Realism in ECM

[Hotarubi]

Since I finally found a person, a real life pilot, to confirm this logical idea that I had, I will make a following request:

 

In real life - engaging your ECM will jam your own radar and electronic devices that are subject to the ECM frequencies. It will also jam your wingman if he is in the efective field of ECM operation. So, if you want to jam and your wingman to engage - he must take appropriate combat position so that your ECM does not affect his systems.

But - that will make sense to implement only if you make the effects of ECM a bit more realistic, starting from how it's displayed on HUD up to the point that the planes in the effective range (longitudinal and directional and all relevant aspects) are affected in a manner that they can not succesfully engage enemy using electronic devices.

 

So, sum up:

1. ECM must jam all those in effective range

2. ECM denies you from using your own equipment

3. ECM graphical display on HUD and MFDs must be fixed at last so that it does not show clearly the source (bearing) from where ECM is emmited

 

That is it for now, if anyone has anything to add and discuss, feel free.

 

I believe that it is time, after 10 years, to fix some obvious game-spoilers here.

[macieksoft]

I think that ECM in real life do not jamming own radar.

 

Also ECM do not disabling wingmans radar. ECM can only make that ur wingman will have problems with determinating range to your aircraft.

 

ECM do not preventing anyone to "lock on" you in azimuth and elevation. It only causing that radar cannot determinate range or speed of jamming aircraft till it is burn trought range.

Burn trought range is determinated by power of jammer and power of radar. Also frequency can be important.

If enemy is burning trought your jammer it can determinate range and speed of your aircraft and do not have any problems with engaging you. Using jammer when enemy is burning trought jammer is pointless.

 

ECM graphical display on HUD and MFDs must be fixed at last so that it does not show clearly the source (bearing) from where ECM is emmited

You are wrong.

In reality radars can determinate bearing of jamming aircraft even without burning trought.

Enemy (both planes and more advanced SAMs with active or semi active radar guidance) can even launch missile that homing on your jammer.

 

Here you have very realistic SAM simulator: https://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/ You can learn about different aspects of jamming using this simulator.

Edited May 27, 2013 by macieksoft

[Eddie]

Since I finally found a person, a real life pilot, to confirm this logical idea that I had, I will make a following request:

 

In real life - engaging your ECM will jam your own radar and electronic devices that are subject to the ECM frequencies. It will also jam your wingman if he is in the efective field of ECM operation. So, if you want to jam and your wingman to engage - he must take appropriate combat position so that your ECM does not affect his systems.

But - that will make sense to implement only if you make the effects of ECM a bit more realistic, starting from how it's displayed on HUD up to the point that the planes in the effective range (longitudinal and directional and all relevant aspects) are affected in a manner that they can not succesfully engage enemy using electronic devices.

 

So, sum up:

1. ECM must jam all those in effective range

2. ECM denies you from using your own equipment

3. ECM graphical display on HUD and MFDs must be fixed at last so that it does not show clearly the source (bearing) from where ECM is emmited

 

That is it for now, if anyone has anything to add and discuss, feel free.

 

I believe that it is time, after 10 years, to fix some obvious game-spoilers here.

 

You need to learn how ECM works and what it is actually for. Nothing about your post would result inn more realistic ECM, especially self protection jammers. In fact it would be even less realistic than we have now, which is pretty bad already.

[falcon_120]

Only noise jamming will affect your own or your wingman's radar, but SPJ found in fighters does not use normally noise jammers(or brute force jammer to say it in a not very technical manner), they use deception techniques that should not affect your own radar.

[Cedaway]

As ECM and ECCM are of the most best kept secret, I wouldn't count on an 'über-realistic' model in DCS...

[Hotarubi]

Only noise jamming will affect your own or your wingman's radar, but SPJ found in fighters does not use normally noise jammers(or brute force jammer to say it in a not very technical manner), they use deception techniques that should not affect your own radar.

 

Interesting how so many people are aware that jamming is badly done and still someone comes with ED tags and has the guts to say we need to learn something.

 

You tell us what is better or worst?

I will take sorbytsia for example again:

It is perfectly known what does it do, secret is how does it do it. Do we ask ED to make a realistic program for usage in real aircraft? No. We ask them to make us jamming that does what is publicly known for those pods. False targets etc etc etc.

 

It is absolutely unfair to act as if we're all dumb and clueless like someone did in this page, signed with ED Tester tag.

 

Let me tell you again, before you ban me because I you won't listen to anybody.

WE DON'T want you to recreate realistic software solution for jamming. We want you to create and model the effects of jamming that are publicly available to learn. Start with false targets. I won't fall for your "you need to learn" provocations. And i will not tell you more that I know than> FALSE TARGETS. None of you explains or answers any strong facts.

[Eddie]

Interesting how so many people are aware that jamming is badly done and still someone comes with ED tags and has the guts to say we need to learn something.

 

You tell us what is better or worst?

I will take sorbytsia for example again:

It is perfectly known what does it do, secret is how does it do it. Do we ask ED to make a realistic program for usage in real aircraft? No. We ask them to make us jamming that does what is publicly known for those pods. False targets etc etc etc.

 

It is absolutely unfair to act as if we're all dumb and clueless like someone did in this page, signed with ED Tester tag.

 

Let me tell you again, before you ban me because I you won't listen to anybody.

WE DON'T want you to recreate realistic software solution for jamming. We want you to create and model the effects of jamming that are publicly available to learn. Start with false targets. I won't fall for your "you need to learn" provocations. And i will not tell you more that I know than> FALSE TARGETS. None of you explains or answers any strong facts.

 

Ok, well, I'm struggling to work out what you're trying to say so I'll just repeat what I said before and expand somewhat.

 

Based on your initial post you do not understand ECM anywhere nearly as much as you appear to think you do.

 

So, sum up:

1. ECM must jam all those in effective range

 

Why? No ECM system will do that in reality. Even barrage jamming cannot effectively jam all emitters on a modern battlefield, nor would an EW aircraft employing barrage jamming techniques attempt to do so.

 

 

2. ECM denies you from using your own equipment

 

No, it most certainly does not.

 

3. ECM graphical display on HUD and MFDs must be fixed at last so that it does not show clearly the source (bearing) from where ECM is emmited

 

Why? The current representation of a jamming contact on the RADAR is one of the more accurate system implementations in the Flaming Cliffs aircraft. Certainly as far as spot and/or sweep jamming techniques are concerned at least.

 

ECM, how it works in reality and its current implementation in DCS has been discussed at length many times on these forums. And it has long been acknowledged that it is an area where DCS does not match reality. For the time being, apart from a very basic implementation of ECM in air to air combat, electronic warfare is absent from DCS. And that is a fact we have to live with until ED have the time and resources to model the electronic battlefield.

[Frostie]

You are wrong.

In reality radars can determinate bearing of jamming aircraft even without burning trought.

Enemy (both planes and more advanced SAMs with active or semi active radar guidance) can even launch missile that homing on your jammer.

 

Here you have very realistic SAM simulator: https://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/ You can learn about different aspects of jamming using this simulator.

 

Where noise jamming is concerned a strobe is shown to block the radar. But most modern fighters have multiple jamming techniques. Deception jamming will give false contacts at range and aspect causing missiles to use the wrong interception paths etc. HOJ is only truly effecive against noise jamming.

 

Electronic warfare is really complex and not just a case of changing how a jammer behaves, radars work on different frequencies and operating a jammer against multiple radars with different frequencies reduces the power of that jammer because it has to spread itself between them all. Where as going up against just one radar allows the jammer to use its full power. If your radar is not within the jamming frequency band you won't get jammed. A radars frequency agility is also a part of this, it all depends on who has the most effective hardware in the ideal environment. This is only scratching the surface of ECM.

 

And ofcourse to model accurate ECM would require you to model accurate ECCM which is another blackhole of info.

[EtherealN]

Whenever discussing things like this, I keep thinking about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

 

Hotarubi, if you find a "pilot" that will talk to you about ECM and ECCM, you can be roughly 100% sure he is talking crap. Why? Because most countries have severe penalties, often going all the way up to life imprisonment (and some countries even include the death penalty) for disseminating real information about these systems. ;)

 

So if he talks: he's not real. Or at least, what he says is not real. At best it'll be whatever is declassified since it ceased being used in like the 70's... ;) (But often, even those things remain classified, since current technology might be evolutions of the older tech.)

[whiteladder]

Where noise jamming is concerned a strobe is shown to block the radar. But most modern fighters have multiple jamming techniques. Deception jamming will give false contacts at range and aspect causing missiles to use the wrong interception paths etc. HOJ is only truly effecive against noise jamming.

 

Electronic warfare is really complex and not just a case of changing how a jammer behaves, radars work on different frequencies and operating a jammer against multiple radars with different frequencies reduces the power of that jammer because it has to spread itself between them all. Where as going up against just one radar allows the jammer to use its full power. If your radar is not within the jamming frequency band you won't get jammed. A radars frequency agility is also a part of this, it all depends on who has the most effective hardware in the ideal environment. This is only scratching the surface of ECM.

 

And ofcourse to model accurate ECM would require you to model accurate ECCM which is another blackhole of info.

 

 

Also add into the mix that many jamming pods have directional antenna`s, which means that the host aircraft is not affected by its own jamming anyway.

 

The electromaganetic environment is a hugely complex thing to model, with the possible combinations of different systems interacting with each other. M