[FIXED][1328.17/1328.18] Problems with new "aircraft ignores EMCON to provide a track" feature

[caelunshun]

1328.17 added a feature where, after launching a weapon, an aircraft will ignore EMCON with the intent of providing a track to the weapon. There are several oversights in the way this is currently implemented:

1. This turns on not only active radar but also OECM for some reason, with no way to override it. (See attached scenario.) Fighters that have jammers (e.g. F-35, F-22) thus become prey for home-on-jam missiles. There is no reason why OECM would be needed to provide weapons guidance; only active radar could possibly be needed. (Fixed in 1328.18)
2. This ignores the fact that guidance may be already provided through passive means, such as IRST. In this case, it's ideal to keep radar completely off so as to reduce the probability of detection. The attached scenario provides an example; the F-35 has a lock on the J-20 via its EOTS, but it decides to unnecessarily turn on its radar (and jammer...) anyway. I'm not necessarily opposed to having this as a "default" behavior, but please make it overridable if so. It's frustrating to have no ability to stop your aircraft from making stupid decisions. (Not fixed in 1328.18)
3. Likewise, CEC is ignored; often it can be preferable to have a different aircraft (farther back) provide guidance via CEC. Now, that seems impossible, since the launching aircraft always turns on its radar.

[mikerohan]

1328.17 added a feature where, after launching a weapon, an aircraft will ignore EMCON with the intent of providing a track to the weapon.
[...]
3. Likewise, CEC is ignored; often it can be preferable to have a different aircraft (farther back) provide guidance via CEC. Now, that seems impossible, since the launching aircraft always turns on its radar.

I must admit that I haven't had a chance to see this new feature in action, but CEC is what came to my mind as soon as I read the changelog.

It's like this new feature is defeating some of the advantages of CEC. Or are we overlooking some essential way of using it?

Thanks!

[caelunshun]

Agreed. After playing some more with 1328.17 I'm realizing this also affects ships (and perhaps even worse): they can no longer use SAMs without turning on both their radars and their jammers, whereas normally they could be CEC'd with e.g. an E-2D. As such the ships are easily detected and attacked.

Essentially, I'm finding that any asset you want to fire a weapon with is forced to have active EMCON. Which mostly defeats the point of having EMCON in the first place.

Honestly, this change in its current state breaks way more than it adds to the simulation. I would suggest reverting the change until there is a chance to rethink and properly test it.

[rvseydlitz]

Agree with above. This change is a net negative. A good idea to have the option, case-by-case, but a huge negative if applied across the board. As mentioned it instantly has erased CEC's advantages (not to mention it's very reason for existing)
Please revert this. Thank you!!

[blu3s]

Logged 0015717

[Kobu]

Hi

Testing the scenario that you have put apart from what has already been mentioned, I see:

By giving the F1 order, the F-35 never fires a missile, as happens in other tests with other aircraft that I have carried out (I think the IRST may have something to do with it), in other scenarios the plane turns on the radar and fires a missile. here with the F1 order it never fires.

If at the beginning of the scenario you set ignored plotted course to yes and press F1, the F-35 goes into engaged offensive, the red air-to-air weapons range circle flashes and disappears and the F-35 never launches a missile, whether guided by radar or guided by the IRST.

I have tried an F-15 (without IRST) and apart from what you have mentioned I do not see this problem.


Regards

[Deserere]

Hi Kobu,
the issue should be fixed, the change will be in the next update release.

[caelunshun]

Hi

Testing the scenario that you have put apart from what has already been mentioned, I see:

By giving the F1 order, the F-35 never fires a missile, as happens in other tests with other aircraft that I have carried out (I think the IRST may have something to do with it), in other scenarios the plane turns on the radar and fires a missile. here with the F1 order it never fires.

If at the beginning of the scenario you set ignored plotted course to yes and press F1, the F-35 goes into engaged offensive, the red air-to-air weapons range circle flashes and disappears and the F-35 never launches a missile, whether guided by radar or guided by the IRST.

I have tried an F-15 (without IRST) and apart from what you have mentioned I do not see this problem.


Regards

You need to manually fire the weapon (shift+F1).

[Kobu]

I know, I was just pointing out that using F1 to attack there was also a bug, I don't know if it was related or not.

Regards

[Kobu]

More testing confirms that the problem is limited to some units only, if you put an F-15 the behavior is correct, attack by giving it the F1 order and if you use the manual attack SHF+F1 it does not activate the radar if there is a unit nearby that can provide CEC guided. See attached.


Regards

[caelunshun]

Yes, but in that case the CEC unit is forced to have full-active EMCON even when not necessary. It's still a bug. (moreover, this is only possible when the firing unit has no AAW-capable IRST/passive sensors, which is why the F-15 works but not the F-35.)

Hopefully the original issue is fixed in the next release.

[thewood1]

Yes, but in that case the CEC unit is forced to have full-active EMCON even when not necessary. It's still a bug. (moreover, this is only possible when the firing unit has no AAW-capable IRST/passive sensors, which is why the F-15 works but not the F-35.)

Hopefully the original issue is actually fixed in the next release.

I don't think he's saying its not a bug. Its not as broad as some thought.

[Kobu]

Correct, I'm not saying that there isn't a bug, I'm just providing additional information for the developers. As we have indicated, the problem is specific to some units since in others it works perfectly (in case this is helpful to developers).


Regards

[thewood1]

Well, there are just people that don't want anyone to harsh their buzz.

[caelunshun]

This is partially fixed in 1328.18 as units will no longer turn on active OECM/sonar when it does not provide AAW data. However, the sim continues to force active radar even when the target is tracked via AAW-capable IRST. A possible fix would be to only enforce active radar when the "Unit obeys EMCON" checkbox is checked (this would match previous sim behavior). In other words, unchecking that box would guarantee full manual control over unit EMCON.

[DWReese]

I believe that there is a similar problem with Air-to-Ground missiles as well.

A group of planes approaches the release point on a DEDICATED STRIKE of a LAND TARGET, (the weapons are green) but the weapons are not launched.

However, if you change the WRA to OPPORTUNITY FIRE, then the weapons are released, but they are not all launched at the specified target.

Strangely, after launching, the planes fly around in a circle, rather than RTB. (This was reported earlier in this thread.)

Additionally, as I reported in another thread, there appears to be an related issue with the EMCON and OECM on escorts. Changing either the striker of escort to active or passive, changes the other as well. See that thread for more details.

[blu3s]

I believe that there is a similar problem with Air-to-Ground missiles as well.

A group of planes approaches the release point on a DEDICATED STRIKE of a LAND TARGET, (the weapons are green) but the weapons are not launched.

However, if you change the WRA to OPPORTUNITY FIRE, then the weapons are released, but they are not all launched at the specified target.

Strangely, after launching, the planes fly around in a circle, rather than RTB. (This was reported earlier in this thread.)

Additionally, as I reported in another thread, there appears to be an related issue with the EMCON and OECM on escorts. Changing either the striker of escort to active or passive, changes the other as well. See that thread for more details.

The issue with EMCON/ROE shared between escorts/strike package is logged but can you share a scenario with the issue of weapons not launched at dedicated point?

Thanks

[DWReese]

Sorry, but I reported this issue about one month ago and I am having difficulty finding the scenario to display this problem.

That being said, it's possible that units that don't fire might not be firing because of the GROUP versus GROUP issue (uneven weapons/targets) that I reported in another thread.

For example, if a group of planes (let's say 4) armed with 2 missiles each (a total of 8) might have some issues if the targets consist of 6 building requiring 2 missiles each to destroy it. Eight doesn't even divide into 6 or 12, so the attack might not happen. If, however, you change the Doctrine to Opportunity Fire, then it works. This hasn't been completely tested, but this is what I have experienced thus far.

In essence, this may be the same problem that was discussed regarding the "circling, not proceeding to the attack" issue.

This is just provided for informational purposes. Do what you want with it.

[rosarioed]

Fixed, from the next build units should no longer enable sensors if the target is already being tracked by IRST.

[Kobu]

Fixed, from the next build units should no longer enable sensors if the target is already being tracked by IRST.

This, if not well implemented and tested, can cause more problems than benefits.

In my understanding, the function of the IRST is not to carry out "hidden" shots but to be able to detect stealth aircraft or to be able to shoot in environments with a lot of electronic warfare.

Stealth aircraft with the IRST almost always benefit from an AESA radar that is very difficult to detect, so having the radar turned off here does not have much benefit. In the case of non-stealth aircraft, having the radar on or not is normally indifferent since you are almost always being detected and having it off in these cases is more of a harm than a benefit (loss of situational awareness).

As I said, I suggest trying this carefully since it can lead to unwanted effects.

Regards