

[SUBS17]

So we 'talked' IFF, now let's talk software.

 

It would be nice to have the dev time to do 'this and that'. IFF falls into 'this and that' category. It requires major surgery for AI at minimum to actually add actions and possibly dialogue and other details and events. There there's no simulator out there yet that I know of that models it as anything other than in the simplest 'I am friendly' response as opposed to the potential complications that arise from actual use of IFF.

 

I'll give you a very simple example: You're IFFing and on the same LOS you have two targets. The response comes back friendly ... but from whom? Either you mark both friendly or both enemy - and you don't know who's who. What about false returns from terrain? It can and does happen.

 

Mode 4 can do much better, but that is because mode 4 transmits position data. Even then it's not always 100% for various reasons.

 

SU27/33 and Mig29 already have IFF in a way, I think all you need is the ability change the numbers like in Janes F-15E and the ability to basic IFF other aircraft. Ideally you would want the same that is in the MLU manual if they modeled an F-16 that is the stuff I'd like in a F-16 addon so the IFF OUT/In switch on my cougar can do stuff. In MP by having the ability to change the numbers would be cool. So basically IFF OUT = interogate other aircraft(shows up on HSD) IFF IN = no green or red markers on HSD. Quite simple really and some of this stuff is already in FSX although not at the same level as this. Realistically to have IFF does not require modelling all the modes in game play you could get away with just editing the numbers and only modelling one mode.:thumbup:

[Luke.S]

so would it be possible to make your iff identify you as friendly to hostile forces. (eg. in BS appearing on radar as friendly to the americans so they ignore you.)

[GGTharos]

... and what criteria would this be based on?

[Waldo_II]

so would it be possible to make your iff identify you as friendly to hostile forces. (eg. in BS appearing on radar as friendly to the americans so they ignore you.)

 

As I understand it, yes, if you had the enemy's key. Communication is all encrypted, so you would have to have their "password" to be able to communicate that you're friendly.

[Total]

Classifed Crypto's changes on a daily basis, so getting the enemy's key would be a bit of a challenge.

 

Also, for military aircraft, sqawking IFF continually is not done unless they're flying over the ole homeland. IFF, comms, radar, etc are only turned on when needed in a hostile enviroment. Fly silent and stay electronically invisible (passive countermeasures).

 

The added CPU load for mode 4 IFF implementation would just be one more thing to task the systems of those who can't afford a high end rig. At some point, a balance has to be made between performance for the most customers within reason and features.

[SUBS17]

It would be cool to have a Superhornet addon with IFF that gets IFF data from AWACs.