Jammer / HOJ / 4.34 discussion

[Flow32]

Hello everyone,

Tried to find some information on this subject here, but had no luck.
What I am looking for is maybe not really available “publicly”, as those who know might not share the wisdom

So here comes my question : how to best use the jammer in a “real life situation”. I know that it depends on a million things like radar band / jammer band / etc… But lets simplify this to jammer on or off.
Also, lets focus on the moment you are already defensive.
And, finally, lets not focus on how BMS is coded, and how to defend against the code.

The situation : you are defensive against a missile.

My vision of it is that there are two main type of missiles to defend against : active and passive.
Both could have HOJ capabilities.

In the case of a passive missile, if you break the bandit’s lock, the missile is not guided anymore, and could then guide using its HOJ capabilities.
I could imagine that turning the jammer off, in that situation, could help.

In the case of an active missile, you have to choose between two poisons : either the missile is tracking you with its onboard radar, or with its HOJ capabilities. In this situation, HOJ should give it less precision, and use of the jammer could be helpful. (Taking into account that the missile went active and that the range between the missile and the aircraft is greater than burnthrough range).

I know this is simplified a lot, and that EWS is very very sensitive, but still, if someone has some input regarding this, I am all ears

Thanks !

[M79]

“Both could have HOJ capabilities.”
Could you show one passive with hoj? Googles results for my…: Watch michelly fox1 tube porn michelly fox1 hd movie and download.

[Flow32]

I believe SA-11 and SA-17 have HOJ capabilities ? At least in BMS.
And both rely on tracking from the launcher’s FCR IIRC.

[Agave_Blue]

I’ve seen the jammer described in these forums as ‘turning a flashlight (torch) on in a dark room.’

Assuming that analogy is somewhat correct, I can’t see any circumstance that turning the jammer on when you’re already defensive would be a good idea …. it would amount to confirming your location where it may not have been completely certain before.

[white_fang]

In theory jammer is used to hide your ‘range’ to other platform , and making false contacts… suppose Offensive jammers (OECM) like ALQ-99 are more powerfull then Defensive DECM , typical for fighters.

For Semi-active radar systems:

Since you’re defensive at this time, you already have missiles coming your way - now it only depends how far are you from the radar ‘painting’ your aircraft. -as is the ‘burnthrough’ already occurred , - situation where opposing radar has enough power to get GOOD returns on you, even if you’re jamming.

So, when you have missiles in your way, you have to consider that ‘burnthrough’ already occurred, they have a lock fix on you.- there is no point in jamming anymore as you are makeing things only worse, creating a BIGGER “flashlight” to already known fix location.

For Active-radar systems:
Also new missiles have pretty much very good ECCM techniques … and HOJ mode(s) , not just launching platform as in semi-active ones.

First you have to evade the missile(s)… no point if you get hit, forget about jamming, it’s always better they loose your track, then try to outsmart them electronically …

Then if you wish , start jamming , so no more lock-fix situation occurs and get out of there… since you’re in range.

There was a theory jamming technique , back at simHQ in AF days, … ‘Flashing the jammer’ … constantly turning jammer on and off , like a flashlight…
but, well it’s a theory … it should work as confusing for targeting platform … BUT… since you’re already in range of burnthrough… what’s the point?
-although , ALSO in theory, you could buy some milliseconds confusing the guidance logic… IF you’re far enough … at the brink of burnthrough range.

As radars always have greater range then the weapon/sam/missile itself (not radar on active missile) … ‘Hey it’s a nice day for flying’ - DIY/ try and error

It’s all about range.

Cheers

[Huesudo]

Active missiles on HOJ are lethal. Against a non-jamming target, the launcher has to guide the missile until pitbull; if he breaks the lock early, the missile may not be ideally placed when it gets there. If the missile goes HOJ, the jammer is telling it exactly where to go, and the launcher doesn’t have to do anything else.

Unlike in DCS, where HOJ missiles fly a pure pursuit trajectory (their nose always points exactly towards the jammer), “passive” radar guided missiles in HOJ should be able to use proportional guidance to figure out an intercept trajectory by themselves, just as a passive heat seeking sidewinder can figure out how to fly an intercept trajectory without knowing the range to its target simply by using proportional guidance.

[Dragon1-1]

Yeah, I kept getting shot down by Adders I didn’t realize were there until I found out HOJ was implemented in BMS. They would appear on the RWR very briefly, and then vanish. Next thing I know, I’d be hearding “Adder incoming” from a wingman, at which point it’s kind of late to start dancing with it, especially if you’ve got no idea where it’s coming from. I gave wide berth to anything that could carry the R-77 until I found cutting the jammer made the things show up on RWR.

[Flow32]

Thank you for the answers guys.
My question comes from a discussion with someone, who told me that you always need to jam, as HOJ guidance is way less precise than radar guidance, so when you have the choice between both situations, pick the one that is the “least bad”.
Complicated subject, with a multitude of answers, very situation dependent I guess

[JOKER_duke]

Thanks to hOJ capbilty of AIM-120, We never get music on when go defense.
Because ECM do not jam missile’s radar in BMS

[LorikEolmin]

@JOKER_duke:

Thanks to hOJ capbilty of AIM-120, We never get music on when go defense.
Because ECM do not jam missile’s radar in BMS

IRL question.

[molnibalage]

@white_fang:

In theory jammer is used to hide your ‘range’ to other platform , and making false contacts… suppose Offensive jammers (OECM) like ALQ-99 are more powerfull then Defensive DECM , typical for fighters.

Cheers

Whoooooooooooooooooooooo… We should slow down a bit.

In my evolution book are some examples about the effect of jamming. Against certain hardware and modes different type of jamming have different results or not at all.
Maybe I can bring ahead a bit the translation before other chapters.

I rather would say not hiding many cases the jammer could only kill the auto track capability or deny only one type of information.
I’m not expert but I do not have any information this topic from early '80s and double digits SAMs. Public information is available about only older SAM systems. I will post about the evolution about both of PVO and army air defense SAM. It will be a REALLY interesting post.

[Jackal]

Thanks a lot to all of you for this most interesting topic and your honest contributions, Gentlemen.

One matter caught my attention: flashing the jammer. I used to. Sometimes it saved the day, more often it didn’t.

In conclusion, I have to agree with Lorik: told it concisely, it’s a RL matter. And, sadly or not, we won’t ever able to know more that that generic few released publicly… i.e., one more than nothing at all.

Understable because it’s reasonable. And thus, IMHO only, it’s definitively ‘case closed’.

With best regards to all.

[Flow32]

Thank you for your input. My title was poorly chose as it contained “4.34”. I was trying to get some sort of tactical operation procedure that is close to what is done in a real life situation. Electronic Warfare is not really simulated, with radar bands, jammer bands, and so on, and probably will never be with the lack of public information there is.
Molni, I am really interested, even for single digit SAM defensive tactics, as this is mainly what we are simming.

[molnibalage]

@Flow32:

Thank you for your input. My title was poorly chose as it contained “4.34”. I was trying to get some sort of tactical operation procedure that is close to what is done in a real life situation. Electronic Warfare is not really simulated, with radar bands, jammer bands, and so on, and probably will never be with the lack of public information there is.
Molni, I am really interested, even for single digit SAM defensive tactics, as this is mainly what we are simming.

Even that are not modeled in BMS 4.34 as I know because every SAM has the same guidance model only with different modeling (leading, etc) values.

Spoiler about the big book.

For example the most basic noise barrage type jamming denies the range information but it provides exactly the azimuth data. What was the point of the jamming? It simply killed the auto track capability of the SA-75 Dvina in Vietnam and also made impossible half-lead guidance. The only remaining option was manual tracking with three point guidance. The three point guidance forces to turn the missile regardless the target is flying straight ahead.

This is the difference between the most idead leading and three point guidance.

If you measure the direction and speed of the straight flying target you simply aim to the intercept point with minimal or 0 maneuvering in ideal case. But if you deny the distance information you cannot measure speed therefore you cannot calculate the leading. The only option missile always has to fly in every moment into target direction. This means missile has to turn and more and more stronger in terminal phase regardless the target does not change direction or speed. As larger the angle between velocity vectors the limit is even worse.

This is why was not possible to shot down the SR-71 just combining a very high turn radius close to the target at very high alt. with a very primitive type of jamming. Because the SR-71 flew way above 20 km the turning capability of the missile of SA-75 Dvina was very weak. The missile was simply not able to follow the trajectory what was demanded by the three point guidance.

Only 4G or less turning capability was available to the missile.

Automatic tracking vs manual an three point guidance in Vietnam. You can see the effect of more and more jammer capable aircraft.

Engagement envelope of the S-75M in case 640-1000 m/s target speed. It shows the location where can be downed a NON JAMMING NON maneuvering target. The target has to be in that zone in the moment of impact. The system did not calculated the moment of the launch to ensure the interception in the zone.

You can find the diagrams here in the chaper about S-75 family.
https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?32545-Guide-into-evolution-and-terms-of-air-defense-and-military-aviation

Now you can understand using only jamming without using other tools is many times is not useful. You have to combine against certain systems certain jam types with certain behavior. The jamming which useful against SA-75 is useless against the Kub because it has monopulse antenna and CW illumination.

This is a very, very complex topic. Comparing to these issues in any sim the electronic warfare is the most simplified thing. It simply does not model even basic behavior at all. Because it is very, very hard and much more classified comparing to flight performance charts…

Because I wish to avoid to explain always these stuff I wrote in Hungarian first the long book which I slowly translate to ENG. Of course I cannot write everything into that but if you understand the whole you can understand almost anything from that point in many many areas. The point of the evolution and the types of different antennas, impact on guidance, etc.

[Dragon1-1]

I’ve seen mentions of a manual for one of the Su-27 export versions, which is public, and includes a chapter on the Gardenia ECM pod. Haven’t found the manual itself, but it could be a good place to start. It seems that it has a lot of presets for specific threats, which, given the symbology on the ECM panel (Electronic Warfare Fundamentals, figure 18-5), would appear to be the case in the Viper, too.

I wonder if decent ECM modeling could be extrapolated from what is publicly known. IMO, everyone having Gardenias would be preferable to what we have now. Perhaps a quantitative difference between pods would be appropriate, plus whatever tweaks are needed to fit with available data.

[depapier]

Just wanted to add that EW is a broad field and it would make sense to talk in terms of BMS about turn on / off / flash / etc the jammer (with regards to a specific model versus specific threat). But in RL EW is many things - it’s gathering and sorting data, testing the counter measures and creating programs for them, creating basically libraries of emissions and signatures and so on and so forth. So there would not be a general answer for any 1v1 BVR situation. The question would have to include 1)what platforms ? 2) which weapons and their specific models? 3) which known tactics are applied? 4) what platforms are acting in support? 5) what countermeasures are available ?

So, yeah this would quickly become a complicated formula, but it would provide a way to come up with a solution for one specific problem and could be used in similar situations.
That’s why gathering information is such an important part of EW. I imagine this for instance has played a huge role in the decision of USA not to deploy f-35 in Syria (apart from political considerations or bureaucratic ones) as this would provide Russia with a great opportunity to gather data on the jet. It’s an oversimplified example, but proves the point.

Even in Vietnamese-American war era there were differences between jammers used by US Navy and Airforce thus leading to different tactics in their application. If I remember correctly Navy jammers had to be music on from the moment of launch until the homeplate, long before going over the beach, otherwise they would not be useful if used as “flashing light” due to the presence of coastal ewr. This one little fact actually opens up a whole study behind it - that of both tech and tactics on the Vietnamese side, that would encompass everything from radar tech to actual patterns in deployment of Sams, migs and aa. Gathering this data has been instrumental in developing the navy tactics as well as actual jammers. On the other hand Airforce had many iterations and differing tactics, but for the time of Rolling Thunder their jammers would be useful almost exclusively if deployed in tight formation. The list goes on and that is only what is publicly available and we arent even talking about actual jamming platforms involved and whatever else Russia has used to jam gps in Sweden lately.

[white_fang]

Interesting read . ALQ-99 .

But there’s range and coverage inside, like effective 214km. … seems legit

https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_old_pdf.cfm?ARC_ID=612