RE: Automatic evasion

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Automatic evasion

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 >> Tech Support >> RE: Automatic evasion

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Automatic evasion - 2/16/2022 8:29:18 PM

tiag

Posts: 91
Joined: 6/21/2018
Status: offline

Hi Dimitris,

I was not really sure how to address your post above, specially the original version of it before you/someone edited part of it. Unfortunately, I got the full version of it due to the subscription of the topic. That almost put me off from trying CMO again, to be sincere to you. Anyway, let me focus on what really matters: ECM and automatic evasion in CMO.

I could try to reply each of one your points, but it would not be so helpful as a video showing my point. I think that you guys got the ECM usage by tactical aircraft (DECM pods) not correct. The usage of ECM is a great advantage to delay a tracking solution in A2A combat as well as against air defences. This is not happening in CMO. Aggregating the ECM factor, as it is now, only when the missile hits denies more capable aircraft of flying until burnthrough range and supporting their missiles (very important in SAHR vs ARH missile combat). There other problems of doing that, like ECM useage when missiles have HOJ, coverage of ECM emission during the high-G automaic evasion, etc, which I dont want to bring into discussion because I dont know how you guys are moddeling it. You know, all models are wrong, some are useful ;-).

This is the video:

On the Mechanics of ECM (Command Modern Operations 1.04)

That will be my last contribution to try to improve CMO around here.....only bug reports from now on. I wish you, Dimitris, too all the peace in your heart.

< Message edited by tiag -- 2/16/2022 8:30:50 PM >

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 31

RE: Automatic evasion - 2/17/2022 12:12:54 PM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

Thanks for the video. So, your point is that the typical fighter-borne ECM systems are not deception-only (DECM in CMO), but they also serve a noise function (OECM in CMO), even at a much lower power level compared to escort/standoff jammers. You could have opened with that and saved both of us a lot of grief.

We'll discuss this with our SME contacts and see how and where this may apply.

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to tiag)

Post #: 32

RE: Automatic evasion - 2/17/2022 11:36:11 PM

SeaQueen

Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
Don't forget that the game covers almost 70 years of combat across a hundred different forces. AAW tactics change over time and between countries. I think many of the posters are way over-simplifying how this gets designed, let alone executed.

There's a lot of oversimplifications of oversimplifications going on if you ask me. Depending on the nature of the oversimplification in question, it might not be a bad thing, within limits. (How's that for a basically useless statement?)

One of the dangers of a detailed game like Command is for people to focus on the details. When things don't behave exactly the way they think they ought to, they fixate on the details that they believe will produce the result they expected to see. I'm not always sure that people's expectations are necessarily accurate, though. In that sense, games like CMO, without access to the classified details, must be content to make imperfect representations of other imperfect representations.

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 33

RE: Automatic evasion - 2/18/2022 12:05:08 AM

SeaQueen

Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline

quote:

To boot, if you stay low in CMO your radar, even it it has no look down/shoot down abilty you will get a good fix on any high flying target while your opponent aircraft, if not eqipped with a modern advanced radar with LD/SD-ability will have large problems getting a weapons quality track on your aircraft that is flying at minimum level over the sea.

I think you're misunderstanding lookdown/shootdown. All lookdown/shootdown means is that the radar is a pulse doppler radar. That means within some limits, a radar is better at picking a target out of the ground clutter by taking advantage of Doppler shift on the returned radar signal. All things being equal, a low altitude aircraft SHOULD have an easier time picking out an aircraft above it due to the absence of ground clutter. A look up situation is actually ideal, and there's a lot of advantages to having a low CAP looking up, using ground clutter and terrain masking to avoid or delay detection. That's not necessarily wrong.

Lookdown/shootdown means that the radar has the ability to potentially negate that advantage by being able to better pick out targets from the clutter, and CMO does represent that fairly well. It's just missing the missile kinematics piece. That doesn't mean that the advantages enjoyed by a less advanced radar looking up aren't real.

(in reply to LargeDiameterBomb)

Post #: 34

RE: Automatic evasion - 2/18/2022 10:56:11 AM

tiag

Posts: 91
Joined: 6/21/2018
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dimitris
....So, your point is that the typical fighter-borne ECM systems are not deception-only (DECM in CMO), but they also serve a noise function (OECM in CMO), even at a much lower power level compared to escort/standoff jammers.

Definitely. 100%. The main differences between what a dedicated escort/standoff jamming platform like the EF-111 or the EA-6 (with pods labeled as OECM in CMO) and a self-protection jammer (labeled as DECM in CMO) are of course the power available/gain (which translates in range), number of jamming channels/antennas, direction of ECM signal and modes of operation. Particular older DECM pods did not have as many modes as the dedicated platforms. But BOTH kinds of pods have the ability to delay to break/deny the enemy radar tracking solution. And that applies against airborne radars (as my video shows) as well as to air defence radars (I can make a video showing the effect).

Just to give some few additional information from random sources, different eras:

(1) Jane's Radar and Electronic Warfare Systems
"AN/ALQ-188A(V) Electronic Countermeasures
(ECM) system

...ALQ-188A(V) is capable of producing over 30 technique
combinations and is programmable from an RS-232 source. The technique types include noise (spot,
barrage or swept spot), velocity gate pull off, narrowband repeater noise, pseudo-random noise, random
Doppler, range gate pull off, cover pulse, false target, and Amplitude Modulation (AM) (blink, random
blink, fixed AM, swept square wave, sequenced AM). The equipment's antennas are circularly polarised
with coverage of �30� for low gain and �15� for high gain..."

(2) Fighter Weapons Review Spring 87, Page 22

"William Tell 86 provided competitors with yet more challenging combat profiles. Profile IV, a mass raid scenario, presented the competing teams with a strong, multi threat challenge. Designed to exercise
BASIC strategic air defense concepts in area defense againstan ECM-employing threat....

...The ECM signature of the profile was treated with the same concern for fair competition.
The F- 16 adversaries, which staged out of Mac0ill AFB, carried ALQ-131 pods each capable of producing an equal level of degradation for all types of competitor radars (F-4C/D, F-1 5A/C, CF-1 8), depending on the pod setting selected."

(3) Fighter Weapons review Summer 85, page 31
AN�ALQ 167 ECM POD
"The ALQ-167 is a super training pod against all current ADTAC/AC air-to-air fighte rs (F-4, F-106, F-15, and F-16).....

(4) Jane's Radar and Electronic Warfare Systems
"ALQ-184(V) retains the same dimensions as ALQ-119(V), provides contiguous sub-band frequency coverage and is able to generate transponder, repeater and noise jamming modes"

There are many other examples, even older ones. For example, one of the first pods used in Vietnam was the QRC-160, better known as the AN/ALQ-87 (DBID #27342 in CMO) could operate with barrage as well as modulated noise.
This pod was carried by several tactical aircraft as >DECM< (The D here is for Defensive) and could perform the following central jobs:
Deny range and azimuth information to the Fire Can radar
Deprive range, altitude and azimuth information for the Fan Song (SA-2 radar)
Jam the position beacon (down-link) in the sustainer section of the SA-2 missile

< Message edited by tiag -- 2/18/2022 2:13:29 PM >

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 35

RE: Automatic evasion - 2/19/2022 1:52:35 PM

boogabooga

Posts: 457
Joined: 7/18/2018
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

Thanks for the video. So, your point is that the typical fighter-borne ECM systems are not deception-only (DECM in CMO), but they also serve a noise function (OECM in CMO), even at a much lower power level compared to escort/standoff jammers. You could have opened with that and saved both of us a lot of grief.

We'll discuss this with our SME contacts and see how and where this may apply.

Without getting too far OT, I suspect a similar issue exists where many radars have some ESM or ELINT capability "baked in"- where they can detect (in passive mode) the bearing of a jamming signal or even possibly other radar emissions operating over their coverage band.

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 36

RE: Automatic evasion - 2/20/2022 11:41:24 AM

LargeDiameterBomb

Posts: 80
Joined: 3/3/2019
Status: offline

I am aware of how radars work at approximately an intermediate non-professional non-classified information level.

But you are right that my description of things was sloppy and might easily be taken as faulty,

What I meant to say was

"To boot, if you stay low in CMO... you will get a good fix on any high flying target while your opponent aircraft, if not eqipped with a modern advanced radar with LD/SD-ability will have large problems getting a weapons quality track on your aircraft that is flying at minimum level over the sea [as long as the wave height corrsponds to at least something like sea state 3 or maybe 4, going by the Douglas scale]".

I just removed the following from the first sentence "your radar, even it [sic!] it has no look down/shoot down abilty" (Original typing error marked by me)
and added the last part within brackets now for maximum clarity.

(in reply to SeaQueen)

Post #: 37

RE: Automatic evasion - 2/20/2022 12:24:47 PM

LargeDiameterBomb

Posts: 80
Joined: 3/3/2019
Status: offline

Very good post, tiag.

I remember mentioning the same thing - that self-protection jammers (SPJs) (Called DECM in CMO) are in principle really the same as an escort jamming pod (called OECM in CMO) but with less power and as you state less antenna coverage, probably fewer antennas, a more automatic operating procedure (generally at least - for instance in one-seater fighters) and so on in a thread talking with DWReese about the missile evasion "problem".

I suggested that to escape the "missile evasion pattern of death" "a roll of the dice" should be done at missile launch instead of at the endgame calculations, if the aircraft is eqipped with a SPJ, perhaps after a period affected by OODA loop time and profiency of pilot, and if a SPJ pod as of now has a 30 % chance of defending against a missile a "roll of the dice" under 30 would mean that the self protection jammer has broken lock of the SARH guided missile or illuminator and the missile immediately veers of course very noticcably and the pilot in the defending airplane being attacked is given a chance to escape on afterburner instead of defending kinetally against the missile for maybe 15-20 seconds after which he is closer to the firing missile battery.

I didn't have the excellent sources you've gathered though.

But I would much rather see DECM pods work as weak OCM pods do, though, which I believe is more in tune with how SPJs work in real life.

Good work with your excellent post.

< Message edited by LargeDiameterBomb -- 2/20/2022 12:41:07 PM >

(in reply to tiag)

Post #: 38

RE: Automatic evasion - 2/20/2022 7:56:17 PM

tiag

Posts: 91
Joined: 6/21/2018
Status: offline

quote:

"a roll of the dice" should be done at missile launch instead of at the endgame calculations

Yes, that could be indeed an option. Another solution could be to apply the similar OECD algorithm to the DECM noise jamming (perhaps with a smaller cone from the nose of the acft and less power to simulate typical burnthrough ranges). Then (almost) no additional code to write, simply implement a bad tracking solution for the DECM pods this way and no missile can be correctly fired.
Azimuth information is more or less preserved, but range not (as in the video).

IMO, that would boost the realism of CMO in the EW by orders of magnitude!

(in reply to LargeDiameterBomb)

Post #: 39