OECM

OECM (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series

Message

FTBSS -> OECM (2/21/2017 3:10:02 AM)
Does this effect Surface search radars? I want to use a Growler to jam and hide a CVBG The old EA-6B was used in this capacity to twart long range ASM launches from Kitchen missiles. I ran a test with sceneditor using a ngj Growler with max jammer pod loadout and a zumwalt destroyer (low observable characteristics) with jamming detected at 113miles from a crowsnest (aesa) equipped a/c without jamming it is detected at 118 miles. Is this small a difference WaD or is this something not incorporated into the sim?

Rory Noonan -> RE: OECM (2/21/2017 5:14:13 AM)
From my understanding there are a lot of variables, not least of which is the radar frequency band and the jammer frequency band, as well as generation. There is also distance, heading, etc. Can you post a save file showing the problem (or situation, as it were)?

wild_Willie2 -> RE: OECM (2/21/2017 7:22:22 AM)
Hi FTBSS, The aspect to the target as well as the sea state plays an important role in detection range. A target is thus more difficult to detect head on than sideways, also a heavy sea makes detecting targets stealthy targets almost impossible. Jamming sends up a clear red flag on your position so it does not make you invisible, it just makes it more difficult to determine your exact location but as most modern ASM weapons have a "home on jam" feature so jamming doesn't really protect you against modern weapons. You are also testing one of the most modern radars (NGJ Growler) against a modern target. If you would use an even slightly older radar (early 90's), head on detection range for a DD1000 goes down to around 55 miles while a NGS Growler (late 2000's radar) detects a DD1000 from 80 miles head on at and 99 miles from the side) but when jamming (shipboard) both head on and side detection range went to down to 6 miles (eye ball range) for the NGS model Growler. We should also discuss the term "detection range" as the F18G's ELINT suite picks up a jamming DD1000 at approximately 120 miles, but this does not give you a firm position fix. The area of uncertainty for the jammer will decrease as you get closer, but the F18G's radar will not pick up the DD1000 itself when it is jamming. So although you can pick up the jamming signal, you do not "detect" the ship via radar. This is a clear distinction that has to be made and if we make this distinction then ship board jamming clearly works. However when a NGJ F18 is jamming directly on top of the DD1000, side detection range is approximately 96 miles from the side and 80 miles head on so there indeed seems to be a problem with jamming surface radars from AC as it indeed does not seem to function (see image). I will upload a detailed problem description and test scenario to the tech support section so this can be fixed. Good Catch. W. [image]local://upfiles/14273/59726B08920A4A609F161AFE817D007D.jpg[/image]

Sardaukar -> RE: OECM (2/21/2017 3:04:44 PM)
One thing that comes to my mind is that NGJ might not be designed to jam frequencies that Clam Pipe radar uses. I tried to check from Baloogan Wiki, that often has frequency information, but alas, none for Clam Pipe. I have requested from Devs that jammer and radar frequency information would be available in database viewer in future.

wild_Willie2 -> RE: OECM (2/21/2017 4:58:17 PM)
I know that jamming is currently a bit obtuse, that is why I also included a second jammer (EC-130H) into the original test scenario (there are two jammers visible in the image). Just to be certain I included a third jammer (a fully jammer loaded EA-6B) and an extra non stealthy ship into the test scenario, but the results are basically the same (see image). Excluding some minor detection variations (most likely due to slightly different aspect variations to the target each time I reset the scenario), aerial jamming has no significant effect on surface radar detection range. [image]local://upfiles/14273/05A5B24FC76740509CC14DE100A4030E.jpg[/image]

Primarchx -> RE: OECM (2/21/2017 5:04:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sardaukar One thing that comes to my mind is that NGJ might not be designed to jam frequencies that Clam Pipe radar uses. I tried to check from Baloogan Wiki, that often has frequency information, but alas, none for Clam Pipe... Players need easy access to this sort of info if we are to implement OECM operations.

Sardaukar -> RE: OECM (2/21/2017 9:34:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Primarchx quote: ORIGINAL: Sardaukar One thing that comes to my mind is that NGJ might not be designed to jam frequencies that Clam Pipe radar uses. I tried to check from Baloogan Wiki, that often has frequency information, but alas, none for Clam Pipe... Players need easy access to this sort of info if we are to implement OECM operations. Yes, mikmyk agreed and that is hopefully somewhere in product pipeline.

FTBSS -> RE: OECM (2/22/2017 4:55:57 AM)
I did this test with a Crowsnest radar the OECM aircraft NGJ was able to degrade this radar from detecting an aircraft approching from same vector asthe ship to the tune of 40+% degredation in obtaining a lockon fix of the approching aircraft However when dealing with the surface ship the degredation of the lock on range was negligible in multiple scenarios with different vessels. As the Crowsnest uses the same suite of sensors for air search as it does for surface search I think the problem must be the relationship between oecm that is aircraft based hiding surface vessels. The ships own jamming worked as expected reducing detection range significantly

Lowlaner2012 -> RE: OECM (2/22/2017 9:56:41 AM)
Guys could it be that the ship based oecm is more powerful and harder to burn through than the aircraft based oecm? Also was aircraft based oecm designed to hide a big ship from air based radar? Im no expert on this subject, I wonder if the devs have any thoughts on the subject... Cheers

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.0625