Effects of EW

[DWReese]

Hi Gang,

I've been playing around with the offensive jammers, and the rest of the EW stuff and I thought that I might share some of my findings with you.

1.) Approached a SAM (ground) site with, and without, the jammers. Without the jammers, the incoming units were easily observed. With the jammers, the incoming units were not observed for a while, and when they finally were observed, you were not able to get a firm contact on them until much later.

2.) If the SAM unit fired at the incoming units that were utilizing jammers, the incoming units could often change altitude and the SAMs could not hit their targets.

3.) Eventually, the incoming AC will be located with a firm contact. When that happens, the more sophisticated SAMs, such as the S-300, can easily attack the incoming units, almost as if the jammers did nothing to impede the attack.

4.) In situations where the incoming AC were fired upon by older SAMs, like the SA-2, SA-5, SA-6, and the Improved Hawk, the jammers obviously have some effect because the SAMs occasionally fly right on by the targeted AC without attacking it at all.

5.) The EW aspect of the game obviously needs to be micromanaged at the present state. You can not depend on the AI to handle this aspect of the game.

6.) You have a running poll which asks for our input on areas to improve upon in the game. Mine would be, while the current EW works, I would still like to see the EW aspect improved upon in the upcoming versions of the game.

I would love to hear some feedback concerning my observations, just to validate my testing results.

Thanks.

Doug

[FTBSS]

Just set up a quick scenario with

growler jamming aircraft with
F-35 (armed with JSOW standoff)

The target was the Admiral Nakhimov with full sensors on

could never lock onto Growlers
Harms got within gun distance before they could be targeted I believe 7 of 8 struck the target
The F35's never detected at all and the jsows all got to target only spotted within visual range.

EW is incredibly effective.
This is Russia's best AAW warship that I am aware of a group of 12 strike aircraft 4 Growler 8 F35 totally wiped it out with zero losses (planes were never even fired at) The missiles attacking vessel were incredibly successful at getting to this ship.

[DWReese]

That's interesting about the sea attack, but things aren't as rich on the ground. I set up an attack using some Growlers providing HARM assistance for some F/A-18F which were trying to lead a strike package into hostile area which was defended by an S-300, and a few other lesser SAMs. The Growler provided enough jamming that the lesser SAMs were able to fire, but most missed due to a lack of guidance. In fact, some didn't even register an attack and just kept flying right on by.

The S-300, however, did pick up the incoming HARMs and was able to shoot at some of the shooters. In fact, I lost 5 F/A-18Fs. The HARM force was able to neutralize all of the SAMs, despite the loss of 5 F/A-18Fs, and then the strike package wiped out its target.

The Growler is obviously powerful, but not as powerful as you seemed to have experienced at sea. It did seem that when the S-300s fired at the HARMs from a distance of under 20 nm, they weren't too bothered by the jamming. The other SAMs, the SA-2, SA-5, SA-6, and Imp-Hawks, all experienced a horrible time dealing with the Growler's effects.

Maybe the S-300 is really powerful, as well.

Anyone else care to share their EW experiences?

Doug

[Luidzi]

I've tried to retest my few months old scenario (S-300 vs. EA-18) and came to conclusion that ECM is also afflicted by time compression. When set to 1:1, Tombstone could illuminate F/A-18 at 74nm and reliably guide a missile to hit, even during multiple testing. However, when set to 1:5, results varied greatly, most of the time targets went uncertain for long amount of time (that didn't happen at 1:1) and lots of missiles self-destructed because of unreliable guidance.

[mikmykWS]

Guys stories are great but we need files to see exactly what you think is wrong.

Thanks

Mike

[DWReese]

I have a few questions about the various buttons which can be turned on/off for groups/units with regard to radar/ECM, etc.:

On the group Sensor screen, you have three buttons (Radar, Sonar, Offensive ECM). I am assuming, that checking the Offensive ECM does nothing if your plane isn't specifically equipped with an Offensive ECM, such as the AN/ALQ-99F-V, is that correct? So, even if it is checked, nothing will happen if your plane doesn't possess something like that sensor, is that correct?

Second question, when you click on INDIVIDUAL units, you see a more detailed group of sensors. Again, if the plane is not equipped with Offensive ECM, hitting the button to turn it on does nothing, is that correct?

Third question, on the INDIVIDUAL unit sensor area, if you check to turn your radar on, you are presented with various radars, etc. that you can turn on. Clicking the button usually means that the radars are automatically turned on. But, it does not turn on any defensive ECM, such as the AN/ALQ-214(V)2. My question is, why not? If a unit was already going to turn its radars on, why wouldn't it want to activate its DECM as well? I'm asking what the reasoning is in real life, not questioning anything that is wrong with the game.

Last question, many planes have systems such as the AN/ALE-55 FOTD installed. These are forms of defensive equipment that seems to work automatically. In other words, I don't have to do anything to make it work. The AI does it for me. So, why doesn't the AI know whether it's a good idea to turn on the AN/ALQ-214(V)2, as well?

Again, I'm asking the questions to LEARN more about tactics, rather than question whether is designed wrong.

Please help me to understand.

Thanks

Doug

[DWReese]

Mike,

I sent a scenario file to you via e-mail.

Doug

[Dimitris]

There is a huge gap in sensor tech & capabilities between S-300P (earliest) and S-300PMU-2 (latest).

For any suspected sim issues we'll need save files to investigate.

I'll answer separately for RL questions.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: FTBSS

Just set up a quick scenario with

growler jamming aircraft with
F-35 (armed with JSOW standoff)

The target was the Admiral Nakhimov with full sensors on

This is Russia's best AAW warship that I am aware of a group of 12 strike aircraft 4 Growler 8 F35 totally wiped it out with zero losses (planes were never even fired at) The missiles attacking vessel were incredibly successful at getting to this ship.

The Nakhimov's primary AAW system (Top Dome and 5V55 missiles) is quite oudated. The Piotr Veliky uses the more modern TombStone radar and 48N6 missiles. This is why the Nakhimov is first in line for the MLU program.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: DWReese
1.) Approached a SAM (ground) site with, and without, the jammers. Without the jammers, the incoming units were easily observed. With the jammers, the incoming units were not observed for a while, and when they finally were observed, you were not able to get a firm contact on them until much later.

This sounds consistent with RL.

2.) If the SAM unit fired at the incoming units that were utilizing jammers, the incoming units could often change altitude and the SAMs could not hit their targets.

Ditto.

3.) Eventually, the incoming AC will be located with a firm contact. When that happens, the more sophisticated SAMs, such as the S-300, can easily attack the incoming units, almost as if the jammers did nothing to impede the attack.

Burn-through.

5.) The EW aspect of the game obviously needs to be micromanaged at the present state. You can not depend on the AI to handle this aspect of the game.

An EW-proficient AI? Next day the Mossad knocks on our doors and we join Gerald Bull. No thanks

6.) You have a running poll which asks for our input on areas to improve upon in the game. Mine would be, while the current EW works, I would still like to see the EW aspect improved upon in the upcoming versions of the game.

Improved how exactly? Our EM model is AFAIK up there with the best. The only fundamental mechanics limitations ATM is that we don't model channels/bandwidth saturation and blue-on-blue disruption. If you mean a more EW-aware tactical AI, see above.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: DWReese
On the group Sensor screen, you have three buttons (Radar, Sonar, Offensive ECM). I am assuming, that checking the Offensive ECM does nothing if your plane isn't specifically equipped with an Offensive ECM, such as the AN/ALQ-99F-V, is that correct? So, even if it is checked, nothing will happen if your plane doesn't possess something like that sensor, is that correct?

Yes.

Second question, when you click on INDIVIDUAL units, you see a more detailed group of sensors. Again, if the plane is not equipped with Offensive ECM, hitting the button to turn it on does nothing, is that correct?

Third question, on the INDIVIDUAL unit sensor area, if you check to turn your radar on, you are presented with various radars, etc. that you can turn on. Clicking the button usually means that the radars are automatically turned on. But, it does not turn on any defensive ECM, such as the AN/ALQ-214(V)2. My question is, why not? If a unit was already going to turn its radars on, why wouldn't it want to activate its DECM as well? I'm asking what the reasoning is in real life, not questioning anything that is wrong with the game.

DECM is useful only in the few seconds that an enemy missile or AAA gun is tracking you, and you don't want it active a millisecond beyond that. Anything you emit may be recorded, analyzed and used against you down the road.

Last question, many planes have systems such as the AN/ALE-55 FOTD installed. These are forms of defensive equipment that seems to work automatically. In other words, I don't have to do anything to make it work. The AI does it for me. So, why doesn't the AI know whether it's a good idea to turn on the AN/ALQ-214(V)2, as well?

DECM is automatically activated, used and deactivated in the split-second of engagement. You don't need to manually manage it and you shouldn't try.

[Triode]

ORIGINAL: Sunburn



The Nakhimov's primary AAW system (Top Dome and 5V55 missiles) is quite oudated. The Piotr Veliky uses the more modern TombStone radar and 48N6 missiles. This is why the Nakhimov is first in line for the MLU program.

except "Nakhimov" never have 5V55 you are right

From book "Nuclear-powered missile cruisers Project 1144" by Captain 1st Rank, Candidate of Military Sciences, Professor V.P.Kuzin.
citation:

"S-300F mounted on TARKR as a major caliber anti-air defense, did not escape the "itch disease" improvement from vehicle to vehicle. If "Kirov" and next "Frunze" (for brevity, we shall yet call them "original" names) received two identical SAM with SAM 5V55RM with common ammunition 96 missiles in 12 launcher B-203A, then on the 3rd - "Kalinin" - to S-300F applied not only better, but also more "thick" and long SAM 48N6E. This, of course, required some modification of the launchers.
In addition to improving the actual rockets used for SAM 48N6E better system (methods) guidance added, which required changing some hardware components of the complex.

Generally, the 2nd ship pr.1144 conceived as a "highly advanced" already during the construction of the head. He (projects) even was given the number 11442. was supposed to be built pr.11442 all subsequent TARKR, but nevertheless all three cruisers, pr.11442 turned out different.

Death of B.I.Kupenskiy caused appointment as chief designer pr.1144 V.A.Perevalov. Chief watching from the Navy remained A.A.Savin, but since that time he has held the position of Deputy(and then, since 1985 - chief) of the Office of surface ships TSNIIVK,he duplicated it in some cases by A.N.Blinov (Ch. Watching by pr.1164).

The 4th TARKR - "Andropov" (3rd on pr.11442) - received one of the S-300F and one S-300FM. The latest development on the basis of the Army C-300PMU2 "Favorite" with the new SAM - 48N6E2. Due to the design of the rocket ammo reduced by 2 missiles. All the Control Room of the complex has undergone changes, including and AP firing radar (military designation F1M). The new version of the complex were significantly expanded zone of destruction of targets in range, height and bottom border, increases the possibility of intercepting high-speed (including ballistic) targets and dramatically increased channel on target and the missile."

so on "Nakhimov" it is 48N6E
on "Piotr Veliky" it is 48N6E and 48N6E2 with new radar F1M

[Dimitris]

Thanks, I stand corrected on that. I'll ping our DB guru.

[Pergite!]

Emsoy mentioned earlier this year that the HoJ (Home on Jam) was in some way being revised. That function would in that case help to level the playing field when it comes to offensive EW.

[DWReese]

5.) The EW aspect of the game obviously needs to be micromanaged at the present state. You can not depend on the AI to handle this aspect of the game.

An EW-proficient AI? Next day the Mossad knocks on our doors and we join Gerald Bull. No thanks

6.) You have a running poll which asks for our input on areas to improve upon in the game. Mine would be, while the current EW works, I would still like to see the EW aspect improved upon in the upcoming versions of the game.

Improved how exactly? Our EM model is AFAIK up there with the best. The only fundamental mechanics limitations ATM is that we don't model channels/bandwidth saturation and blue-on-blue disruption. If you mean a more EW-aware tactical AI, see above.

What I mean by micromanaged is that I have observed that if I take defensive measures into my own hands by changing the altitude of my targeted planes while my planes are being protected by a jamming plane, then I have a much better chance of survival. If I just allow the AI to fly my plane, then it will take defensive tactics, but it won't change altitude. The incoming missiles, in my testing, have a much greater chance of success of hitting my planes if I don't change altitude. Try it and see for yourself. I was using a combination of SA-6, I-Hawks, and S-300 Grumbles as the SAMs.

I think that having the AI change the plane's altitude during evasion would be helpful. Perhaps there are even some things out there that you can think of, that I can't even fathom at this point?

Just for the record, I thoroughly enjoy the game. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with it. From playing around with EW this past week I have learned how powerful this particular aspect of warfare is. My only hope is that, since EW is so important to warfare, the game is as realistic as it can be (within reason.

Keep up the great job!

Doug

[DWReese]

DECM is useful only in the few seconds that an enemy missile or AAA gun is tracking you, and you don't want it active a millisecond beyond that. Anything you emit may be recorded, analyzed and used against you down the road.

If DECM is only useful in the few seconds before an enemy missile arrives, etc., and it is automatically turned on and off, then WHY am I provided with a button to turn it on or off? When I activate my radars on the Growler, the DECM buttons are available to check, presumably to turn it on or off. This seems to be contrary to what you are saying.

I would think that the pilot would know when to use these systems, not me.

So, my question is, do I check the button to turn them on and off, or not? If I don't, does that mean that they are not going to be active? If I do, does that mean that every time my plane is about to be shot at I have to go and find the plane to check the button? This is what I am asking.

I'm not saying that anything is wrong, I'm just asking for directions as to what I should do to save my plane.

Thanks

Doug

[mikmykWS]

They are automatic and will turn on as necessary. D's point was the AI calculates the activation far better than a human being can.As far as the on/off switch it probably should be removed at some point but nobody is getting drawn and quartered for it mostly because most seemed to have figured it out or don't care.[:)]

Mike

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: DWReese
What I mean by micromanaged is that I have observed that if I take defensive measures into my own hands by changing the altitude of my targeted planes while my planes are being protected by a jamming plane, then I have a much better chance of survival. If I just allow the AI to fly my plane, then it will take defensive tactics, but it won't change altitude. The incoming missiles, in my testing, have a much greater chance of success of hitting my planes if I don't change altitude. Try it and see for yourself. I was using a combination of SA-6, I-Hawks, and S-300 Grumbles as the SAMs.

That sounds like a possible bug. If you can post a pre-imapct save it would help us investigate it.

Thanks!

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: DWReese
If DECM is only useful in the few seconds before an enemy missile arrives, etc., and it is automatically turned on and off, then WHY am I provided with a button to turn it on or off? When I activate my radars on the Growler, the DECM buttons are available to check, presumably to turn it on or off. This seems to be contrary to what you are saying.

That's a fair point. As Mike says it hasn't been aconcern so far because everyone knows to leave them alone to work their magic automatically but yes, strictly speaking they shouldn't be toggable. Added to our list.

So, my question is, do I check the button to turn them on and off, or not? If I don't, does that mean that they are not going to be active? If I do, does that mean that every time my plane is about to be shot at I have to go and find the plane to check the button? This is what I am asking.

No, you definitely don't need to worry about manually turning them on/off - if they are purely DECM. Offensive jammers (OECM) are another ballgame altogether, and they are explictly activated/silenced.

I'm not saying that anything is wrong, I'm just asking for directions as to what I should do to save my plane.

The usual bag of tricks:
* Stealth, if available.
* Stand-off weaponry, if available
* OECM jamming, if available
* DECM
* Evasion

If everything else fails, you can try to overwhelm the enemy with as many attacks from as many directions as possible.

[DWReese]

Mike,

The ONLY reason that I asked about it was because the button afforded you the option of turning on or off. The game made it seem as if it was something that it wanted the gamer to do; turn it off or turn it on. It seemed like it was an option. Like you said, if it is automatic, then it probably shouldn't even be listed as an option.

Doesn't matter now, since I know that it is done internally.

Doug