ECM in Lock On Vs F4 - Realism question...

[ron533]

Hi,

long time ago I started a thread about ECM realism in Lock-on VS. Falcon4,

with no final conclusions.

I've noticed that in Lock-on when another Aicraft is using ECM - you can only notice that if you turn on your radar (thus discovering yourself) and pointing your nose to the ECM bandit. In Falcon 4 when another aircraft is using ECM (and thus broadcasts its presence to the world) you can PASSIVELY detect those emmisions on your radar scope - while it's on Standby, not emmiting anything and keeping you hidden from enemy RWR.

I believe that F4 is correct, since you should passively detect radar emmisions without turning your radar active.

I also think you should detect ECM on RWR too, not only on your radar scope, but I don't think I've seen it in F4.

So the only way to detect an ECM broadcaster in Lock On - is to turn your radar on and disscover yourself...not a good idea, but is this not the realistic way??

 

(link to original thread: http://forums.ubi.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/38610606/m/737102685/p/1)

 

I'm adding a link to "Raptorman"s newly released article regarding ECM usage in F4 and quote a line confirming my assumption:

You CAN detect a jamming target with your radar on standby mode,

thus staying stealthy and seeing the others without announcing your presence.

Raptorman quote: "You will see a jamming target even with your radar in standby. You don't need to emit a signal intended to bounce back from him. Your radar can detect the signal he's emitting all by itself."

It is not implemented in Lock On as far as I've seen and realism is impaired by that.

 

Here is the link to the article:

http://www.frugalsworld.com/modules/zmagazine/article.php?articleid=202

 

What say you? can it be fixed?

 

Thanks :icon_wink

Ron

[Force_Feedback]

you can't put your radar on standby in lomac, and ecm doesn't work like a candle in real life (it does in sims).

 

In order for ECM to function the system needs to know what type of radar there are in the vicinity of the aircraft, if those radars aren't transmitting, the ECM system of that aircraft can't jam it, as it doesn't "know" what to jam (either a fire control radar, aircraft tracking, ground radar etc). In lomac, you press on "E" and magically the ECM starts to jam all the radar types, while in real life (at least with the russian ecm pods) the ECM system needs 3-4 seconds to asses what kind of radars there are and what to jam, after that it's all automatic.

ECM is not a thing you turn on, and poof, the enemy radar can't get your range or guide missiles at you, it takes time to start jamming, and it doesn't jam everything (called selective jamming).

So you can't compare ECM with an Ir jammer (a strong ir lamp).

[SwingKid]

Raptorman's article applies only to avionics in F4, not the real world. Falcon's ECM model is equally as comical as Lock On's - or any other sim that models "burn-through". ;)

 

-SK

[ron533]

I'm not talking about the actual jamming, but the fact the the the jammer is announcing of his presence and you can detect a jamming aircraft even when your radar is on standby mode which is modeled in F4, and avionics in F4 try to be as realictic as in real world as possible, and that implementation of jammer seen on a standby radar is realistic afaik.

[SwingKid]

I'm not talking about the actual jamming, but the fact the the the jammer is announcing of his presence and you can detect a jamming aircraft even when your radar is on standby mode which is modeled in F4, and avionics in F4 try to be as realictic as in real world as possible, and that implementation of jammer seen on a standby radar is realistic afaik.

 

No offense, but the subject you are asking about was already discussed in great detail in the very same UbiSoft discussion to which you provided a link.

 

The only new information you presented in your first post to justify further question or discussion is Raptorman's article. That is, "F4 models it this way, therefore F4 is correct." This is a circular argument that totally ignores all of the real-world research that went into the discussion to which you provided a link, and replaced it with F4 research in the article by Raptorman.

 

I don't see why I or anyone else should repeat themselves to convince you. The knowledge presented in the discussion that you linked is not based on F4 or Lock On but rather on real documentation, including the recently declassified Russian Gardeniya jammer manual. If you believe Raptorman more than those sources, then you should direct your question to Raptorman, regarding whether he did any research on real-world ECM and ECCM at all, or if rather his article is confined strictly on how to play F4 according to its own rules.

 

As a counter-example, I also recently posted a question in an F4 forum, asking for an explanation of one of its "as realistic as in real world as possible" features:

 

http://forums.frugalsworld.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=94591

 

As you can see, there were no replies. The truth is that even F4AF is no better than Lock On in the radar realism department, and is in many ways worse. F4 just has a larger community of enthusiasts who "want to believe," that's all.

 

As for discussing accurate ECCM without having an accurate ECM model to react to - that just doesn't make any reasonable sense to me at all.

 

-SK

[VapoR]

What say you?

 

Are you a Bill O'Rielly fan? :D

[Guest IguanaKing]

To add to what Force said about the jammers, the radar also needs to know what its supposed to be looking for. When the radar is put into standby, the transmitter is shut off. The problem is that, in order for the radar to function properly, the receiver tracks the output of the transmitter. Thus, without the transmitter functioning, the receiver is essentially blind at that point. Now, I'm talking about civilian aircraft radar, so it is entirely possible that a military radar could pick up jammer emissions and display them in standby mode. But, jammer emissions tend to be of such high power and broadcast in so many different directions that I'm skeptical as to how effective it would be at pinpointing the source of the emissions with accurate range and bearing. So...could it show you there was a jammer out there somewhere? Possibly. Could you use that information to find and kill the target without turning your radar on? I would have to go with no on that.

[GGTharos]

I think the answer is a little more complex.

 

If no fighter radar is emitting, then unless it's a broad-band jammer jamming pre-emptively, you won't pick it up in SNIFF/Standby mode.

 

However, if a jammer if for some reason attempting to jam a signal similar to that of your own radar even though you're not emitting, you may well see it.

 

Jammers are designed to be smarter than just being used with an on/off switch, and LOMAC doesn't model that. It also only models one type of jammer, and modelling multiple types of jammers wouldn't be easy - esp. when it isn't necessarily so easy to understand the exact workings of the ECM and ECCM.

 

Theoretically you could write an EM simulator and figure a whole bunch of this out, but that would be a major effort all on it's own and it is simply not worth it.

[Shaman]

you can't put your radar on standby in lomac, and ecm doesn't work like a candle in real life (it does in sims).

 

In order for ECM to function the system needs to know what type of radar there are in the vicinity of the aircraft, if those radars aren't transmitting, the ECM system of that aircraft can't jam it, as it doesn't "know" what to jam (either a fire control radar, aircraft tracking, ground radar etc). In lomac, you press on "E" and magically the ECM starts to jam all the radar types, while in real life (at least with the russian ecm pods) the ECM system needs 3-4 seconds to asses what kind of radars there are and what to jam, after that it's all automatic.

ECM is not a thing you turn on, and poof, the enemy radar can't get your range or guide missiles at you, it takes time to start jamming, and it doesn't jam everything (called selective jamming).

So you can't compare ECM with an Ir jammer (a strong ir lamp).

Nice post. I've learnt something new.

:icon_jook

[Guest IguanaKing]

I just read the referenced part of Raptorman's article and, with all due respect to him, I'm going to have to raise the BS flag. It would seem, from what I have read so far, that he has a very simplified view of how radar works...and if that is what he is going on to write that article, well, I don't think I trust it. I like both F4 and LOMAC, they both have their pros and cons in the area of realism, but I really don't think that article should be taken too seriously.

[GGTharos]

I think a lot of people who are 'in the know' are well aware that no sim currently models radar or ECM very well, though I think a thumbs up needs to be given to JF-18 for giving it a very nice try. LOMAC's and F4's are somewhat primitive by comparison, and I think F4's is presented in a more interesting manenr - but either way, a little bird tells me that these 'little' details will be worked on by ED ;)

[Guest IguanaKing]

I'm sure they're working on it, and it'll improve. I have realistic expectations though, I don't expect it to be 100% accurate. The topic just seemed to be presenting the article as conclusive proof that F4 is more accurate, which it isn't. It gets many things wrong, and so does LOMAC, although I think LOMAC comes out ahead a little bit just in how radar performance is modeled. F4 makes seeing jammers in standby impossibly easy, whereas LOMAC just makes it impossible. Reality lies somewhere between the two extremes. Heh...I almost forgot about JF-18. I haven't really played that in years since it seems to be unfriendly to modern video cards...can't quite get over the green grids and text on the water when the water quality is turned up. ;)

[SUBS17]

Janes F/A-18 runs fine with the latest patches, be prepared for a good dance though.

[Weta43]

From what I've read in these forums the imaginary jammers in LO "reflect" radar, in that they don't emit unless painted, & if they are emit a signal of the same characteristics as the radar they are painted by (but in such a manner as to drown out their own reflections with meaningless noise).

Surely then it should be the case that if your radar is off & no-one else is painting them, their jammer is quiet & they won't be visible via their jammer.

If your radar is off & someone else is painting them, they should show up, if not on the actual radar ( I'd say that OK - a radar turned OFF won't receive at all & that even on standby, which we don't have in LO, it's been suggested above they might not...), then at least on the RWR as an emitter of the same type as the radar they're being painted by - if they happen to be the strongest emitter in the area - or however an RWR receiver prioritises signals

[SwingKid]

From what I've read in these forums the imaginary jammers in LO "reflect" radar, in that they don't emit unless painted, & if they are emit a signal of the same characteristics as the radar they are painted by (but in such a manner as to drown out their own reflections with meaningless noise).

Surely then it should be the case that if your radar is off & no-one else is painting them, their jammer is quiet & they won't be visible via their jammer.

If your radar is off & someone else is painting them, they should show up, if not on the actual radar ( I'd say that OK - a radar turned OFF won't receive at all & that even on standby, which we don't have in LO, it's been suggested above they might not...), then at least on the RWR as an emitter of the same type as the radar they're being painted by -

 

By this logic, a cloud of chaff illuminated by your wingman should show up on your RWR?

 

I don't think this happens in real life - the receiver directivity of an RWR is far lower than that of a radar antenna. RWR should pick up high-powered transmitters only, DECM is low-power.

 

-SK

[Guest IguanaKing]

Concur on that. ECM generally will not show up on the RWR.

[Brit_Radar_Dude]

Yep, what Swingkid said.

 

RWR is designed to pick up threats, ie. High Power Radars.

 

Deception Jammer emissions would be much lower power. They measure the frequency,PRF and signal strength of the signal hitting the host aircraft then try to set the jamming power output so that the signal received by the radar they are trying to deceive is in the same ballpark as the genuine signal reflected from the host aircraft. The deception comes from varying the time of transmitting these signals so that a host of false (but believable in approx direction, range and signal strength) targets are generated.

[Weta43]

I though that might be the case - That was why I said "if they were the strongest emitter in the area" I was assuming they might be an order of magnitude weaker than an actual radar - though that said - ECM must still broadcast reasonably strongly - so as radiation gets 4 times stronger as you half the distance, at EOS sort of distances I'd have thought with your radar off & someone else illuminating the jammer from far enough away that the signal is only just strong enough to trigger the jammer, the jammer would be a strong enough emmiter to show on the RWR.

Anybody know what the power output of these jammers is supposed to be ?

Surely one of the radar experts who frequent this site could work out the circustances where if the (say an F15) plane were at this distance & you were this close to the jammer, the jammer would be stronger than the radar, & see if the situation is so far fetched as to be not worth worying about...

[GGTharos]

The antenna of the radar will likely always pump out more energy per area than the jammer - IIRC antenna gain is directly proportional to its size and ECM antennae on aircraft are pretty puny compared to the radar dish.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Not to mention the fact that the deception jammers are designed to have an influence on the return to the emitting radar, so much less amplitude is required. :D

[Guest IguanaKing]

Sorry Weta, the calculations in the scenario you presented are too mind-boggling for me to deal with at the moment. :icon_jook. It seems like it would be possible though, but the situation in which that would happen...well...its hard to imagine. My assessment: possible, but not very likely. ;)

[Starlight]

I don't think this happens in real life - the receiver directivity of an RWR is far lower than that of a radar antenna. RWR should pick up high-powered transmitters only, DECM is low-power.

 

-SK

 

Yes, but you should also consider that DECM is not the only ECM form in EW. Active jamming is another form, and is much more powerful than DECM, because it's very high-powered and it could also be pre-emptive. EW aircraft are usually pre-briefed on the kind of threats they could find on a mission, and EW suites are properly tuned to match the threats.

 

While not being the definitive resource, a good idea can be found on the novel Red Storm Rising, where you see formations of Soviet attack/recon aircraft playing cat-and-mouse with US CVBGs. Also the boardgame Harpoon 4 (and its PC counterpart Harpoon3) have a rough simulation of EW.

 

I don't know if fighter aircraft are suited to pick up (and properly classify) enemy jammer signals. But EW and ESM aircraft can, and it's just one of their jobs.

 

The problem with radio signals (jammers included) is that they can be passively noticed 1.5 times further the range they're useful at. Maybe more. That means that a radar that has a maximum range of 100 miles, can be electronically spotted at about 150 miles. Many variables can affect this value, but this is just to give an idea about why fighter aircraft are not always fighting with their radar turned on and with full voice comms.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Yes, everything you said is possible, but it requires much bigger antenna arrays and a much larger/heavier assortment of related equipment. That's why a non-dedicated platform generally lacks much of this capability. ;)

[Weta43]

See this is where my lack of knowledge about this lets me down.

 

If the jammer is just making noise of roughly the same charicteristics as the radar it senses, at amplitudes randomly between full on & off, & say the jammer is emmiting at 5kw (a number I use only because that's what I remember the IR jammer's power as so I figure the onboard power systems good for it.) & teh actual radar is some 10's of km away, then there will be some point between the radar & the jammer where the jammer's fake radar signal is stronger than the actual radar signal - at least some of the as it randomly cycles strengths.

 

I'd always assumed the natural reflections were drowned out with noise of varying amplitude & phase shift & that at the higher of the range end some of the signals would be quite a bit more powerful than the natural reflections from the plane thereby confounding the estimation of the objects RCS & range (is it a fighter at the extreme limit of my radar's range, is it a bomber, is it a 747 just out of sight?).

 

If BRD is right & for deception jamming the idea is to " set the jamming power output so that the signal received by the radar they are trying to deceive is in the same ballpark as the genuine signal reflected from the host aircraft " - & his handle & posts suggest he does know what he's talking about - then using a mirror analogy the light reflected by the mirror will never be stronger than the light falling on the mirror, the best that can happen is that if you are between the radar & the jammer, at distances very close to the mirror the two signals will be of approximately equal strength.

& following that logic, the less reflective the plane, the less the jammer has to send back to be ballpark with the signal, so effectively for deception jamming the jamming signal strength is always less than the signal falling on it.

 

but like I say - seems a gift of information to me - if I ONLY get a weak signal back then whatever the delays in the signal or the shifts in frequency say, it can only either be a big thing far away, or a little thing close up, but not a big thing fairly close..

Don't you ideally want the strength of the jamming signal to range all the way from those of a fighter at maximum detection range to those of a F*** off big bomber just BVR... which if it's going to be that strong when it gets to the original radar sent from a jammer quite some distance from that radar, is going to have to be a fairly strong signal when sent.

(?)

[Guest IguanaKing]

The reflected light analogy you use is a good one, and it makes sense. However, radar is a bit more complex than the reflection of a static waveform. The oscillation frequency of the RF from the transmitter is essentially a constant (with some variations of course ;) ). The pulse train (the on-off cycles of the transmitter), is variable, and the receiver of the emitting radar is looking for a specific signature on the return signal. The radar's receiver will effectively ignore signals that don't match the output of the transmitter. IIRC, the job of a deception jammer is to mimic that signature, but alter the timing of the return, so the radar gives false information.