What flight sim has the best modeling of ECM?

[TheChief2000 0]

I am reading Red Storm Rising now and on friday I read a part about VF-41 and VF-84 F-14s using a rope a dope strategy with ECM jammer aircraft to ambush MiG-29s and that got me thinking. Is there a flight sim out there that has anywhere near a realistic presentation of electronic jamming and which sim has the best rendering?

[sparkomatic 7]

well, when SFP1 first introduced ECM into its world, we did some tweaking of the F-15...the idea is in this game how well can you make your opponent break a lock. The other niceties like static on the radar screen and creating a big heapin' pile of dots on said radar screen is a bit harder to render...unless it has changed significantly since then.

 

Personally, I was just happy that it would prevent/disable target locks. Now, if we could get it to "spooge" the scope or "blank" the scope of your opponent, then that would be neater.

 

Not really the answer you wanted, but hope it helps, mildly at least

[MigBuster 2,884]

I am reading Red Storm Rising now and on friday I read a part about VF-41 and VF-84 F-14s using a rope a dope strategy with ECM jammer aircraft to ambush MiG-29s and that got me thinking. Is there a flight sim out there that has anywhere near a realistic presentation of electronic jamming and which sim has the best rendering?

 

Falcon 4 AF has some nice touches - The jammer only works from your front or rear aspect - and is only effective until the radar from the other plane has burned through it.

Also the jammer makes a nice target for Home On Jam missiles

 

Theres alsways a lot of debate how a jamming pod actually works - because its either classified or too techy for anyone to understand :) - but people say that the pilot flicks a switch and the pod automatically decides the required jamming based on the kind of EM its detecting.

 

Im not sure if any game has towed decoys yet as you would get in the latest pods - AF doesnt have them even though they were used in the 1999 Allied Force conflict I believe.

[+pato poli 73]

i really wanna know much more of ECM...

this is mi contribution...

 

the ECM pod or internal work with your RWR. it take the info of what frequenci is pointed at you, then start to put on the air a lot (A LOT) of energy in that frequenci...and teorically, the missile or radar will bi blind...

if you put it on without lock on you...the ECM will put all the energy in the air, but devided in a range of frequency that know as possibli lock by the enemy (thats why is important upgrade your software in the RWR)

so, is much effective when it work in only one frequenci with all the power...

the ECM dont work only on radars....can also interrup your radio comunications or datalink...i so this on youtube about the SU-35

in the war of Malvinas/Falklands in the 82, the argentine radar detect an heli asault group...when the recon pilot go to check there was nothing...the british jam the argentine radar to make those "bip" on the screen!!!

I remember when i play the F-19 stealth fighter...even older that the F-117 of the microsoft...excelent work on the RCS and the use of ECM and chaff/flare and decoy...amazing an only 1.2mb....so small for today!!!

[FastCargo 412]

Personally, none of the commerically available sims are that accurate in employment of ECM, though LOMAC and F4 come close.

 

Even when we played our reindeer games we didn't use our 'full up' wartime jamming techniques. And that's in the real world.

 

Comm jamming is nothing new either, that's been around a long time.

 

FastCargo

[+EricJ 4,256]

Falcon 4 AF has some nice touches - The jammer only works from your front or rear aspect - and is only effective until the radar from the other plane has burned through it.

Also the jammer makes a nice target for Home On Jam missiles

 

Theres alsways a lot of debate how a jamming pod actually works - because its either classified or too techy for anyone to understand :) - but people say that the pilot flicks a switch and the pod automatically decides the required jamming based on the kind of EM its detecting.

 

Im not sure if any game has towed decoys yet as you would get in the latest pods - AF doesnt have them even though they were used in the 1999 Allied Force conflict I believe.

 

AFAIK JF-18 models the ALE-50 so far. Even LOMAC didn't have any sort of decoy system. Pity but oh well.

[Guest Saganuay82]

Comm jamming was reduced to an electric shaver running in a tin can broadcasted over the circuit. Quite irritating and effective or playing your voice back over the circuit when you are transmitting. That gets fun too.

 

I think most modern aircraft now employ ECCM, so a switch setting gets rids of the jamming spokes.

[Rambler 1-1 9]

I heard a story about a USAF training exersize where a group of F-106s was to find a group of CF-100s over the Yukon. The american planes had a much more advanced radar, but the canadians each had a commercial device in the cockpits of their planes that was designed to block police speed radar, and when the american planes got a lock the canadians turned their jammers on and the F-106s couldn't find them!

 

I doubt if this is true, but it's funny!

[JediMaster 451]

There's multiple types of jamming, but flight sims always simply model "noise" jamming. As a result, all it does is prevent lock on until closer and burn-thru occurs.

Deception jamming would be nice, where the jammer fools the attacker into thinking you're somewhere close to where you are, but not really. Fire a missile and it appears to pass harmlessly through you because you're really miles from there!

 

However, the whole classified nature of it means we can forget a realistic sim of it.

[Dagger 21]

I don't know alot about the real world, but I like Falcon 4:Allied Force. I mean if you leave it on to long it can get you killed fast.I use it like a radar jammer or detector in cars, off and on.I also found that flying low and fast works, chaff and flares are good things to have around also.

[sparkomatic 7]

- "However, the whole classified nature of it means we can forget a realistic sim of it."

 

exactly

[Apocal 0]

Most sims have a fairly decent representation of deception jamming. Noise jamming I don't think I've seen in any sim except Jane's F/A-18. Incidentally, it also has towed decoys, so if I had to choose a sim with the best EW modelling it would have to be that one. If Falcon 4 has noise jamming modelled I haven't noticed. Only played LOMAC a little bit so I really can't say there.

 

Falcon 4 AF has some nice touches - The jammer only works from your front or rear aspect - and is only effective until the radar from the other plane has burned through it.

Also the jammer makes a nice target for Home On Jam missiles

 

Theres alsways a lot of debate how a jamming pod actually works - because its either classified or too techy for anyone to understand :) - but people say that the pilot flicks a switch and the pod automatically decides the required jamming based on the kind of EM its detecting.

 

The most modern ones are pretty simple operating wise. Turn them on when you get over Indian Country and leave them on until you fly out. They stay silent until a valid lock from a threat emitter is detected, at which point it can safely be assumed whatever cover you had is blown, and throw out some deception jamming. Done properly, deception jamming shouldn't offer a target for HOJ missiles* as the jammer is simply mimicking the threat radar's signal (hence the 'deception' part).

 

The idea is for the jammer to 'seduce' the radar's track gate, then walk it away from the jet. Which is why you sometimes hear deception jammers referred to as 'gate stealers'. If your advantage in jamming is large enough, the missile will miss completely without any further action required. If the threat radar is particularly capable (or your jammer a POS relative to it), then you'll have to hope for a increase in miss distance while you do the missile avoidance drill.

 

More advanced jamming systems are alleged to have an active cancellation capability, wherein they take a threat signal and broadcast an exact copy 180 degrees out of phase, cancelling it out. Of course, due to limitations just how large a transmitter a fighter could haul, it wouldn't cover every radar out there (unless we've done some real miracles in EW technology), but it could conceivably cover enough to provide a VLO-esqe penetration capability to conventional aircraft.

 

Noise jammers are a whole different ballgame though the objective is the same. Noise jamming could be compared to blasting someone with a fire hose so they don't realize it's raining on their head. The further away the hose is, the weaker the spray and the more likely they are to notice raindrops. If the raindrops increase in size (RCS) the hose's spray needs to be stronger to cover them up. Of course that isn't a perfect analogy, because it's generally lopsided in the OTHER direction, with the hose being relatively weak while the rain is strong, but hopefully I got the point across.

 

There are a few counters to it, frequency diversity/agility/hopping, alternate tracking methods such as IR or EO, home-on-jam missiles, but for the most part it's something you learn to work around. Frequency shifting techniques are good because it forces the jammer to either play catch-up to your freq changes or waste a lot of power covering your full operating spectrum. Dual- and multi-band radars really shine in this sort of arena, because the have a huge range of freqs compared to legacy radars.

 

* Regarding HOJ against aircraft: You really shouldn't be happy if a missile goes HOJ, especially at long range. In real life, HOJ removes target range from the missile, creating a situation where the missile has to fly lead pursuit throughout it's flight. At longer ranges, that means that even slight variations in the target's heading equate to large variations in the predicted intercept point. And since the missile doesn't know how far away the target is, it reacts to those variations as quickly as possible, G-ing away it's energy in an effort to maintain lead pursuit on the target.

 

In contrast, with range data available (ie not HOJ), the missile is able to fly a much smoother, more energy efficient proportional navigation course to intercept, only switching to high-G manuevering when the intercept point is suitably close. More energy in the terminal phase of flight, a better chance of getting that aircraft inside Region R and filling the sky with hair, teeth and eyeballs.

 

I think most modern aircraft now employ ECCM, so a switch setting gets rids of the jamming spokes.

 

ECCM (now EP) is a pretty broad term to cover a lot of stuff (some hardware, some techniques), but yes, you can get rid of the jamming spoke. The caveat is the target(s) go with it, unless you've achieved burnthrough. As I said before, properly employed there isn't a whole lot you can do against noise jamming, especially the high-spectral density stuff that can simply cover your full range of operating frequencies. You take the hit in range and keep on truckin'.

 

However, the whole classified nature of it means we can forget a realistic sim of it.

 

That, IMO, is a cop out. The basic "whats" and "whys" of EW aren't classified. As a matter of fact, there is probably about as much publicly information on basic EW than basic BVR. But no one is suggesting we remove AMRAAMs from the sims, right?

 

I don't know alot about the real world, but I like Falcon 4:Allied Force. I mean if you leave it on to long it can get you killed fast.I use it like a radar jammer or detector in cars, off and on.

 

It really shouldn't do that, it should be silent until you've been lit up by something that talks to warheads.

 

I also found that flying low and fast works, chaff and flares are good things to have around also.

 

Yeah, cuts that horizon on search radars right down to size. As long as I can stay low throughout ingress, I can dance around the tripwires and service my target without too much intereference, rocket-propelled or otherwise. I've also noticed that above about 490 knots and lower than 400ft, MANPADs have problems tracking. It isn't unusual for me to see a few popup in front of me as I run in on an airfield, but they never hit, and I don't use flares. I know they have my name on them, before they burn out I see that they've tipped over in my direction, but after that... nothing.

 

Large caliber AAA on the other hand... let's just say a diving attack down to 10K isn't my preferred method of doing business.

[JediMaster 451]

That, IMO, is a cop out. The basic "whats" and "whys" of EW aren't classified. As a matter of fact, there is probably about as much publicly information on basic EW than basic BVR. But no one is suggesting we remove AMRAAMs from the sims, right?

 

 

They cut out IFF for that reason! IFF! Talk about "sensitive"!

[Apocal 0]

They cut out IFF for that reason! IFF! Talk about "sensitive"!

 

Well, doing IFF right is a bit more difficult. I suppose I could write a little something about that too...

 

The biggest is figuring out just what IFF is. With an IFF system, you have two basic elements, a transponder and a interrogator. The interrogator sends out the query, the transponder squawks a response. Virtually all aircraft have a transponder. Relatively few have interrogators. Early F-16s didn't have interrogators them.

 

There are five basic modes of IFF: Modes 1, 2, 3A, 4 and C.

 

Mode 3A is what civilians have used for years now. I forget exactly what Modes 1 and 2 do, (been awhile for me) but they are unencrypted as well. Mode C is used to squawk altitude. Military IFF systems can use all these modes, but have the addition of Mode 4, which is encrypted. Additionally, interrogators can be set to either automatically interrogate unknown contacts or only interrogate contacts momementarily all in various combinations of modes. Transponders can be set to respond only to valid Mode 4 queries (to prevent an opponent from tracking you by constantly sending false queries) or turned off entirely.

 

It's nowhere near as precise on a fighter compared to a large aircraft or ship, just because of the antenna sizes. The reciever can only recieve one response and it's entirely possible that a correct Mode 4 response can be recieved but mistakenly corrollated to the different track. This can be operator error (too big of a query gate so that multiple contacts overlap and give false responses), atmospheric (you can simply fail to recieve the response) or hardware (you haven't detected the friendly, so the nearest track is given the friendly ID).

 

Also a note on the system. IFF is very much fixed frequency (IIRC the query freq was 243Mhz and squawk freq was slightly different, but still fixed) without variation throughout the Modes. If an opponent jammed either freq, the system would be useless in the vincity of the jammer. Since most transponders and interrogators are quite weak power wise, it wouldn't take much a jammer or very many to make IFF performance spotty in a particular area.

 

There are other issues as well, but these the well-known, public-knowledge workings and flaws of IFF. Just looking at these you can see that why IFF isn't, by itself, considered a positive ID. Sets mounted on AWACS sets and ships are better in most regards, which is why they tend to carry more weight.

[MigBuster 2,884]

It really shouldn't do that, it should be silent until you've been lit up by something that talks to warheads.

Yeah, cuts that horizon on search radars right down to size. As long as I can stay low throughout ingress, I can dance around the tripwires and service my target without too much intereference, rocket-propelled or otherwise. I've also noticed that above about 490 knots and lower than 400ft, MANPADs have problems tracking. It isn't unusual for me to see a few popup in front of me as I run in on an airfield, but they never hit, and I don't use flares. I know they have my name on them, before they burn out I see that they've tipped over in my direction, but after that... nothing.

 

Large caliber AAA on the other hand... let's just say a diving attack down to 10K isn't my preferred method of doing business.

 

 

Are most ECM pods capable of both Noise and Deception jamming? Could using noise potentially blind an active missile at close range?

 

Interesting discusion on ECM jamming there thanks - is that information for sure though - are you someone who works in the avionics industry par chance?

 

 

 

Back to Falcon F4 ive always felt safer much higher believe it or not - a lot of the MANPADs have missed me at low level but I have been hit before - and that small arms fire is a nightmare sometimes. Also the ground has a kill probability of 1 btw - and ememy fighters have quite an altitude advantage if 1 catches me out - but I admit its a great buzz sometimes taking the risks

[Apocal 0]

Are most ECM pods capable of both Noise and Deception jamming? Could using noise potentially blind an active missile at close range?

 

Most likely they retain some noise jamming capability for certain specific threats, but not a general blanket of noise. By design self-protection pods are small and light, which is good if you want to use them in a variety of flight regimes, but the tradeoff is rather narrow focus (fire control-type radars).

 

RE: active missiles. Potentially, yes. But that would be when the aforementioned home-on-jam capability would shine. By time it's that close, the missile is already in the terminal phase, using lead pursuit, high-G manuevering. A better way of handling it would be to trick the fuze into detonating early, outside of the lethal radius, or not at all.

 

Interesting discusion on ECM jamming there thanks - is that information for sure though - are you someone who works in the avionics industry par chance?

 

If anyone doubts what I am saying, all the relevant information is publicly available, open source. About the best basic primer on the technical aspects (that I've read) is the Countermeasures chapter of "Principles of Naval Weapon Systems". It can get a little bit "techy" but not excessively so. Tactics wise, "EW 101: A First Course in Electronic Warfare" I thought was fairly good, though again, it could get techy.

 

Admittedly, what I consider a little techy might be what you think is too much. On the other hand, I've never once calculated fuel consumption on a long range strike or used sine/cosine to calculate my offset IP to a target, so to each his own.

 

I'm not in the avionics industry, I'm the kind of guy the pods are designed to defeat. Worked on every stage of the IADS chain from the search (EW) radar, right down to pressing the 'FIRE' button. It's an interesting game, move/countermove, like chess but with explosions.

 

Back to Falcon F4 ive always felt safer much higher believe it or not - a lot of the MANPADs have missed me at low level but I have been hit before - and that small arms fire is a nightmare sometimes. Also the ground has a kill probability of 1 btw - and ememy fighters have quite an altitude advantage if 1 catches me out - but I admit its a great buzz sometimes taking the risks

 

Oh I believe higher is safer. Unfortunately in my present campaign the aircraft aren't LGB equipped, so it's either radar bombing (AKA 'Player has destroyed s**thouse with MK84') or low level. I haven't noticed that low-caliber stuff is particularly lethal, but MANPADs have taken a slice out of hide plenty of times. Just never when I'm fast and very low.

[MigBuster 2,884]

On the other hand, I've never once calculated fuel consumption on a long range strike or used sine/cosine to calculate my offset IP to a target, so to each his own.

 

 

Trust me I really dont have the time for things like that either

 

Many thanks for the info on the thread though

[sparkomatic 7]

err...there are more than 5-types of IFF...but you know that already...and dont forget that proper employment of M1/2 would be secret, though the system is not

[Apocal 0]

err...there are more than 5-types of IFF... but you know that already

 

I included all the modes you would find on standard IFF gear.

 

...and dont forget that proper employment of M1/2 would be secret, though the system is not

 

Which is why I said absolutely nothing about employing any Mode tactically. Except Mode C and if anyone thinks Mode C is classified, I got some oceanfront in Kansas for 'em. Honest.

Edited January 12, 2008 by Apocal