ECM vs Gainful...

[Lt. James Cater]

I'm looking for info concerning others' experiences with this missle.

 

 

In WOE, two campaigns have come to an end due to this SAM. In both i was carrying ECM pods but obviously it did little good since i was shot down. Worse is that my squadronmates got the chop too. One i was actually keying in orders to send him home when he was hit. The range, height and bearing to the site were so similar in both cases that i figured i'd come here and ask if anyone else got nailed hard by this SAM and can ECM help defend against it.

 

For some reason it seemingly has my number and i wonder if the ECM is having any effect. In both campaigns i was flying F-4s successfully until going on deep strike missons.

[Viggen]

Probably has to do with the limited strength of early ECM pods. Otherwise, I'm thinking that the SA-6 has a home on jam. But that seems too modern for that SAM.

[+Gr.Viper]

It they could rig SA-2 with home on jam, why not SA-6?

[Viper6]

I'm having the same problem with ALL the SAMS it seems as if the ecm pods are waaay too weak to do any good AND the Rhinos dont have chaff so the options are either turn up the jamming power on the pods or add chaff to the rhinos.

Edited December 28, 2008 by Viper6

[Viggen]

It they could rig SA-2 with home on jam, why not SA-6?

 

 

I'm not saying that they wouldn't, but home-on-jam just sounds like a late 1980s creation.

[Jarhead1]

NO, as I recall, during the early 70s, Gr Viper correct me if I am wrong, but they did have home on jam in SA-2s and SA-3s in North Vietnam. Ask EZLead, he can probobly verify as well.

[+Fubar512]

I'm thinking that the SA-6 has a home on jam. But that seems too modern for that SAM.

 

Not at all. as the SA-2F used HOJ. If you read Dave's interview with EZLead's (which I recommend), you'll see him mention encountering SA-2s with HOJ guidence while flying an EA-6 near Haiphong.

 

The SA-6 proved a tough foe for the Israelis during the Yom Kippur war, as it's H-band acquisition and I-band height finder were all but undetectable to the RWR sets in their Skyhawks and Phantoms. By the end of that conflict, they had modified the RWR sets and jammers to receive and jam on those bands, but even then, they learned that the best tactic was to avoid flying within that missile's 28 mile engagement zone.

 

By 1981, a combination of better ECM and countermeasures, coupled with a generous dose of STARMs and Shrikes, effectively eliminated Syrian SA-6s as a threat. I recall one Israeli general quoted as saying "The best ECM, is a Mark-82 right down the SAM-radar's signal horn"

 

Recommended reading: http://www.pakdef.info/forum/archive/index.php/t-8588.html

[Lt. James Cater]

In WOE i've never once had a problem with SA2s despite multiple launchings. When i got shot down the first time my flight path was between several Soviet bases and the ECM was effective despite about 12 SAMs being fired at us. The problem was two SA6 sites that were located dead ahead a few miles of the initial point. They fired three times and got two of us.

 

In WOV, ECM is no guarantee, but makes a remarkable difference to the odds concerning your survival.

Edited December 28, 2008 by Lt. James Cater

[zmatt]

My ECM experience has been mixed. For a lot of the older aircraft they are very under protected when it comes to SAMs. Most of the time that is solved by installing ecm in place of one of my missile and learning to fly strike missions very low to the ground. Some of the newer aircraft however have very ineffective built in ECM like the Atlas Chettah, even after doubling its ecm power i was still being shot down. Also for some reason the F-35 is pretty easily aquired by not just SAM sights but all Radar based missles. I noticed that many times my RWR wont catch an SA-6 launch, luckily the ai normally announce a SAM launch over the radio. I find the best SAM countermeasures are flying fast and low, around the 1,000ft mark even with long term radar lock I haven't had a SAM hit me. I have had to glide back to base a few times from burning up all of my fuel going mach 1 on the deck but thats better than the alternative.

[Jarhead1]

use Kreelins refueler mod, to "refuel" when ur low on gas, since thats what i do, i "vector to a tanker" and take on fuel so i dont go home bone dry.

[sugarblues]

I've usually been okay with avoiding Gainfuls, but I'm presently flying a modified Persian Gulf campaign and the bloody Grizzlies keep swatting me like flies... I haven't found a way to get away from those monsters yet!

 

SB

[Lt. James Cater]

Damn,

 

just started a new campaign and lost one of my flight to a SA6 while engaged with Migs near Hof. I'm going to really have to think of something.

[Viper6]

I just got hit by a sa13 with no warning from my rwr oh btw it was mission 3

Edited December 29, 2008 by Viper6

[+EricJ]

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/sa-13.htm

 

But I agree with zmatt, the onboard ECM on Erwin_Hans's F/A-18F seems to work when properly done right. But burn through does happen on occasion and always doesn't work. However, I too have noticed how AAA tends to fire at me alot more in the F-35 than in most other aircraft. And the only thing to do about the fuel issue is to bring tanks. I carry two at the minimum. For the Black Sea terrain I bring five for long distance runs. Still need to get that refueller mod though.

[Dagger1]

Hi everybody...

Does it make any difference if a Deceptive jamer was used instead of Noise jamers? when was the first Deceptive jamer was put into active duty?

I once did a trick on the SA-6 I had a noise jammer so I know he will be after me weather its on or off so I fly at figh speed low alt. turning the jamer on and off repeatedly... amazingly SAMS keep paasing by me with no effect!

[+Wrench]

The first jamming (ECM) devices were used in WW2; both as active countermeasures (electronics) and passive (chaff or 'window'). Radar warning devices started appearing (methink in RAF bombers) around 1943. P-38, P-51 and I think some P-47s carried a rear radar warning reciever/transmitter of some kind in late 44. Late model B-29s could also have a small aft looking radar for the tail gunner to use. (got pictures around here somewhere...)

 

Think of noise jammers as a big blanket, covering the spectrum, trying to drown out the search/track radar beams (like the idiot next to you in traffic, with the his 45000 watt speaker system in a Honda Civic, or you turning up the stero to cover up the sound of your brakes grinding up the rotors)

 

IIRC, deceptive jammers create false images of your aircraft, to fool (decieve ->hence deceptive) for the radars/missiles/radar guided AAA to look at, whilst you hopefully slip through with too many holes magically appearing in your aricraft.

 

Simplified explinations, of course.

 

Info on the history of ECM/ECCM readily available on the web. Researching WW2 nightfighters helps too...

 

Wrench

kevin stein

[zmatt]

What is more effective? Or is that more left to the individual ecm device in question? I get the feeling that in general ECM in the games is under powered. I know we haven't lost many planes recently to SAMs. So why does my F-35 keep getting shot down? I would think the stealth combined with the advanced ECM on it would leave me all but invulnerable to SAMs.

Edited December 29, 2008 by zmatt

[+Gr.Viper]

If I remember talk about F-22 here, "stealth" doesn't quite work in game. A plane is either radar-visble and can be locked at, or is 100% stealthy and has no radar-guided weapons fired at it at all. That's adjusted in it's data file... I think is becomes invisible with radar cross section set to a negative value.

[+Fubar512]

In real life, stealth only applies to high-frequency (giga-Hertz) acquisition radars. Low frequency (search) radars can "see" a stealthy aircraft, albeit at a somewhat diminished range.

 

Also, stealth aircraft really do not normally employ jammers (only as a last recourse), as that would render the entire concept of stealth, a moot point. In theory, any jammer can, at some point, be resolved down to a point source, and then you're toast.

[Rodent]

stealth aircraft really do not normally employ jammers

 

 

I get a mental image of a ninja carrying a lightsource through the night so bright that nobody can look at him. It may make it harder to make him out but it kind of defeats the purpose of sneaking.

 

I know, I am a disturbed individual.

[Viper6]

I get a mental image of a ninja carrying a lightsource through the night so bright that nobody can look at him. It may make it harder to make him out but it kind of defeats the purpose of sneaking.

 

I know, I am a disturbed individual.

Now that is funny!

[+Dave]

Now that is funny!

 

 

I can see it now. "What the hell is that bright light? I can't make out what is causing it."

[Viper6]

I can see it now. "What the hell is that bright light? I can't make out what is causing it."

It's too bright! Shoot it!!

[Lt. James Cater]

My experience with ECM in WOV was rather positive.

 

It was no guarantee against being shot down but it did lessen the odds quite noticibly. Combined with knowledge of where the SAM sites were located, it was a matter of planning approaches that would keep the strike package at near max range of the SAMs' normal envelope. About roughly 90% of the time it worked wonderfully and you could virtually ignore launchings and fly alng with impunity. If you had to fly either over or near (10 miles or so) the SAM could still track and engage succesfully. The ECM still made it harder but the effect was there.

 

In WOE, ECM still does works rather well against SA2s. It's the SA6s that are the problem. If you are on a fighter sweep you can manuver to defeat it but if you are on a strike mission and are heading to a distant target with rather close time restraints, that option is not there. In that case ECM plus altitude is the obvious choice. However, the SA6 is going to make for a rather painful experience.

 

In WOE i never really had a problem in A-10s doing deep strikes, but it's murder in an F-4.

[zmatt]

For me best results on a strike mission have been low and fast. The SAMs like to get to altitude before they track so if you stay around the 1500-1000ft mark you are pretty safe from the big ones. The AAA also don't do a very good job when you are zipping by at mach 1.

 

If I am doing fighter work I try to force them out of the SAM's operating radius. If I can't do that then I try to keep things moving around as much as possible.