Yeahhh there’s a reason why i didn’t list the IRIS-T SLM in the list of SAMs its unaffected by. I think some platforms should have home on jam for firing IR missiles but im not entirely sure, ground forces aren’t really my specialty.
I think theres a comparison to be made to a different game where ECM was unlockable modification for aircraft - that being the Battlefield 4. I have no idea if you ever had the pleasure, but ECM was unlockable modification that replaced flares for both helicopters and aircraft, was time restricted and had cooldown.
Sounds balanced on the first glance, but it made some maps absolutely unplayable on top of assymetrical balancing and vehicles being limited.
Helicopter piloted by turbosweat that would votekick or teamkill you if you dared to take the helicopter first, it was basically untouchable as the ECM also jammed IR missiles for some reason, even those that were already inair and it could just go for attack run, turn on the ECM, kill half the team, and then dip behind cover until the ECM refreshed.
And, since one missile wasnt enough to take out the helicopter, you needed either a SPAAG (that was pernamently unaviable because people would just take it and play it like worse IFV) or dedicated and coordinated AA squad that just bursted down the helicopter in extremely narrow window when it was exposed.
If that is the future the ground battles have to look forward to with addition of ECM, I will be staying at 5.7 playing my Shermans.
This is a big +1 from me. Many jets that didn’t have flares were still equipped with ECM pods, everything from small fighters to large bombers.
Right now, the accuracy and G-pull of some Ground RB SAMs is absolutely ridiculous, making top-tier CAS nearly impossible, unless you have stand-off guided missiles. ECM feature is a must for Ground RB. And then a SEAD feature on top of that will be fantastic.
AA is downright cancer at top tier right now. You can’t use unguided bombs or rockets without being instantly downed by missiles that maneuver in ways that are both ridiculous and unrealistic. Anything to counter top tier AA is a good thing.
this of course begs the question as to why are you using unguided bombs or rockets at BR with high performance SAMs.
Most Soviet jets historically, especially those in third world service, relied on unguided bombs and rockets as their standard ground-attack weapons.
okay but why are you using them in-game when there are BR appropriate options?
Because, I want to. Why can’t I use a historic loadout? Besides, you could argue that it take more skill to use these dumb weapons.
I mean more power to you man. You are absolutely allowed to do so.
just dont complain that you get obliterated by BR appropriate AA?
I have nothing against SAM spam, but I have everything against the G-pull this game allows them to have.
Normally I would absolutely agree. However Savage_Virus argued that he wants ECM because he cant effectively use iron bombs and rockets. I merely wanted to know how exactly does it relate to the question of whenever ECM should be added.
And discussing possible balance in regards to suggestion, especially one like this, is completly allowed.
Does no one else find this to be a problem?
A voluntary, subjective decision to handicap yourself - and I dont mean it personally, you are effectively deciding to use worse loadout than that which is aviable at the BR you play. ie. the one you meet the top tier SAMs - should not have any weight in regards to balance.
Thats like me bringing M60A3 TTS together with M1A1 because they served during gulf war to 11.3 battles (we could even uptier it even further with 18C early to 12.3) and then complaining that the M60A3 performs badly.
Its historical lineup? yeah. It is entirely my decision to bring a 9.0 tank to fight 2A7Vs and BVMs? Also yes.
My Idea for Electronic Countermeasures
So, here’s my two cents into an ECM system for the game. Building off of features already in game to present something that’s generally accurate to how ECM works IRL, while still leaving room for balancing, given how hard system specific ECM information is to find.
Jammer types:
IRL, jammers come with various purposes/designs/groups. While exactly specifying what each one does is hard, by the nature of their classification, there is still generally enough information to categorize them.
1. Standoff Jammer
A relatively uncommon type of jammer, at least specifically for fighters. These jammers have long range and high power, but narrow area of effect, with relatively small B-lobe effects. As such, unlike escort jammers, these require being targeted at a specific area, whether that be manually, fixed, or via some automatic systems slaving. A radar, RWR, or datalink system within the area of effect will have to contest with false signals from it, with it raising the noise floor, making them potentially unusable. The B-lobe effect would disrupt some RWRs, but most half modern DL systems shouldn’t be bothered by it. The high power draw means that these generally can not be activated along with the radar, barring ones which have internal generators. This would be visible on RWRs in areas around the edge of the primary beam, although being too close to you/the center would result in RWR noise.
2. Escort Jammer
The most common type of standalone jamming device, designed to emit radio waves in one or more hemisphere, without much specific direction. They are designed to protect not just the host aircraft, but also allies in proximity, via active jamming. In game, they would have a relatively wide cone of effect, with relatively low power, and a fairly large B lobe around the host plane. Any radar receiver which views the emitter, and is within it’s primary cone, would have false signals, potentially fooling the system, by causing it to go for random ghosts within it’s seekers filters. Within the B-lobe around the plane, RWRs, and all non-EW resistant datalinks will cease to function, being filled with noise. The high power draw means that these generally can not be activated along with the radar, barring ones which have internal generators. This would show up very brightly on any RWR hostile even close to the primary beam.
3. Escort Jammer (ESA)
Somewhere in between standoff and escort jammers. These are among the most modern EW systems, and either are suspended pods, or on some newer radars, work off of the primary ESA array. They would have multiple beams of varying power, depending on target proximity. With each beam going for a hostile radio signal identified by the system (either passively or actively). Within the B-lobe area, RWRs and basic datalink, besides your own, would be jammed. Can generally be operated at the same time as a primary radar, although with decreased power to one or both systems. This would have minimal RWR pings, with basically only the specific targets being jammed picking up things on their radar, aside from an occasional potential search ping.
4. Self/Comm Jammer
Small radio wave jammers, the kind usually internally featured in most aircraft. Wouldn’t really have an active primary beam, as much as would just be a general B-lobe esque area around the plane. Fairly limited power draw, which pretty much just messes with non ECCM datalink amd pulse SARHs in a relatively small area around the plane. Would not impost a limitation on other systems. This would show up as a faint signal on RWRs though, potentially giving away your location.
5. Towed Decoys
Small decoys which are towed behind your aircraft, and emit a signal in all directions. Unlike other ECM systems these have a fixed duration, due to their internal power supply. Unlike other ECM, these do not create excessive false targets through noise. Instead they present themselves as essentially a single target (however, some information such as velocity would still be noisy, due to differing doppler shift from the real signal and it’s own). These would then be jettisoned after use. This would show up on hostile RWRs very easily, potentially as a specific fake target type depending on the decoy.
How they would work to the player
For the player, they would have two primary effects, targeted jamming, and proximity noise. Radars and such within the area of the primary beam (targeted jamming) of the system would face issues, depending on internal factors described in the below section. But generally it would between your plane being mildly harder to lock, to nearly impossible in some cases. Meanwhile things within the jammer’s B-lobe (proximity noise), around the host plane, generally would be things like issues with DL, or RWRs becoming non-functional.
The energy requirement for these systems would generally mean they can’t be used with active radars. Which would make toggling them a very careful part of staying effective in combat. Along with that, I propose they take time to startup, to stop people from just spam flicking them on and off, as generally these systems do take a few seconds to start up.
Alternatively, systems with their own power supply, usually towed decoys, although occasionally some others, would just have a simpe time limit for their internal power supply.
Also, there should be a heat mechanic, where based on the power of the system, and some arbitrary values for either balancing, or pulled from real sources where possible, or based on the size/mass of the system. So that way leaving the system on generates heat. This would particularly limit the stronger systems, as they could not be constantly used to just always avoid threats.
How they would internally work
Internally, all of these systems would essentially be the same. Being radars which emit on multiple bands (Radar bands, CW/Pulse illumination, etc), With all of them causing random “targets” (noise) to appear.
In order to “fool” a receiver into seeing noise within it’s filter. You would have to have enough power to raise the noise floor. A new thing which would be introduced, basically an internal formula using transmitted and received power, relative to received power from external sources. With a larger noise floor resulting in more rapid false signals being created.
So, while less powerful EW antennas will require more direct viewing from receivers (ie closer to primary angle, using the angle of half sensitivity from the receiver as a scalar), and/or closer range to the target relative to the power of transmission. More powerful transmitters wouldn’t need as much receiver sensitivity.
B-lobes effects, meanwhile, would be a more simple fixed area around the plane wherein effects take place, due to their nature varying by type, and interactions with specific RWRs not really being fully modellable
Heat systems would just be how heat systems already work in game, with generation varying from unit to unit based on power used. Mass of the system can just be approximated based off of its size, with cooling characteristics really just being up to balancing.
The power for these systems, as proper information on them is hard to get, should instead simply be based on the maximum generatable power by the host aircraft, with known or estimated overheads removed. As its a lot easier and more widely available the electricity generation capacity of engines then the actual output of the units. Additionally some scalar could be thrown in based on year of design. Similarly operational bands could also be done based on year of design if specifics are not known.
Honestly a lot of the groundwork for this to be implemented already exists, with stuff like receiver/transmitter power/sense angles already being a thing.
ECCM:
While electronic countermeasures are good and all, counter countermeasures play almost as large a part, so lets go over some now.
RWR ECCM:
While RWRs picking up signals is generally a good thing, there are two situations where it is not. Those being when picking up excess noise from the sensors, and when there’s enough electromagnetic interference to entirely disrupt the system. As such, ECCM for RWRs can be sorted into two types for in game, of which a RWR may have one or both:
Digital Signal Processing:
The more general approach to removing false signals, is simple digital signal processing. IRL, the specifics of a plane’s capability for it varies quite a bit, but again, for WT it can be summarized as a binary state. Digital Signal Processing most often involves temporal processing of signals, so that way noise which is only temporary does not overly excite it. This would generally reduce false RWR pings for targets in jammers effects.
System Insulation:
The more straightforward, yet limited method of RWR ECCM, a few planes (such as the F-15J/M, F-35, or rafale), use full faraday cages to insulate IEWS systems from external interference. This, while aiding somewhat in digital signal processing, largely has the benefit of allowing the RWR to remain mostly functional while in the proximity of B-Lobes from escort jammers.
Datalink ECCM:
Maintaining a datalink connection is very important, as without it many weapons are nearly or entirely crippled. This has been known since even the second world war. As such Datalink ECCM has existed for nearly as long. With many ways being developed to try and ensure radio connections stay strong.
Frequency Hopping:
The oldest method of ECCM in existence, by having more then one frequency a system hops through, it ensures that even if information received temporarily lines up with noise, it will not for long. With newer and more modern systems hopping through more frequencies and faster. Up to the point of it constantly changing in true frequency modulation systems. While there are intricacies to how it works IRL, for in game it can simply be a number, representing a time at which the DL resets. With each time it resetting the the noise, until interference generates again… This would mean that missiles with better frequency hopping would have a better chance at hitting a target.
Multi-Channel Signal:
Multi-channel signals, often used in conjunction with frequency hopping, on the likes of the AMRAAM. By spreading a signal across multiple frequencies you reduce the chance of noise aligning with it, along with allowing for error correction functions to be encoded easier. In game, missiles with Multi-Channel Datalink would simply have a multiplier assigned to the noise floor function used for ECM, making them more resistant, with more channel systems being more resistant.
Interference Detection:
A simply but important tool, Interference detection is the ability of a system to know when interference is acting on it. By detecting interference, missile can instead rely on inertial navigation in scenarios when they would otherwise go off course. Personally, i would advise implementing this with a delay/threshold, similar to how tracking suspension does. Technically it’s not the most accurate by itself, but it makes it combine more accurately with the proposed frequency hopping implementation.
Radar ECCM:
Arguably the most important part of ECM, is in regards to fooling radars. As such radar ECCM is extremely important. However, being so important, much of it is already modeled in game, even without dedicated digital ECM, through things such as location and velocity filters, which help to ensure the radar tracks the correct target. That being said, there are still a few radar ECCM techniques which could be added.
Frequency Hopping:
Much like datalink, frequency hopping is a very valuable type of ECCM for radars. However unlike for datalink, this is a relatively less developed field. Traveling wave tubes, which radars have used for much of their history, have had simply no capacity for any sort of frequency hopping. As such this is a relatively new technology, found only on modern slotted or phased array radar sets. Some missiles, like the AAM-4, are also capable of this for their radar. My idea for implementation of this, is similar to my idea for datalink. With it being a timer, at which the radar clears noisy signals. Again, not the most accurate to IRL, however still, imo, an appropriately close implementation.
Interference Detection:
While something that already exists for chaff on radars in game. For blocking out false signals from active jamming is quite a bit different. It’s a very careful balance of sensitivity ranges. Too much, and you end up losing real targets, too little, and your radar is filled with fakes. IRL, this can generally be tuned by the rear instrument officer on two seaters. In game however, this would simply be a fixed band for each radar, which is active once active jamming occurs. As such, depending on the scenario and the radar, some radars may become lightshows while jammed, while others nearly empty.
Would you like this as an implementation
- Yes
- No
0
voters
6 Likes
Just realized I forgot null formations in my explantation. ECCM is a pain lmao, null formations probably would never come to game though due to how hard it would be to model them.
(Null formation ECCM basically involves phase shifting incoming electromagnetic interference and sending the phase shifted signals back out, basically imagine noise canceling headphones, but for electromagnetic interference)
There’s, really so much that goes into electronic warfare, it’s very understandable that gaijin hasn’t added it yet. Honestly if they wanted to add it any time soon they’d have had to start working on it a long time ago.