Transponder Upgrade For All

[RedRain]

Thanks guys, great reading, I do understand the basic fundamentals of the IFF system, and i did do a little research prior to posting this thread. I am aware that the ka50 does not have a functional transponder (though fitted) and I am aware it does not have an interrogator at all. Point being, with all the carnage in M/P open servers, we have aircraft from all different eras flying the same battlefield, totally unrealistic. Prior to P51d, Fc3 & DCS World, at least the battlefield realism was believable and friend & foe identification was reasonably. I am not complaining about FC3 or P51d, just trying to come to terms with a new & dynamic M/P battlefield. FC3 aircraft seem to be getting plenty of attention & upgrades so what about the old girls. Retro fit us an interrogator and get the transponder working, we only need to know if that dot in the distance is friendly, otherwise we know it's foe.

[HiJack]

Put labels on?

[Kaiza]

I think your proposal isn't really the right solution to your problem. We are trying to simulate a real battlefield in DCS world, and putting IFF interrogators on KA50s is widly unrealistic and spoils the game. 95% of the challenge of this game, just like a real battlefield, is posturing and using tactics to gain information and develop battlespace situational awareness. Employing weapons is just the final step. Giving someone an IFF interrogator is solving half the "problem" for them when the "problem" is part of the game. Just like trying to ID ground targets. It's like a machine gunner saying "hey its not fair that I can't see as far as that sniper. I can't tell if the targets are enemy or not. Everyone should have a sniper scope"

 

If your issue is that on some missions there are same arcraft types on both blue and red sides, and it is therefore sometimes unrealisticly difficult to identify whether aircraft are enemy, then I can see your problem. However I think the answer is in mission design rather than putting unrealistic capability on aircraft.

Edited April 17, 2013 by Kaiza

[Nirvi]

If your issue is that on some missions there are same arcraft types on both blue and red sides, and it is therefore sometimes unrealisticly difficult to identify whether aircraft are enemy, then I can see your problem.

 

This would be a perfect mission to play with a Combined Arms player, acting as Ground Commander/JTAC.

[RedRain]

If your issue is that on some missions there are same arcraft types on both blue and red sides, and it is therefore sometimes unrealisticly difficult to identify whether aircraft are enemy, then I can see your problem. However I think the answer is in mission design rather than putting unrealistic capability on aircraft.

 

Bravo, now we are getting somewhere, not just aircraft but ground forces as well, seems like most open servers are running these type of missions, so confusing. As posted recently,if Ivan (red) flew ka, SU & drove shilka, and Joe (blue) flew a10, f15 & drove Bradley then identification would not be a problem and IFF would not have been a suggestion. The crazy mixture of eastern & western hardware on the blue side competing against a mixture of eastern and western hardware on the red side is just totally unrealistic & confusing. Not all missions hosted are like this, however, many are. Thank you sir.

 

Rgds

 

Red

[Wolf Rider]

Retro fit us an interrogator and get the transponder working, we only need to know if that dot in the distance is friendly, otherwise we know it's foe.

 

Due to high incidents of misidentification of ground units by allied air, in Gulf War, the inverted V was installed to allied ground vehicles

 

 

 

 

In understanding your concern, (and I've upset a friendly or two as well, online :cry: by shooting them down. They took it well though :thumbup: ) its not really realistic to fit something to a craft which doesn't have it in real life.

[RedRain]

its not really realistic to fit something to a craft which doesn't have it in real life.

 

Agre, though it's not realistic SU fighting alongside F15, unless I'm mistaken ?

[HiJack]

Define eastern and western sides as you see it using the in-game country list please.

[HiJack]

As I build missions this is the settings I use along with others:

 

My saved mission country sides:

RED: Abkhazia, Insurgents, Israel, Russia, South Ossetia

BLUE: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Georgia, Germany, Italy, Norway, Spain, The Netherlands, Turkey, UK, USA, Ukraine

 

--------------------

104th Operation Final Dawn.

RED: Abkhazia, Israel, Russia, South Ossetia

BLUE: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Georgia, Germany, Italy, Norway, Spain, The Netherlands, Turkey, UK, USA, Ukraine

 

--------------------

104th Operation Watcher

RED: Abkhazia, Israel, Russia, South Ossetia

BLUE: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Georgia, Germany, Italy, Norway, Spain, The Netherlands, Turkey, UK, USA, Ukraine

[Wolf Rider]

Agre, though it's not realistic SU fighting alongside F15, unless I'm mistaken ?

 

Its a concept which could quite well happen

[HiJack]

So a transponder that just answers for each side Red vs Blue for all units? That be aircrafts, ground units and ships? Almost like labels on.

[Frostie]

Agre, though it's not realistic SU fighting alongside F15, unless I'm mistaken ?

I don't see why this would make a difference to a Ka50 pilot, in RL by the time you visual id these aircraft it will be too late to do anything about it or more likely too late before you can visual id them.

 

Unless you're talking about unrealistic pilot behaviour where they can't find a helicopter within 10km and unrealistic radar that can't see rotor blades spinning, much like in DCS.

[RedRain]

Its a concept which could quite well happen

 

Then they would need to retro fit the aircraft with IFF, unless it's clear there opposition aren't flying identical aircraft. Servers are hosting a mixture of western & eastern aircraft Vs the same mixture of western & eastern aircraft, all with identical colours & decals,this would be mayhem in R/L as it is in sim, totaly unrealistic. If it was a R/L scenario, I would ensure my squadron had the equipment to deal with it prior to engagement. Or, at least identical aircraft would have significant identifying colours & decals in R/L, but not in game ?

[GGTharos]

Then they would need to retro fit the aircraft with IFF,

 

It already has IFF, it has NO IFF INTERROGATOR AND WILL NEVER HAVE ONE.

 

unless it's clear there opposition aren't flying identical aircraft.

 

If all else (like knowing where he came from, other sources of information like other friendly aircraft) fails, fly up to him and check his markings. That's how it's done.

 

Servers are hosting a mixture of western & eastern aircraft Vs the same mixture of western & eastern aircraft, all with identical colours & decals,

 

No, the Russian Red star does not look like the Georgian star set inside a circle. IF it so happens that the mission maker has not applied appropriate skins, you might want to talk to them about that.

[RedRain]

No, the Russian Red star does not look like the Georgian star set inside a circle. IF it so happens that the mission maker has not applied appropriate skins, you might want to talk to them about that.

 

Perhaps this is where my frustration lies.Many times I have witnessed identical aircraft with identical skins & decals engaging each other with positive kill & no team kill, so it's possibly a mission makers blunder ? :thumbup:

 

Thank you GG

[GGTharos]

It wouldn't be the first time a mission maker didn't think of something, it happens all the time ... I forget stuff all over the place in missions. :)

[RedRain]

As I build missions this is the settings I use along with others:

 

My saved mission country sides:

RED: Abkhazia, Insurgents, Israel, Russia, South Ossetia

BLUE: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Georgia, Germany, Italy, Norway, Spain, The Netherlands, Turkey, UK, USA, Ukraine

 

--------------------

104th Operation Final Dawn.

RED: Abkhazia, Israel, Russia, South Ossetia

BLUE: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Georgia, Germany, Italy, Norway, Spain, The Netherlands, Turkey, UK, USA, Ukraine

 

--------------------

104th Operation Watcher

RED: Abkhazia, Israel, Russia, South Ossetia

BLUE: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Georgia, Germany, Italy, Norway, Spain, The Netherlands, Turkey, UK, USA, Ukraine

 

This is how I would describe them, not sure about Turkey & Ukraine though ? Where can I find a decal diagrams ?

 

Cheers

[RedRain]

Thank you all for your responses, things are a little clearer now. Still gonna struggle with ground targets though. I can usually identify most ground targets per make & model, desiphering red or blue is gonna be another thing ?

[GGTharos]

Again, this is matter of having a proper briefing and understanding where your units are, why they're there, and what they intend to do.

 

Eg. In the Russia-Georgia conflict, Russian hardware was everywhere.

[HiJack]

For ground units you need confirmation from other pilots and by looking with your eyeball or trough skhval. Not easy at all but practice helps a great deal.

[Wolf Rider]

Then they would need to retro fit the aircraft with IFF, unless it's clear there opposition aren't flying identical aircraft.

 

Yes, that could be a possibility as well... and should that happen, perhaps then the developers could/ might look at retrofitting their product

 

Servers are hosting a mixture of western & eastern aircraft Vs the same mixture of western & eastern aircraft, all with identical colours & decals,

 

Yes sometimes missions designers don't take into account... but they do have voicecoms and briefs

 

this would be mayhem in R/L as it is in sim, totaly unrealistic. If it was a R/L scenario,

 

 

Refer to my post, with image, above describing the application of the ID mark

 

I would ensure my squadron had the equipment to deal with it prior to engagement.

 

I'm sure you could also come up with the bucks to do that

 

 

Or, at least identical aircraft would have significant identifying colours & decals in R/L, but not in game ?

 

Mission designers sometime do not take into account... because of voicecoms and briefs.

[Pyroflash]

Generally the problem you are having comes down to your lack of SA. You do not know where you are in relation to other forces, both friendly and enemy. You have not paid enough attention to the briefs, or the briefs did not exist, and are now paying for it.

 

Half the problem though, is that people don't communicate online, or follow even remotely the same procedures. What you get is people who have nothing but the slightest idea of what they are doing or why, and are messing up the airspace. To further compound the issue, because of lack of communication, nobody has any idea where or what OTHER people are doing, which leads to situations such as inadvertent foxes on friendlies.

 

To put it bluntly, you need to find yourself a squadron to fly with. Trust me, 75% of these problems you are having will be all but instantaneously eradicated.

[RedRain]

Generally the problem you are having comes down to your lack of SA. You do not know where you are in relation to other forces, both friendly and enemy. You have not paid enough attention to the briefs, or the briefs did not exist, and are now paying for it.

 

To put it bluntly, you need to find yourself a squadron to fly with. Trust me, 75% of these problems you are having will be all but instantaneously eradicated.

 

Only wish I had the time to join a squadron, unfortunately, circumstance do not permit at the moment and yes, this would possibly instantaneously eradicate these problems. Due to this, I find my self with only the choice of public open servers, which usually, have been running for some time. I try my best to familiarise myself with the briefings which sometimes extend from a full on novel brief, to a basic well detailed brief, to some brief's that are virtually none existent,(praise to all mission builders for sharing your time & effort).

In general, I score reasonably well, and with minimum friendly fire. I do admit, many shots are shots in the dark, it is these those shots in the dark that I am trying to eliminate ?

When I go onto an open public server, I usually find most (not all) flying there own private sorte. If I am in the KA, I find that most (not all) have not set there ID, and despite a text request, often get ignored. If I come across a KA that is not sqwarking an ID, I assume it hostile and shoot it down. This often equates to friendly fire. So yes, communication is important.

 

I would like to know the subtle differences between the non exhistant IFF system, and the very limited wingman ID panel ? Why is it So limited to x 4 Ka ? it would be great if we could D/L all team mates or see all team mates up on the abris ?

[nomdeplume]

Only wish I had the time to join a squadron, unfortunately, circumstance do not permit at the moment and yes, this would possibly instantaneously eradicate these problems.

Not all squadrons require a large commitment of time, so you'd still be able to find people to fly with even if you can only fly once every week or two.

 

Also, most public servers will advertise a Teamspeak server you can use. Hop in there and you might find at least one other person who's flying on your side, and having that direct communication channel will make a big difference. Simply being able to ask someone else if the thing you've found is likely to be friendly or not will help.

 

I would like to know the subtle differences between the non exhistant IFF system, and the very limited wingman ID panel ? Why is it So limited to x 4 Ka ? it would be great if we could D/L all team mates or see all team mates up on the abris ?

Basically they're solving different problems.

 

IFF is intended to make monitoring/controlling large amounts of airspace more achievable. If the vast majority of friendly contacts can be automatically identified and tagged as such, you can focus your attention on the ones that aren't. This is why only AWACS and fighters tend to have IFF interrogators, because controlling airspace is their job. It's also why attack aircraft don't have it -- it's not their job, so it's just weight and complexity that won't assist them in their actual task.

 

The datalink on the other hand is used for sharing data between flight members. Since flights never contain more than four ships, it doesn't need to support more than four. That's basically it. Datalink is there to support the flight in achieving its mission objective, not to be a "god mode" view of all friendly forces etc. This information is undoubtedly useful, but it's not necessary to the task, and Russian designs do seem to favour simplicity more than their US counterparts.

 

The attack helicopter pilot really shouldn't be doing much in the way of target ID anyway, especially of aircraft. They should know where the friendly forces are in the area they're operating in, and have a decent idea of where enemy ground forces are likely to be. When they make contact, the location and posture of the target should be enough to identify it as a friend or a foe. And if they're not sure, they can always ask someone who can provide greater clarity.

 

In the unlikely event they're operating where enemy gunships might be and they spot a helicopter they can't immediately identify as friendly, they can ask for help to identify it from people who have a better picture of the situation, and whose job it is to keep track of where friendly and enemy forces are across the theatre. Those people will be in platforms that are equipped for carrying out that role.

 

Much of this is, of course, missing from a random public server. If air forces were in the habit of having pilots show up to war whenever they felt like it, and then taking off with a set of waypoints that probably steer them toward points of interest and a vague idea of where friendly and enemy forces may have been a few hours ago, then the aircraft they flew would probably be much better equipped for dealing with that kind of situation.

 

But since DCS tries to simulate real existing aircraft, they don't really have much capacity for operating effectively as a lone wolf without contact with the rest of the force.

 

My view is that modern platforms are very poorly suited to public servers, because their operation is so heavily dependent on integration with the rest of their side's assets. You can still have a lot of fun on public servers, but it's not the same kind of fun you can have in an organised mission.

 

Finally, don't forget that friendly fire is still not exactly unheard of on the modern battlefield, even with communication between forces and professional soldiers who do it for a living and whose training draws upon decades of experience. There's no infallible method for easily determining friend from foe in real life, so there shouldn't be one in the sim. (Actually there is -- labels -- but nearly every server has those disabled, for a reason.)

[RedRain]

Thanks NOM, great reading, residing to acceptance now. Thank you all.