Matrix Games Forums

Posted: **Sun Dec 28, 2014 6:52 pm**

Thanks for the input, guys. The DECM questions have been answered.

Doug

Posted: **Sun Dec 28, 2014 7:10 pm**

ORIGINAL: 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

Yeah sorry. You're the first to mention it really bothered you. We'll fix it but in the meantime just go with the flow[:)] It doesn't stop you from doing anything with the game

Mike

Posted: **Sun Dec 28, 2014 7:46 pm**

Which S-300 system is everyone using for this benchmark? I did some tests with the Chinese SA-20b Gargoyle (S-300PMU-2) with Cheese Board and Tomb Stone radars. This was attacked by US Navy Growlers and Super Hornets (Year 2014) without any problem whatsoever. You park one short range Growler at the fringe of S-300 range, fly in with one Super Hornet, launch one of those Cluster Bomb JSOWS from 45 nm and that's it. They never see the strike aircraft at all. And the single JSOW is super effective against SAM sites.

With jammers present inside 100 nm, missiles cannot be targeted by the SAM battery until it is too late. If you have two Growlers flying in with the strike aircraft, the SAM radar burns through the ECM at distances below one mile, and only then can target aircraft. It's insane. And that's without using anti radiation missiles.

Posted: **Sun Dec 28, 2014 10:40 pm**

ORIGINAL: Rhygin00

Which S-300 system is everyone using for this benchmark? I did some tests with the Chinese SA-20b Gargoyle (S-300PMU-2) with Cheese Board and Tomb Stone radars. This was attacked by US Navy Growlers and Super Hornets (Year 2014) without any problem whatsoever. You park one short range Growler at the fringe of S-300 range, fly in with one Super Hornet, launch one of those Cluster Bomb JSOWS from 45 nm and that's it. They never see the strike aircraft at all. And the single JSOW is super effective against SAM sites.

With jammers present inside 100 nm, missiles cannot be targeted by the SAM battery until it is too late. If you have two Growlers flying in with the strike aircraft, the SAM radar burns through the ECM at distances below one mile, and only then can target aircraft. It's insane. And that's without using anti radiation missiles.

Actualy, there is nothing wrong with that
In database S-300 only have radars, so nothing wrong if they jammed and S-300 cant fire

In real life S-300 also have RTR stations (station of radio-technical intelligence) somthing like : "KRTP-81 Ramona","Ramona-M"-«Soft Ball»
"KRTP-86 Tamara" - «Trash Bin»
"KRTP-91 Tamara-M", or "Vera"(S-300PM/PS),"Valeria"(S-300PMU-1,-2),"Valeria-M"(S-400) and etc.
new version of that systems like "Ring"(S-300V4) and "Luch"(S-350), "Avtobaza 1L222","Moskva-1 1L256" and etc

as example SRTR "Valeria" can:
" automatic detection and coordinate measuring of carriers RES (range, azimuth, elevation, altitude and velocity vector);
During the military actions system provides detection, acquisition and tracking and identification targets (including active jammers and low-altitude targets with "Stealth") in the area of responsibility, as well as issuing targeting informations for own aircraft and SAMs medium and long range in complex jamming conditions and in use by the enemy air attacks (IOS) with precision weapons (WTO) and anti-radar missiles (PRR)."
http://www.lantan-npf.ru/product/srtr-valeriya in russian

But of course it is very doubtful that Growler can jamm S-300PMU-2 radars.

Posted: **Mon Dec 29, 2014 12:04 am**

You also wouldn't see them alone but generally operating with something defending them.

Anybody can set up scenarios that by design cause the SAMs or Attacking aircraft to pass or fail. This is not a software failure but a player who is missing one of the better puzzles to solve in the game. If we (developers)start publishing exact how to's and mathematical models we are doing the people that just want to have fun with the game a great disservice as well.

We'll work on better communicating stuff and fix the goofy UI thing but how we are approaching this is not likely going to change.

Mike

Posted: **Mon Dec 29, 2014 3:01 am**

ORIGINAL: mikmyk
You also wouldn't see them alone but generally operating with something defending them.

This. One of the major design missions of systems like the Tor, Tunguska and Pantsyr is providing point-defence against PGMs to area SAM batteries.

Posted: **Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:35 pm**

Slightly off the topic that's being discussed at the moment, but if there is AI logic governing the use of DECM systems, is there any reason why this is not applied to dedicated fire-control systems? Especially since the same justification applies (keeping the radiating time to a minimum in order to prevent later issues from the transmission being detected)

Posted: **Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:58 pm**

If you want to have a lot of fun, put some MALD-Js in CG-68's VLS (it works). Launch them first to a point just beyond an enemy BCGN and let them get ~1/3 of the way to target, then launch all 8 Harpoons. Usually the MALD is never accurately positioned and the Harpoons are only visible in the last few seconds of flight - though some get knocked down by close defenses, you will usually get at least one missile into the ship.

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 3:33 am**

ORIGINAL: ShorttRound
Slightly off the topic that's being discussed at the moment, but if there is AI logic governing the use of DECM systems, is there any reason why this is not applied to dedicated fire-control systems? Especially since the same justification applies (keeping the radiating time to a minimum in order to prevent later issues from the transmission being detected)

Actually it is. If you have observed a SAM battery using its illumination radar only when missiles are in the air, you have seen it.

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 7:37 pm**

I probably should have been a little clearer in what I was referring to, I meant all director style radars without an inbuilt search capability. Most of these radars are only turned on when they're needed.

Posted: **Tue Jan 13, 2015 11:07 am**

In game terms, I believe we need to lower the power of the OCEM or implement HOJ as OCEM is too powerful as it currently is. Case in point : I setup a Scenario with a full SA-23 battalion and supporting radars, along with an SA-11, SA-15 and SA-19. This was against 1 x EF-111 Raven with OECM on full time.

None of the SAM sites were ever able to get a radar lock on and I manually flew the Spark Vark right over the top of the various sites.
When I dropped lower the SA-11 did fire a shot using it's video camera (which is really cool), but never a radar guided shot.

At some point in time the SA-23 9S32M Grill Screen / 9S32 High Screen engagement radar should be able to burn through the jamming (esp. since the AN/ALQ-99E only had 10 transmitters and the two man crew put a high workload on the system.

Since a SOJ platform usually uses high gain, directional antennas, the jamming antenna must not only be pointed at the victim radar, but there must be alignment of radar, targets, and SOJ platform for the jamming to be effective.

Posted: **Tue Jan 13, 2015 4:42 pm**

I've mentioned this before, but it bares mentioning again; when planes, even my OCEM Growler, enter an area covered by Offensive mobile jammers (such as what Iran has) the net result is that they often get killed somewhere between the 20-40 mile range. It doesn't matter which SAM platform is doing the killing, either. The mobile jammer is able to jam the Growler (or any plane for that matter) and when the SAM attack on the plane occurs, the plane is almost always destroyed because the mobile jammer keeps the Growler from being able to defend itself (no defensive modifiers are applied) and you get a straight-up attack at whatever the percent is for the SAM.

Now, is that the way that it should be, I don't know. Now, if the mobile jammers are present, I tend to keep the Growler farther than 40 miles away. That doesn't help the ground attackers because they still have to close the range to fire their GBUs. The only way around it is is to destroy all of the SAMs before you get there, but you can never be sure that you are doing that.

The reduction of the Growler's defenses doesn't always take place. Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. But, when it does, it's devastating.

Doug

Posted: **Tue Jan 13, 2015 6:31 pm**

I just tried adding a Russian Paint Bin Jammer, but it did not help. the 1 Spark Vark Jammed everything within a 100 mile radius.
I think there needs to be an inverse square rule to limit the jamming effectiveness.

Posted: **Tue Jan 13, 2015 7:51 pm**

I believe that the ground-based offensive jammers simply eliminate the plane's defensive modifiers, which is a HUGE deal. Try a quick scenario with that, and with the plane's jammers turned OFF. That way you will know what the ground-based jammers do.

I'm not sure about your Spark Vark, but the Growler IS picked up by all defensive radars, for the most part, and the defensive SAMs (S-10s) are able to shoot at it, and it does resolve the attack (which I watch.) Initially, the Growler (with an ACE pilot) easily defeats the SAMs. This ISN'T because the ground units can't see the Growler; it is because the Growler is too far away. At mid-range the Growler is also able to be picked up, but usually escapes the SAMs. But, getting too close, in that 20-40 mile range, is when that ground jammer kicks in, and it eliminates the defensive modifier for the plane. The Growler goes down.

So, my Growler is strong, but not as strong as your Spark Vark. Try adding a few different SAMs, mobile jammers, etc., to your scenario and see if you end up with the same results.

Doug

Posted: **Tue Jan 13, 2015 8:58 pm**

Guys this is good stuff....keep a typing!

Posted: **Tue Jan 13, 2015 10:25 pm**

ORIGINAL: JRyan

Guys this is good stuff....keep a typing!

And definitely post saved games showing the noted behaviors.

Posted: **Tue Jan 13, 2015 10:54 pm**

I replaced my Growler with the Spark Vark. I left the mobile jammers.
I approached and from 70 miles outI went active with my radars from my F-16s in an effort to draw fire from an S-300 bn. It worked.
The F-16s responded by firing off 4 HARMs and dove for the earth.
The Spark Vark then turned on its radar, and its OECM jammer.
The Grumbles that had been fired at the F-16s all went blind and all died. I don't know if it was the altitude change or the jamming.
The Spark Vark isn't as good as the Growler, and is definitely more directional than the Growler, but still managed to mask much of the approaching attacking AC.
From about 17 miles away the S-300 got good looks at the HARMs and began firing away at them. At the same time the S-300 fired away at the Spark Vark, and the F-16s. They fired EVERYTHING, all 24 missiles.
The OpFor also activated the Iranian Mobile Jamming units that I had given to that side.
The Grumbles did a good job of hitting the HARMs. But, as soon as they were fired at any of the incoming planes, they went blind and died. Grumble after Grumble died almost immediately after being fired.
Since none of the Grumbles ever made it to the planes I don't know what the effect of the jammers would have been.
Eventually one of the HARMs knocked out that S-300.
Another S-300 then started firing at the planes. The Spark Vark was now about 25 miles away. The F-16s were a little further away.
The F-16s returned fire at that S-300 with HARMs.
Two of the Grumbles that were fired at the Spark Vark managed to get an attack in on the plane. At no time did the plane make any type of evasive move, and the Spark Vark was destroyed
It's my opinion that the mobile jamming unit was responsible for the Spark Vark's inability to see the Grumbles.
The HARMs destroyed the second S-300, and the incoming AC destroyed their objective, the buildings.

I then replayed the entire scenario, but this time removed the mobile jammers. Everything again happened just as before. The Spark Vark jammed things as it should, etc.
The one surprise, however, was that the Spark Vark was again destroyed WITHOUT taking any defensive action. It did have its radars and jamming on, but still took a missile hit as if it were being offensively jammed. But, it wasn't.

I replayed the scenario again, and again, and again. I then replayed it again, again replacing the Spark Vark with the Growler.
In all of those replays the plane always got the benefit of its defensive modifier UNLESS it had its radars off, or was being offensively jammed. Since it wasn't, it always defended itself.

My only explanation is that there must be some kind of randomizer that exists that OCCASIONALLY keeps a plane from seeing the incoming missile, regardless of whether its own radar is on or not.

I'd love to hear the thoughts from others on this topic.

Doug

Posted: **Tue Jan 13, 2015 11:03 pm**

ORIGINAL: DWReese

I'd love to hear the thoughts from others on this topic.

Doug

Good story... saved game?

Posted: **Wed Jan 14, 2015 7:20 am**

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

ORIGINAL: 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

Yeah sorry. You're the first to mention it really bothered you. We'll fix it but in the meantime just go with the flow[:)] It doesn't stop you from doing anything with the game

Mike

In fact, I would prefer to have the control of turning DECM on / off on my own hands (I know better than the AI [:D]). Perhaps I want to set up a trap with a radiating bait (ship, aircraft) and thus need it to be electronically lit up as a Christmas tree [:D].

Even more clear, DECM is actively used in BVR air-to-air to deny first-shot capability to the enemy.

Posted: **Wed Jan 14, 2015 7:23 am**

ORIGINAL: DWReese

I replaced my Growler with the Spark Vark. I left the mobile jammers.
I approached and from 70 miles outI went active with my radars from my F-16s in an effort to draw fire from an S-300 bn. It worked.
The F-16s responded by firing off 4 HARMs and dove for the earth.
The Spark Vark then turned on its radar, and its OECM jammer.
The Grumbles that had been fired at the F-16s all went blind and all died. I don't know if it was the altitude change or the jamming.
The Spark Vark isn't as good as the Growler, and is definitely more directional than the Growler, but still managed to mask much of the approaching attacking AC.
From about 17 miles away the S-300 got good looks at the HARMs and began firing away at them. At the same time the S-300 fired away at the Spark Vark, and the F-16s. They fired EVERYTHING, all 24 missiles.
The OpFor also activated the Iranian Mobile Jamming units that I had given to that side.
The Grumbles did a good job of hitting the HARMs. But, as soon as they were fired at any of the incoming planes, they went blind and died. Grumble after Grumble died almost immediately after being fired.
Since none of the Grumbles ever made it to the planes I don't know what the effect of the jammers would have been.
Eventually one of the HARMs knocked out that S-300.
Another S-300 then started firing at the planes. The Spark Vark was now about 25 miles away. The F-16s were a little further away.
The F-16s returned fire at that S-300 with HARMs.
Two of the Grumbles that were fired at the Spark Vark managed to get an attack in on the plane. At no time did the plane make any type of evasive move, and the Spark Vark was destroyed
It's my opinion that the mobile jamming unit was responsible for the Spark Vark's inability to see the Grumbles.
The HARMs destroyed the second S-300, and the incoming AC destroyed their objective, the buildings.

I then replayed the entire scenario, but this time removed the mobile jammers. Everything again happened just as before. The Spark Vark jammed things as it should, etc.
The one surprise, however, was that the Spark Vark was again destroyed WITHOUT taking any defensive action. It did have its radars and jamming on, but still took a missile hit as if it were being offensively jammed. But, it wasn't.

I replayed the scenario again, and again, and again. I then replayed it again, again replacing the Spark Vark with the Growler.
In all of those replays the plane always got the benefit of its defensive modifier UNLESS it had its radars off, or was being offensively jammed. Since it wasn't, it always defended itself.

My only explanation is that there must be some kind of randomizer that exists that OCCASIONALLY keeps a plane from seeing the incoming missile, regardless of whether its own radar is on or not.

I'd love to hear the thoughts from others on this topic.

Doug

Just guessing now, could the S-300 version you used in that battery have the Homing-On-Jammer capability?

Matrix Games Forums

Effects of EW

RE: Effects of EW

RE: Effects of EW

RE: Effects of EW

RE: Effects of EW

RE: Effects of EW

RE: Effects of EW

RE: Effects of EW

RE: Effects of EW

RE: Effects of EW

RE: Effects of EW

RE: Effects of EW

RE: Effects of EW

RE: Effects of EW

RE: Effects of EW

RE: Effects of EW

RE: Effects of EW

RE: Effects of EW

RE: Effects of EW

RE: Effects of EW

RE: Effects of EW