1970s Jamming Technology vs. 1990s

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

1970s Jamming Technology vs. 1990s

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> 1970s Jamming Technology vs. 1990s

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

1970s Jamming Technology vs. 1990s - 4/27/2016 5:44:55 AM

DWReese

Posts: 1824
Joined: 3/21/2014
From: Miami, Florida
Status: offline

I was looking at some of the jamming units in the sim. They are almost always listed as Late 1970s or Late 1990s. Obviously, 1990s is more current, and is believed to be better.

In game terms, what is the difference? Will 1990s stuff do things that 1970s stuff won't? If so, where is this information available as to what they can or can't do? Or, is it just a generic rating based on the age of the equipment?

Thanks

Doug

Post #: 1

RE: 1970s Jamming Technology vs. 1990s - 4/27/2016 7:22:56 AM

mahuja

Posts: 107
Joined: 3/9/2016
Status: offline

This is just my understanding of it...

The general gist of it is that jammers apply a penalty to the signal strength, dependent on a lot of factors.

One of these factors is the relative sophistication of the jammer vs the radar it is trying to jam, which is where the late/early decade part comes into play. So if you have a early 80s jammer, it won't reduce detection ranges by as much as a late 00s jammer would, all else being equal.
Other factors are the bearing offset to what they're trying to detect (was sidelobes part of it?), distance to the jammer. I don't know if there's much for the power output of the jammer, or if that is rolled into the era.

(in reply to DWReese)

Post #: 2

RE: 1970s Jamming Technology vs. 1990s - 4/27/2016 7:39:02 AM

Rory Noonan

Posts: 2816
Joined: 12/18/2014
From: Brooklyn, NY
Status: offline

There's an explanation here:
http://www.warfaresims.com/?p=4091

quote:

So here are the steps we undertook to improve the OECM modelling:

* As described, tech generations are taken into account when preparing the variables used on the radar/ECM formulas. The greater the generation difference between jammer and radar emitter, the more pronounced the effect is; so for example a very modern jammer like the forthcoming NGJ has a fair chance of defeating a modern radar like the 96L6 Cheese Board or the YLC-27, while it will laugh at older systems like (non-modernized) Tall King or Spoon Rest. (The other already-existing factors that affect jamming effectiveness like distance, positional geometry, sidelobes, emission characteristics like beamwidth, frequency band, PRFs etc. etc. are all still there and are critical as ever, but the tech-gen gap adds an extra wrinkle.)

* Phased-array systems get decisive bonuses both on the radar and on the jammer side (NGJ is an example of the latter). AESAs in particular are able to ignore many OECM techniques altogether thanks to their very low sidelobes, high SNR and advanced beamforming capabilities.

(in reply to mahuja)

Post #: 3

RE: 1970s Jamming Technology vs. 1990s - 4/28/2016 3:12:18 AM

DWReese

Posts: 1824
Joined: 3/21/2014
From: Miami, Florida
Status: offline

Thanks for the explanation.

I have been using the OECM ground-based (mobile) Iranian jamming units (late 1970's rated) against very modern Israeli attacking air craft. I haven't really noticed that the jammers have had much of an effect on the attackers. I assume that the jammers are so old, and that the air craft are so modern, that they don't really do too much, is that what you would think?

Also, the way that I see it is that the ground-based OECM weapons are really kind of used for defensive purposes. They are used to keep the aircraft's offensive weapons from being fired at defending targets.

Since ground-based radars are easily detected, what is the best location for ground-based OECM jammers to be effective?

Doug

(in reply to Rory Noonan)

Post #: 4

RE: 1970s Jamming Technology vs. 1990s - 4/28/2016 8:49:35 AM

mahuja

Posts: 107
Joined: 3/9/2016
Status: offline

quote:

Since ground-based radars are easily detected, what is the best location for ground-based OECM jammers to be effective?

A ground based radar will flash his 'here-I-am beacon' just as brightly even if there's a jammer nearby. In terms of rwr/esm/elint, I don't think this will make a difference.
What the jammer does do, is keep its enemy from getting the full benefit of its own radars.
And when ground based radar and jammer are on opposite sides, they typically have terrain in between.

Generally, you want GB-OECM on the same bearing (which, given an enemy aircraft's mobility may mean mostly co-located with) as something you don't want the enemy (aircraft) to detect by their radars. This would force them to investigate with non-radar recon, which may have to get closer. (Was there a radarless sam site in there too?)
Given that radars detecting ground targets was tuned down recently, such a jammer may make it near impossible to detect ground targets beyond where you can detect them better with the mk1 eyeball anyway. Perhaps even with a large tech level discrepancy. (I have done no testing on this.)

More offensively, you could host it at an interceptor airfield, such that when interceptors take off they start out with a jammer at their back.
You could use it as a waypoint (or otherwise relative to their path) for your strike aircraft as they leave friendly lines. GB jammers can be more powerful on account of not having the same weight and power restrictions.

(in reply to DWReese)

Post #: 5

RE: 1970s Jamming Technology vs. 1990s - 4/28/2016 1:07:08 PM

DWReese

Posts: 1824
Joined: 3/21/2014
From: Miami, Florida
Status: offline

Thanks so much for the insight into GB OECM.

I have just a few more quick questions. As a rule of thumb, at what point do these GB jammers really start to work? The Iranian one that I am using is picked up at about 60+ miles away. Is it really going to work that far away? At what point is the attacking a/c so close that the GB OECM no longer has an effect? The Iranian one indicates that it is a late 1970s version. What are the "expected" distances for the late 1990's version, or the others, if there are any?

Some kind of idea as to what their capabilities actually are, could be very helpful. In my homemade scenario, the existence of the jammers is picked up quite easily by the attacking a/c. The existence of all of the known SAM sites is also easily picked up because they activate their FCR, so the jammers don't really do anything to protect them, either. So, is the jammer just to old to have an effect, or is the FCR just going to announce the presence of the firing unit anyway, so then what's the point of even having the jammer to begin with? I hope that I am explaining my situation well enough. It doesn't appear that jammers are a hot topic around here, so I am kind of having to learn their capabilities without the benefit of other's previously created scenario which highlights their use. Can you recommend a scenario that uses GB jammers that I might play/review to get an idea as to how that should/could be used so that I could apply that knowledge to my scenario?

Thanks again.

Doug

(in reply to mahuja)

Post #: 6

RE: 1970s Jamming Technology vs. 1990s - 4/28/2016 4:14:15 PM

mikmykWS

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DWReese

Thanks for the explanation.

I have been using the OECM ground-based (mobile) Iranian jamming units (late 1970's rated) against very modern Israeli attacking air craft. I haven't really noticed that the jammers have had much of an effect on the attackers. I assume that the jammers are so old, and that the air craft are so modern, that they don't really do too much, is that what you would think?

Also, the way that I see it is that the ground-based OECM weapons are really kind of used for defensive purposes. They are used to keep the aircraft's offensive weapons from being fired at defending targets.

Since ground-based radars are easily detected, what is the best location for ground-based OECM jammers to be effective?

Doug

Doug if you can find data on the Iranian systems that would be great.

I get the sense you don't think its correct which might be right. We just need data to back that up and would have no problems making a change.

Thanks!

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to DWReese)

Post #: 7

RE: 1970s Jamming Technology vs. 1990s - 4/28/2016 4:19:18 PM

mikmykWS

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DWReese

Thanks so much for the insight into GB OECM.

I have just a few more quick questions. As a rule of thumb, at what point do these GB jammers really start to work? The Iranian one that I am using is picked up at about 60+ miles away. Is it really going to work that far away? At what point is the attacking a/c so close that the GB OECM no longer has an effect? The Iranian one indicates that it is a late 1970s version. What are the "expected" distances for the late 1990's version, or the others, if there are any?

Some kind of idea as to what their capabilities actually are, could be very helpful. In my homemade scenario, the existence of the jammers is picked up quite easily by the attacking a/c. The existence of all of the known SAM sites is also easily picked up because they activate their FCR, so the jammers don't really do anything to protect them, either. So, is the jammer just to old to have an effect, or is the FCR just going to announce the presence of the firing unit anyway, so then what's the point of even having the jammer to begin with? I hope that I am explaining my situation well enough. It doesn't appear that jammers are a hot topic around here, so I am kind of having to learn their capabilities without the benefit of other's previously created scenario which highlights their use. Can you recommend a scenario that uses GB jammers that I might play/review to get an idea as to how that should/could be used so that I could apply that knowledge to my scenario?

Thanks again.

Doug

We're not going to provide hard data points because lots of variables impact it which means we'd have to produce tons of charts etc. and frankly giving a hard number kind of turns the game into a math problem more than it ought to be. We want players to feel the impact of jamming (uncertainty, fear of loss etc) and not just know it.

My approach would be to test a bit in the scenario editor. Understand that the radar and jammer power etc. matters as well as capabilities, aspect, frequency etc.

If you do find a legit issue please do post with file. We're more than happy to follow up if we've got what we need to do a good job at it.

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to DWReese)

Post #: 8

RE: 1970s Jamming Technology vs. 1990s - 4/28/2016 4:56:54 PM

DWReese

Posts: 1824
Joined: 3/21/2014
From: Miami, Florida
Status: offline

Mike,

No, I don't have any reason to believe that anything is wrong whatsoever. In fact, I think that everything works as it is designed. I think that you may have gotten the wrong impression.

My thoughts, since I have never worked with jammers in real life, are based around real life tactics. The sim has provided jammers that work, unlike our old Harpoon game. That's great, because I love the electronic aspect of the game. My dad was an EA-6 Intruder jock back in the day.

My question is not at all concerned with the validity of the sim, or the unit. My question is really aimed at learning from others who have professional experience with where, tactically, the jammer would be placed (i.e. in front of, behind, near, far, multiple, etc.) in relation to the attackers. I'm actually using the sim to teach myself. I give the sim full props and would like to build my scenarios as realistic as possible. I'd like someone to look at the placement of my jammers and then say, "Yup, that's exactly where I would have placed them." My worst fear is that I place them in some location, and a professional who has experience with jammers would say, "Those should never have been placed there because....."

I believe that the point that I am attempting to make is, I don't know enough about jammers, etc., to use them properly. If someone out there does know something, anything, then I'm all ears. Please feel free to pass along anything that you know. I'm like a sponge. I want to soak in all of the knowledge.

But, if you had the impression that I know more, or think that something within the sim should be changed, you are way off base on that. I think the sim is great. I absolutely love it, and I like playing with the electronics, etc. But, I don't know, or have any preconceived ideas about how anything should actually work.

Thanks.

Doug

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 9

RE: 1970s Jamming Technology vs. 1990s - 4/28/2016 5:08:01 PM

DWReese

Posts: 1824
Joined: 3/21/2014
From: Miami, Florida
Status: offline

Mike,

I just saw your second message.

I have no expectation about obtaining the inner secrets of your sim programming. I like that it is a mystery. That's fine with me. As I said before, I'm only trying to be realistic with the use (and placement) of the unit for maximum efficiency. Example: Should it be high on a hill top, or low in a valley? Should there be multiple jammers which are offset from the target, or should there just be one? Should it be in front of the target, or behind it? Will a late 1990s jammer be that much more efficient than a late 1970s? Are jammers expensive? Do the Iranians have a bunch of them? Do they have enough to put around every target? How much better is having a target protected by a jammer than not having it protected by a jammer? Specifically, I was wondering, the database lists the one Iranian mobile jammer. It is listed as a late 1970s unit. Since I'm using all new Israeli equipment, should I expect the new a/c to be unaffected by the relatively old jammers, or is the old jammer still better than no jammer at all.

These were all of the questions that I have been pondering.

Thanks again.

Doug

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 10

RE: 1970s Jamming Technology vs. 1990s - 4/28/2016 5:13:43 PM

mikmykWS

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

My impression is you're obsessed with one scenario that you've been working on for years and are constantly trying to push us to meet your expected outcome(s).I really don't mind helping with this at all but the game is designed for many cases and models. Please have fun with the game.

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to DWReese)

Post #: 11

RE: 1970s Jamming Technology vs. 1990s - 4/28/2016 5:53:06 PM

DWReese

Posts: 1824
Joined: 3/21/2014
From: Miami, Florida
Status: offline

You are essentially correct with your assessment that I am consumed with this topic. I'm really not trying to push you to do anything. Whenever anything new comes, such as the aircraft weight differential, it presents a whole new aspect to the sim that I find fascinating. Before, planes flew around without any thoughts about how much weaponry and fuel weighed. Now, it is a huge factor. That was a pleasant surprise, and one that I had never considered. As I said, the sim teaches me.

I have created many different military options (Israel/US) (Air Strike/Ship Launched Missile Strike) concerning attacks on Iran, and I enjoy changing the variables to assess the different outcomes. In fact, using the sim is a great way to evaluate the capabilities of real life forces. In confronting this particular scenario, which I have enhanced and updated many times to reflect the changing dynamics of the Iranian military capabilities, I have pretty much concluded that if Iran actually gets their hands on the S-300 system, and it implements it at, say, Natanz, the time is fast approaching that Israel will no longer have an option of using air craft to destroy these targets. As mentioned above, your recent creation, the weight aspect differential, is such a huge factor. The planes have to carry lots of fuel, to make it to their targets, but in doing so, they are sitting ducks if the SAM units are not cleared out before the actual strike arrives. The S-300 is going to be a game changer. For that reason, if Israel is going to do this, they had better do it quick. The window of time is closing.

My next project, which I will be moving onto shortly, will be the issues concerning the occupation of the South China Sea. I will save my Natanz, and Arak scenarios (and the various variations) for a time when they actually do take place. <G>

Thanks for all of your help.

Doug

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 12

RE: 1970s Jamming Technology vs. 1990s - 4/28/2016 7:22:40 PM

mikmykWS

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

Best of luck with it.

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to DWReese)

Post #: 13

RE: 1970s Jamming Technology vs. 1990s - 4/28/2016 10:23:10 PM

marksi10

Posts: 66
Joined: 8/1/2015
Status: offline

The s-300 will be a game-changer (if you are right about that) only until the Israelis get their F-35s. Playing the 2nd Sandbox Scenario reinforced for me how much easier taking on modern SAMs is with steath.

Sorry, I can�t help with how jamming works in the game - I haven�t had much success with it myself, but then I usually go with the stealth option (either submarines or aircraft) if it is available. Since you seem to be concerned about using jammers realistically though, why don�t you try to find something (a technical paper, perhaps?) about this online, and then you can test their tactics in Command and see whether the it is realistic in that regard.

< Message edited by marksi10 -- 4/28/2016 10:29:14 PM >

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 14

RE: 1970s Jamming Technology vs. 1990s - 4/28/2016 10:58:11 PM

DWReese

Posts: 1824
Joined: 3/21/2014
From: Miami, Florida
Status: offline

Thanks for the info.

I have conducted some research into jammers, but no documents ever seem to indicate the best possible locations for them to be positioned. It's not that big of a deal. It's just that sometimes an actual military guy stumbles across our little niche hobby here, and I was hoping they they might be able to offer their own professional perspective with regard to placement.

Have you heard anything concerning Israel obtaining the F35s? That would change some things, and it might make for a new wrinkle in the scenario. Right now, Israel is limited to just 24 F-15Is, which are the only ones that are capable of carrying the 5000 pound GBU-28 Bunker Buster for those underground targets.

Thanks again for the info,

Doug

(in reply to marksi10)

Post #: 15

RE: 1970s Jamming Technology vs. 1990s - 4/28/2016 11:06:41 PM

StellarRat

Posts: 188
Joined: 9/14/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL:DWReese
You are essentially correct with your assessment that I am consumed with this topic.

I haven't ever found a book that really gives the detail level you seem to be interested in, however, there certainly could be some out there. Are you an electrical engineer? My general feeling is that anything in this area of study is probably quite secret. Having had some training in radio electronics I would probably go out on a limb and say that there is A LOT of math in determining many of the answers here. You're probably going to have to do a lot of leg work in non-military radio theory to make a guess at how the military stuff is best employed. Wrapped in that will be trying to figure out exactly what signal strengths, frequencies, antenna types, etc... the various military equipment uses and how. Obviously, you aren't going to get that from a book as a lot is probably highly guarded secrets.

< Message edited by StellarRat -- 4/28/2016 11:14:21 PM >

(in reply to DWReese)

Post #: 16

RE: 1970s Jamming Technology vs. 1990s - 4/28/2016 11:25:43 PM

DWReese

Posts: 1824
Joined: 3/21/2014
From: Miami, Florida
Status: offline

No, I didn't necessarily want to be THAT detailed. I'm still just messing around with the sim for knowledge and fun.

What I was kind of looking at was things like:
Should the jammer go in front, to the side, or behind the target?
Does it work better on high elevation, or low?
Do they work in pairs, or are they assigned as just a singular unit?
Are they plentiful enough that every SAM unit (or target) would be found with one, or are they really rare, and you hardly find any?

That's the type of info that I was looking for. I would hate to create a scenario, place it on top of a hill, and then have someone say "Jammers would never be placed on the top of a hill. Everyone knows that."

Thanks again, for all of your info.

Doug

(in reply to StellarRat)

Post #: 17

RE: 1970s Jamming Technology vs. 1990s - 4/29/2016 1:57:00 AM

ColonelMolerat

Posts: 479
Joined: 9/23/2015
Status: offline

There's a Baloogan video here about airborne jammers. Not quite what you're after, but it gives a bit of an insight into how they work - I imagine ground-based jammers work similarly, but are more powerful (in light of what's been said above).

As far as I know, jammers work by swamping the target's radar with signals that are more powerful than those reflected back by its own radar. The target can only use its radar effectively when the waves that are reflected from what it's hunting are more powerful than those fired by the jammer - ie, when it's close enough that not much radar 'power' is lost over distance.

So, if you have 'hunter' (attacking aircraft), 'hunted' (what the aircraft is searching for) and 'jammer', this is how I think positioning should work:

A) If you know the route the hunter will be taking, position the jammer along that route, as close as possible to the point where the hunter will give up and turn around. This way, the jammer is the closest thing to the hunter, and will be the 'noisiest' thing on the radar. DON'T position it so far from the hunted that the hunter will just fly over, though.

B) If you don't know the route the hunter will be taking, keep the jammer close to the hunted, so that whichever angle the hunter approaches from, your jammer will be nearly on a straight line from hunter-hunted (it can also be on a straight line behind the hunted, but it will be less effective). As the hunter gets close, eventually its radar will reflect back 'louder' than the jammer, and it will detect the hunted. This position isn't as good at jamming, but will work from more angles of attack.

C) With regards to terrain, since the jammer will normally be jamming air targets, I assume being on a hill is best, since it will be closer (and in more of a direct line) to the hunter.

HOWEVER - I have learned all of this from playing CMANO, and could be talking out of my arse. I've also tried to use simple language, so terms like 'swamping' and 'noisy' may be technically incorrect. If anyone knows better, please correct me!!!

Finally, with regards to what Mike said "frankly giving a hard number kind of turns the game into a math problem more than it ought to be." - I really like that approach. Too many games become raw number-crunching, when the real world is messy, uncertain and unpredictable! One of the things that puts me off internet discussions of sim games is when they're turned into simple calculators that you can cheat your way around if you know the correct numbers.

(in reply to DWReese)

Post #: 18

RE: 1970s Jamming Technology vs. 1990s - 4/29/2016 2:36:52 AM

Rory Noonan

Posts: 2816
Joined: 12/18/2014
From: Brooklyn, NY
Status: offline

Try these links:

http://ausairpower.net/APA-REB-Systems.html
http://ausairpower.net/APA-Warpac-Rus-PLA-ESM.html
http://ausairpower.net/PDF-A/NAWCWPNS-TP8347-Rev.2-April-1999.pdf
http://ausairpower.net/JED-SJ-2002.html
http://ausairpower.net/TE-Tacjammer.html

The 'ELECTRONIC WARFARE AND RADAR SYSTEMS ENGINEERING HANDBOOK' in particular has tons of technical information to help you answer the questions you've posed.

However, if I were in your shoes I'd fire up the editor and experiment to get the answers you're after (399 pages of very dry reading for a 'this might work' answer, vs. 15-20 mins in game for a 'this does work' answer).

(in reply to ColonelMolerat)

Post #: 19

RE: 1970s Jamming Technology vs. 1990s - 4/29/2016 10:14:09 AM

marksi10

Posts: 66
Joined: 8/1/2015
Status: offline

Re: f-35s for Israel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II_Israeli_procurement

Looks like they are getting about 60-odd at the moment.

(in reply to Rory Noonan)

Post #: 20

RE: 1970s Jamming Technology vs. 1990s - 4/29/2016 1:08:15 PM

DWReese

Posts: 1824
Joined: 3/21/2014
From: Miami, Florida
Status: offline

The story that I read, I'll try to find it, says that Israel gets two this year, and the balance will be delivered by 2021. At least, that's the way that I remember it. I'll try to find it.

Doug

(in reply to marksi10)

Post #: 21

RE: 1970s Jamming Technology vs. 1990s - 4/30/2016 6:05:03 AM

cf_dallas

Posts: 303
Joined: 4/13/2006
From: Grapevine, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DWReese

The story that I read, I'll try to find it, says that Israel gets two this year, and the balance will be delivered by 2021. At least, that's the way that I remember it. I'll try to find it.

Doug

Yup. AS:01 and AS:02, the first Israeli jets, will be delivered this year. AS:01 is getting closer to final assembly rollout.

_____________________________

Formerly cwemyss

(in reply to DWReese)

Post #: 22

RE: 1970s Jamming Technology vs. 1990s - 5/3/2016 7:17:07 PM

StellarRat

Posts: 188
Joined: 9/14/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColonelMolerat

There's a Baloogan video here about airborne jammers. Not quite what you're after, but it gives a bit of an insight into how they work - I imagine ground-based jammers work similarly, but are more powerful (in light of what's been said above).

As far as I know, jammers work by swamping the target's radar with signals that are more powerful than those reflected back by its own radar. The target can only use its radar effectively when the waves that are reflected from what it's hunting are more powerful than those fired by the jammer - ie, when it's close enough that not much radar 'power' is lost over distance.

There are other techniques besides just blasting the enemies radar with high powered signals. You can also broadcast a "fake" return and make it appear that you are in a different position than you really are. There is also making the enemy think there are a bunch of contacts when it's really just you, etc... It's really quite a big subject. Another consideration, if you use any kind of active jamming you are much easier to detect yourself since you're emitting radiation. Radar and jamming are also affected by range, weather and terrain (including trees and buildings.) You wouldn't want to put a ground based jammer behind a hill for example as it would block jamming signal for anything coming from the other side.

(in reply to ColonelMolerat)

Post #: 23