The HOJ mode gone malfunction in current version?
-
Hello guys, I’m recently testing HOJ mode, and things get weird, the HOJ did NOT work at all.
(I know the “HOJ” message have long been removed from the HUD, that’s not my problem.)
TEST SETUP<<<
I’ve setup test flight with 2 F-16 headon at almost same altitude (near 26K), target JAMMER A/C will crank 40 degree to expose his ECM weak aspect(he keeps the ECM on), the attack A/C then will burn through because of the ECM weak aspect and get a valid LOCK, launch an AIM120 at Rpi. After launch, the JAMMER will return headon course, the ECM strong aspect works, the attack A/C radar track dropped and also the missile datalink ceased. At that point I will call the JAMMER to crank to the opposite side to see how HOJ works.
(Manual drop radar track have been tested too, same result)Test Theater: SDPRK (NO MODIFICATION), BLOCK52 VS BLOCK52.
RESULT<<<
The AIM120 is supposed to turn into HOJ mode follow the JAMMER’s turn to another side and track him with onboard radar at end game.
But what we got is the AIM120 just fly ballistic onto the TOI last known position try to scan a target with MPRF, compeletly no presence of the HOJ, the AIM120 just DON’T follow where the JAMMER go, like there is no Jammer at all. This can be seen in the following ACMI files.<<<
–----------------------------------
QUESTION 1<<<
So my question is , does the HOJ really working in current version? OR how to get the HOJ working?
AND another problem I found in the test is, the elevation coverage of jammer seem much larger than what listed in the PR5 manual.
The PR5 says the elevation coverage “extending from 5° above the aircraft horizontal datum, to 20° below the aircraft datum, Jamming power decreases exponentially from 5° above the horizontal plane to 15° above the horizontal plane, and from 20° below the datum plane to 30° below the datum plane. At elevation above 15° and below 30° from the aircraft datum horizontal plane, the jammer is totally ineffective”.
But In my test, when jammer stay at 15000ft, attacker stay at 30000ft, the ECM still burn through at 18-20NM, just the same with most effective jamming power area.
QUESTION 2<<<
This is not align with the RP5, so is the coverage value been tweaked and RP5 have gone outdated?Thank U all.
-
Small but important detail: the AIM-120 (and supposedly AA-12 as well) are HOJ-CAPABLE. Doesn’t mean they’ll always be able to track, let alone hit, a jamming aircraft.
That being said, if you let the target aircraft crank so that the missile is outside the ECM beam, it can never track a jammer, as it doesn’t have anything to home into. By cranking, all you do is let the missile return to its own (narrow-scope) RADAR mode.
I may be wrong, but the way I see it, to test HOJ (initially) you would come head-on or trail a jamming aircraft, and launch a maddog (missile without lock). That way, you know 100% certain that the missile is on its own from the start, and don’t risk your own aircraft inadvertently sending the missile where the aircraft is not.
Once that works out, I would add in offsets, manoeuvring, flashing jammer, … to further test HOJ-capability and Pk. -
Small but important detail: the AIM-120 (and supposedly AA-12 as well) are HOJ-CAPABLE. Doesn’t mean they’ll always be able to track, let alone hit, a jamming aircraft.
That being said, if you let the target aircraft crank so that the missile is outside the ECM beam, it can never track a jammer, as it doesn’t have anything to home into. By cranking, all you do is let the missile return to its own (narrow-scope) RADAR mode.
I may be wrong, but the way I see it, to test HOJ (initially) you would come head-on or trail a jamming aircraft, and launch a maddog (missile without lock). That way, you know 100% certain that the missile is on its own from the start, and don’t risk your own aircraft inadvertently sending the missile where the aircraft is not.
Once that works out, I would add in offsets, manoeuvring, flashing jammer, … to further test HOJ-capability and Pk.I"m afraid you cannot be sure when launching a maddog slammer, and obtain a hit, if it was because of HOJ capability or due to the missile getting close enough to avoid jamming and use its own radar and lock the enemy aircraft .-
-
Well , in the test, I let the Jammer crank for a burn through point, once lock and launch is achieved, the Jammer will turn direct headon, which will point it’s main jamming power to both the attacker and the AIM120. But this still doesn’t active HOJ.
And as many past posts mentioned before , that launching a Maddog at general direction of the Jammer, basically won’t get a HOJ lock. HOJ need to burn through and lock before launch. So I don’t think maddog is a good way to test HOJ.
-
It seems that AI have a very different Jamming strength compare with human.
The F-16 can burn through a AI Su27 at more than 35nm and keep stable track. When a human get inside the Su27 the burn through range decrease sharply to 20.5NM.
So any way to adjust AI’s Jammer more likely to human thus increase some difficulty in BVR?
The AIjamLogic settings in Falcon bms.cfg seem not working either.
-
I"m afraid you cannot be sure when launching a maddog slammer, and obtain a hit, if it was because of HOJ capability or due to the missile getting close enough to avoid jamming and use its own radar and lock the enemy aircraft .-
I don’t think HOJ on its own is used to make a hit. It’s meant to get a missile close enough for a burn-through by its own RADAR.
Similar to how the latest AGM-88 uses its passive sensor to guide in on the area where radio signals are sent out by the target’s RADAR, and then switch to active millimetre wave scanning to pinpoint the target during the terminal phase of flight.
And as many past posts mentioned before , that launching a Maddog at general direction of the Jammer, basically won’t get a HOJ lock. HOJ need to burn through and lock before launch. So I don’t think maddog is a good way to test HOJ.
HOJ does not need a burn through, that’s the whole point of HOJ… An autonomous HOJ-capable missile is basically just looking to hit whoever’s making the loudest noise, and the jammer is the one screaming. Once the jammer is deactivated, its carrier is as loud (or quiet, rather) as everyone else around him, and the only way to pick him out again is by active scanning.
That’s exactly why it’s a major disadvantage to keep your jammer on beyond burn-through range. It provides no benefit to you anymore, while it does put a major “HIT ME”-sign on your back.
Well , in the test, I let the Jammer crank for a burn through point, once lock and launch is achieved, the Jammer will turn direct headon, which will point it’s main jamming power to both the attacker and the AIM120. But this still doesn’t active HOJ.
As you can see in both your ACMI’s, when the lock is broken, the missile is still very far from target (25 and 19NM respectively) and looking at an empty sky, as it has climbed significantly (14,000 and 10,000ft) to maximise range (because you launched at 30NM, which is way too far to get a proper Pk on a manoeuvring target anyway).
-
In the first flight, when the lock is broken, the missile just continues its ballistic path, as that is probably where it would expect the target (based on latest datalink information fed by your aircraft). Because the target cranks towards you again while nobody is looking, however, the lead course is no longer correct, and the missile is unable to pick up anything.
-
In the second flight, the lock is lost and the missile makes an adjustment towards the target, presumably based on latest datalink info again. At 7 - 10NM, it’s looking directly at the target, but probably still too far out to really find anything with its own RADAR, and by the time it gets close enough (<5NM), the target has already left the missile’s gimbals, or the missile is no longer able to correct course without losing all its momentum. (speculation -> ) This may have been different had the target continued to point its ECM towards the missile, as it may have had something to guide towards at earlier stages of flight.
Unfortunately, I’m unable to test this myself at this time, as I don’t have a human opponent available.
The F-16 can burn through a AI Su27 at more than 35nm and keep stable track. When a human get inside the Su27 the burn through range decrease sharply to 20.5NM.
What aircraft were you targeting from within the SU-27? An F-16? If so, the RCS of a SU-27 is 15m², while that of an F-16C is only 1.2m² (according to Global Security, obviously also depends on geometry). Should be no surprise you can spot and track something bigger more easily.
Also keep in mind that the RADAR of an F-16 is different to the one of a SU-27, so its scanning capabilities, detection range, filter etc. will be different. To make a more proper comparison, you should pit two aircraft with identical RADAR sets but different RCS (e.g. MiG-29 and SU-27) against each other, and see when you achieve burn-through.
-
-
I don’t think HOJ on its own is used to make a hit. It’s meant to get a missile close enough for a burn-through by its own RADAR.
Similar to how the latest AGM-88 uses its passive sensor to guide in on the area where radio signals are sent out by the target’s RADAR, and then switch to active millimetre wave scanning to pinpoint the target during the terminal phase of flight.
HOJ does not need a burn through, that’s the whole point of HOJ… An autonomous HOJ-capable missile is basically just looking to hit whoever’s making the loudest noise, and the jammer is the one screaming. Once the jammer is deactivated, its carrier is as loud (or quiet, rather) as everyone else around him, and the only way to pick him out again is by active scanning.
That’s exactly why it’s a major disadvantage to keep your jammer on beyond burn-through range. It provides no benefit to you anymore, while it does put a major “HIT ME”-sign on your back.
As you can see in both your ACMI’s, when the lock is broken, the missile is still very far from target (25 and 19NM respectively) and looking at an empty sky, as it has climbed significantly (14,000 and 10,000ft) to maximise range (because you launched at 30NM, which is way too far to get a proper Pk on a manoeuvring target anyway).
-
In the first flight, when the lock is broken, the missile just continues its ballistic path, as that is probably where it would expect the target (based on latest datalink information fed by your aircraft). Because the target cranks towards you again while nobody is looking, however, the lead course is no longer correct, and the missile is unable to pick up anything.
-
In the second flight, the lock is lost and the missile makes an adjustment towards the target, presumably based on latest datalink info again. At 7 - 10NM, it’s looking directly at the target, but probably still too far out to really find anything with its own RADAR, and by the time it gets close enough (<5NM), the target has already left the missile’s gimbals, or the missile is no longer able to correct course without losing all its momentum. (speculation -> ) This may have been different had the target continued to point its ECM towards the missile, as it may have had something to guide towards at earlier stages of flight.
Unfortunately, I’m unable to test this myself at this time, as I don’t have a human opponent available.
What aircraft were you targeting from within the SU-27? An F-16? If so, the RCS of a SU-27 is 15m², while that of an F-16C is only 1.2m² (according to Global Security, obviously also depends on geometry). Should be no surprise you can spot and track something bigger more easily.
Also keep in mind that the RADAR of an F-16 is different to the one of a SU-27, so its scanning capabilities, detection range, filter etc. will be different. To make a more proper comparison, you should pit two aircraft with identical RADAR sets but different RCS (e.g. MiG-29 and SU-27) against each other, and see when you achieve burn-through.
THX for the reply, but I’ve made some test which confirm the MADDOG won’t get U in the HOJ.
–--------------------------------------------
>>>>>ACMI<<<<<<<
AS U can see from the ACMI:1st round, when Maddog fired directly at a Jammer from medium range(carefully aimed and spread launch to cover more area), missile go ballistic path and fall because they can’t find any target with their own seeker. NO HOJ sighted.
2nd round, when launch at close range(inside 22NM already burn through), Only 1 missile luckly to get a track at end game, but obviously base on it’s own boresight seeker because the missile keep a straight line until 8.5NM which is the MPRF range, the active seeker happened to see the target and followed up. NO HOJ sighted either.
All 8 missiles in the demo does NOT turn a single bit before any MPRF capture. No AIM-120 follows the Jamming aircraft autonomously, they just fly straight ahead try to obtain some bad luckly guy with the boresight seeker.
So based on these observations, we can conclude that MADDOG will NOT activate HOJ, and won’t track any Jamming target “autonomously”.
–--------------------------------------------Last, if U test with a human pilot compared with AI (both F-16BLOCK52 vs Su27), U can see the great difference between burn through range: 35NM+(AI su27) VS 20.5NM(human su27).
But thx anyway~
-
-
THX for the reply, but I’ve made some test which confirm the MADDOG won’t get U in the HOJ.
All 8 missiles in the demo does NOT turn a single bit before any MPRF capture. No AIM-120 follows the Jamming aircraft autonomously, they just fly straight ahead try to obtain some bad luckly guy with the boresight seeker.
So based on these observations, we can conclude that MADDOG will NOT activate HOJ, and won’t track any Jamming target “autonomously”.The problem I see with your testing is that the jamming aircraft always turns away immediately, thereby making it physically impossible to have HOJ…
To show why, I took 2 screenshots from your ACMI. In both images, you can see when the launching aircraft and / or its missiles would no longer be inside the jammer’s ECM beam (maybe add 1 or 2 seconds extra, to be sure, but the result is the same), based on jamming aircraft’s geometry.
In the first round, the first AIM-120 gets about 15 - 20 seconds to track any jamming, the last only 5 - 10.
In the second round, it’s even less: the first gets about 5 seconds, the second only 2. Number 3 and 4 are off the rail only after you’ve completely turned away.
The only way I see to test if HOJ works:
- Start with 2 aircraft at same altitude, on a direct head-on or trailing course
- Start ACMI
- Aircraft 1 activates ECM, Aircraft 2 checks he’s within the ECM cone by verifying there are chevrons on his FCR
- Once in range, Aircraft 2 launches at least 1 missile. Preferably, this is a maddog, but breaking the lock after no more than 1 - 2 seconds may also work. Most important is that there is no detailed target information being uploaded to the missile. If necessary for kinetic purposes, loft the missile slightly, but not too much so it doesn’t climb outside the ECM cone
- Aircraft 1 continues straight ahead (as if unaware of anything)
- Wait until missile impacts or misses
- Stop ACMI
- In ACMI review, check if and when the missile makes course corrections to reach the target
Repeat this a few times, so you can confirm whether the results are verifiable and repeatable, instead of a single hit or miss.
Once this testing round is complete and you get repeated missile impacts, repeat the steps in a second testing round, but have Aircraft 1 make slight heading (<10°) and/or altitude (less than ±2000ft) changes. If a third round is wanted / needed, flash the jammer, move more aggressively etc., so that the ECM cone blankets the incoming missiles intermittently instead of continuous.Only once that is completed, I think you have a solid base to say whether or not HOJ actually works. (unless we get a response from someone in the know on if / how HOJ is implemented, of course)
Last, if U test with a human pilot compared with AI (both F-16BLOCK52 vs Su27), U can see the great difference between burn through range: 35NM+(AI su27) VS 20.5NM(human su27).
Ah, I see… I understood this incorrectly previously. Now I understand what you mean, and that does indeed seem odd. Any noticeable differences in geometry, RADAR scanning, … perhaps?
-
Hi, Eagle-Eye, the test parameter you setup is incorrect for the following reason:
–------------------------------------------
1. If U launch a AIM120 in slave mode, no matter how soon U stop the datalink, it’s not a Maddog. The missile have a TOI last known position and will fly directly to that position then activate the seeker to capture someone. Maddog have to been launched in Bore mode.In these case, if U set your target fly straight and no maneuvering, most AIM120 may capture the target base on the TOI and projection of target position (base on target last known speed & aspect). U can try this in a NONE ECM environment and see the result. Then U will understand what I’m talking about, these kind of capture is not due to HOJ, but base on the TOI last known data, the presence of ECM will have completely NO effect.
2. To tell whether a missile have entering the HOJ or not, the target should be maneuvering to prevent the TOI based capture and see whether the missile did follow the target movement or not. That’s what I setup for my test.
If the target make a turn and the missile has complete no reaction, then how can U call it HOJ? (“Homing” means you follow and track the jammer, right?)
Now that we can see the ARHs don’t follow the jamming target, missile shows completely no corrections to target movement when outside MPRF range, so we conclude the HOJ is not working.
3. The picture U taked shows that when these AIM120s are launched, they are fully inside the ECM cone. The cone have at least 30° in azimuth and 5° above the horizontal to 20° below the plane(MAX effect area). When the plane is roll to the right like that showed on picture, the ARH’s are well inside the Jamming Cone.
And the jamming target only begin maneuver when I already launched my first missile. In 1st round, target maneuvered after all 4 missiles are fired; 2nd round, target maneuvered after first 2 missiles are fired, So at least 6 missile at launched when the target haven’t get moving. So they should have shown some degree of Homing/Corrections in the mid course, even if the maneuver did bring the later ones outside the ECM cone. But they don’t, actually No missile shows any homing/correction in the middle course.
4.The burn through range test is complete equally for PVP and PVE, which both setup at 26K, fully headon, RWS mode, Radar centered, don’t shoot anything to interfere the process. I think there maybe some AI JAMMING script cause the difference, but I can not confirm that.
-
The RP5 manual show the ECM cone as follow:
-
Bump. Anyone can help ? THX.
-
TBH I am not sure HOJ ever worked ….as it seems I can see no support for it in code …
Yes I know , I an the first who was convinced it was working for more than 10 years ago, but the only thing I can see is just that HOJ stuff in the hud when the contact was jamming, and you know sometimes a placebo ca be very efficient
I have asked a better specialist in that area to look at it to confirm or not if there is real support for it
-
TBH I am not sure HOJ ever worked ….as it seems I can see no support for it in code …
Yes I know , I an the first who was convinced it was working for more than 10 years ago, but the only thing I can see is just that HOJ stuff in the hud when the contact was jamming, and you know sometimes a placebo ca be very efficient
I have asked a better specialist in that area to look at it to confirm or not if there is real support for it
Thx for the info~~
And how about the AI jamming? Script effect or just another thing hardcoded?
I see even the “AIjamLogic” setting in config is not working any more.
-
Thx for the info~~
And how about the AI jamming? Script effect or just another thing hardcoded?
I see even the “AIjamLogic” setting in config is not working any more.
AI jamming is effective of course !!
-
AI jamming is effective of course !!
Well……I mean the great difference between burn through range for AI and Human aircraft:
Burn though AI Su27 @ 35NM+ VS burn through Human Su27 @20.5NM.
And from the data of the radar(Detection range & Jamming Penalty & RCS adjustment for Su27), 20.5NM should be a resaonable value. Also human can burn through each other(both inside a Block52) at about 18NM.
-
TBH I am not sure HOJ ever worked ….as it seems I can see no support for it in code …
Yes I know , I an the first who was convinced it was working for more than 10 years ago, but the only thing I can see is just that HOJ stuff in the hud when the contact was jamming, and you know sometimes a placebo ca be very efficient
I have asked a better specialist in that area to look at it to confirm or not if there is real support for it
Any update from the specialist you consulted?
-
i have my jammer keybound to a hat on my stick for on off toggle, anytime I have VID on an inbound heater or missile if you spam the shit out of the ON OFF ON OFF ON OFF ON OFF process while notching and pumping chaff I have pretty good results. I’ve seen alamos literally change their bearing from a dead set to 90 degrees away from me with that jammer flicking.
-
i have my jammer keybound to a hat on my stick for on off toggle, anytime I have VID on an inbound heater or missile if you spam the shit out of the ON OFF ON OFF ON OFF ON OFF process while notching and pumping chaff I have pretty good results. I’ve seen alamos literally change their bearing from a dead set to 90 degrees away from me with that jammer flicking.
"ON OFF ON OFF ON OFF ON OFF " That’s useless.
AI has no HOJ capability.
-
"ON OFF ON OFF ON OFF ON OFF " That’s useless.
AI has no HOJ capability.
What does AI have to do with this, if it’s a part of how missiles function?
Jammer would have absolutely no effect on heaters, though, so those going ballistic is either because of flares, or it’s a bug.
thereisnotime, can you provide video and ACMI of such an event where the missile loses your track and goes crazy? -
What does AI have to do with this, if it’s a part of how missiles function?
Jammer would have absolutely no effect on heaters, though, so those going ballistic is either because of flares, or it’s a bug.
thereisnotime, can you provide video and ACMI of such an event where the missile loses your track and goes crazy?ill record some video next time i get into the defensive weeds