Jammer questions [Can't lock a jamming aircraft until 10 NM]
-
Hello guys,
I’m trying to better understand the EW in bms.
In the dash 34 it’s stated that the f-16 radar (I band) will be degraded when transmitting in mode 4 (Logical). dash 34 says the Detection range will be degraded by 30%. Is that the only downsinde of the jammer? Or like in the vault the burnthrough of the enemy’jammer will also be degraded? Would a jammer also reduce my chance to keep a lock? Right now it’s very hard to tell as I find the burnthrough and the lock keeping as hard with or without my jammer.Since when we fire an amraam the forward antenna is inibited to jam, does that imply that my wingmen (jammer on) are degrading my capability to lock, maintain lock or detect target?
Is a single aircraft jamming me as effective as 3 aircraft in close formation jamming me, or does their jam combine to even reduce my ability to use my radar? Having 3 jammer pods on me doesn’t seem to change when I’m locked so I guess no? (The 3 jammer pods thing was just for testing purpose )
Is it normal that I couldn’t burnthrough a single J-11’s jammer when he was flying away, non manoeuvering and I was behind him at 10 NM? I was visually seeing him so I knew his altitude and I was using RWS azimut 10 1 bar, tried spotlight and was music OFF. I could only lock him at around 9.8 NM. Does that number makes sense? Is their jammer so good or my radar so bad? I was flying alone, I have no idea what could have improved his jamming ability. Any idea?
Thanks a lot!
-
we tested and I agree it is impossible to burnthrought the J-11’s ECM in head’s on configuration until reach 10nm …so the shooting possibilities are really limited!!
FYI, I didn’t use the ECM on my side and the opposite was in xmt 3 prog4
I tested all configurations ( RWS TWS, VSR, azimut sweep, bars, …) -
Hello.
For your first two questions, maybe see : https://forum.falcon-bms.com/topic/25729/brain-freeze-when-getting-jammed-need-help-with-bvr-tactics/6?_=1702244842168 -
@Rouge1512 it’s worse than this honnestly… @suhkoi69 didn’t have his jammer on (f-16). I, in the J-11 was jamming on mode 4 xmt 3.
He was not able to maintain a lock before around 10 NM. If I want him to get a lock, I just have to flank him, if I don’t flank in, he won’t get the lock. -
@Mikyjax
Your first two question. I have no reply for J11. -
@Rouge1512 Thank you for your answer, the thing is I read your post and I completly agree with how you would use the jam. But with the new test we made we realised that even without jammer we were facing the same issue, can’t burnthrough, can’t lock… I just wonder if it’s a bug or if this case scenario is intended.
We need to test this with different aircrafts… -
I just did the same test with a friend in the f16 CM 50 it’s the same.
Plane A : ECM ON mode 4 only, XMT 3
Plane B : ECM OFF
both plane 25.000 ft head on
Plane B will only have the lock at around 10 NM using all burnthrough techniques.
The only time plane B is able to lock is if plane A goes in a crank, but as soon as they are back head on, the lock is broken. -
@Mikyjax what I find disturbing is that the same behavior can be found on all aircraft, according to your last tests… I could understand if there were differences between generations of fighters…but that doesn’t seem to be the case
I would say that it seems that IA is still active in mode3 when jammer is put on fighter…my question is : should jammer capability be just as perfect, whatever the distance in heads on position? because piercing the jammer at 10nm doesn’t leave much chance…
Now that would also explain why you couldn’t lock the J11 you were chasing in trail…
we’ve also seen that you have to intercept even before the enemy reposition himself face to face, which leaves little chance of locking on to the target unless the enemy applies “geometrical” tactics.
@Mav-jp @airtex2019 there anyone at BMS who could shed some light on this, or even check to see if there’s no problem there?
-
Hi,
I’m getting exactly the same issue engaging Mig 23 MLs in the C Plan TE. No burn through or lock until within 10nm. There are no issues with the Mig 29s in the same TE.Regards
Dram. -
@Dram said in Jammer questions [Can't lock a jamming aircraft until 10 NM]:
C Plan TE
normal once again heads on position !!!
we’ve just tested different fighters with integrated ECM or on Pods, and it’s always the same story: you break the Jammer at around 10nm. -
Sounds as if the ECM jammer is working as advertised??
If I may make one suggestion, try attacking the target’s beam. (From the 3 or 9 O’clock. Going Head-to-head is such a Cold War tactic).
-
@JollyFE do you mean an f-16 (not jamming) cannot burnthrough a mig 21 jammer before 10 NM?
Do you think the f-16 is not able to know the altitude of a mig 21? because you can’t even put your cursor around and see its altitude. That would really surprise me…
In this state all you have to do is to turn your jammer off, wait for the enemy to lock you and crank (he propably fired), lock him and send a missile to him, turn your jammer on, put your nose on him - done - you defeated his missile, no need to turn away, he lost the lock.
[edit] don’t try this with an AI only pvp… AI has no issue burning through your jammer and firing at 27 NM -
@Mikyjax Not 100% sure I understand your example, but what I’m saying that there better tactics than attacking head-on. Not sure where the MiG-21 came into play. I believe it began with a J-11 and then mentioned a MiG-23 and a MiG-29. All of various sizes and generations of technology.
BUT, if you want to discuss the MiG-21, its small size combined with jamming capability is not as easy as previous coded jamming would allow you to believe. Take into consideration that a Mig-21 generally attacks from a lower altitude. That means the F-16s radar has to pick out a smaller (and fast) aircraft against surface clutter. And then add in the jammer, which is specifically designed to scramble a radars return just enough to the point where that fighter can get in as close as possible to employ its weapons, thus making that attacking pilot (F-16 pilot) think twice about getting as close as they are.
Also consider whether the F-16 pilot is focusing the radar beam at that particular target. Is that pilot narrowing his radar beam down to 1 Bar and 20 degress of azimuth? Or is he/she continuously sweeping large swaths of the sky?! (Just a hint: sweeping large swaths of the sky is NOT a good tactic against a jamming target).
NOW consider that most of a Jammer’s energy is directed to the 12 & 6 O’clock of the aircraft. SO, attacking from the left or right beam (aka out-flanking) MAY be a better tactic. Not only will the target not be in a position to defend with a missile launch, the jammer’s energy is not directly pointed at your radar.
Just a thought…
-
@JollyFE I’m talking about the mig-21 because it’s one of the plethore of aircrafts we used for this test and it’s probably the worse aircraft that has jamming capabilities to put up against the f-16.
Now, I’m well aware about different/better tactics I’m just studying this particular head on case because we realized that there is no better way to break a lock than by pointing the nose at the enemy and this applies until the 10 NM mark.
So, if that’s normal, ok, great no prob, but that means that all jammer are as good and that also mean that AI’s should have the same problem, they should not be able to lock and maintain a lock @ 27NM if we are head on.
For the bar and azimut yes, just read above, we tested everything.
Altitude is not relevant in those tests, we are both around 25.000 ft -
@Mikyjax Ok I’m now “tracking”. And Mav-JP will be the best to answer specifics of jamming ability with respect to range.
-
yesterday I found an interesting information on Falcon Lounge Discord
that doesnt change the issue we have with jammer but as it talks about jammer so I post it hereMicro wrote : “Energy management is not implemented for Jammers. I asked the same questions during testing and docs writing to the coder.
Switching certain programs on/off doesn’t increase energy for other programs which are on.
Same for forward/aft jamming. Switching one jammer off doesn’t increases the capacity of the active one.
I will add this info.”Energy management, should it be effective or not? that’s the question…
Otherwise what would be the interest of having several programs? so currently, I guess It’s better to select all programs! -
@suhkoi69 said in Jammer questions [Can't lock a jamming aircraft until 10 NM]:
yesterday I found an interesting information on Falcon Lounge Discord
that doesnt change the issue we have with jammer but as it talks about jammer so I post it hereMicro wrote : “Energy management is not implemented for Jammers. I asked the same questions during testing and docs writing to the coder.
Switching certain programs on/off doesn’t increase energy for other programs which are on.
Same for forward/aft jamming. Switching one jammer off doesn’t increases the capacity of the active one.
I will add this info.”Energy management, should it be effective or not? that’s the question…
Otherwise what would be the interest of having several programs? so currently, I guess It’s better to select all programs!Energy management was implemented in first versions , however I decided to remove it for those first releases
It might be back
-
-
Oof! Someone doesn’t like The Small Faces?!
-
@Mav-jp Hello! Is it normal I can’t burnthrough any enemy jammer until I reach 10 NM? No matter the radar mode? Even if my own ECM is off (so no degradation) Head on configuration, same altitude.
We do realize the effect decreases with their change in aspect and attitude due to the jamming cones but it looks like the center spots from both rear and front are VERY performant to jam us, no matter the age of the ennemy pod used.
Do the AI have the same constraint than us on that regard?
Thank you.