So, automatic target breaking. So with 7 modules, I can guarantee at least 14 seconds of the enemy not locking anything. More if they're not infinite sensor strength, 2800+ scan res Lokis (1 second jammed, 1 second locking). If either aspect goes up past 1 second, that's 21 seconds. If both go past one second (which isn't, you know, unlikely), that's 28 seconds and you're off to the races with automatic permajamming.

...I'm gonna say that's probably bad.

Make ecm break locks by De locking targets? a sample formula could be like

unlocking time = 1-(target sensor strength/jammer strength) +ù target scan res

therefore a tempest with 21 ladar getting jammed by a falcon using multis works out like
1-(21/9.8)+ù110 = -223 scan res.

that formula would require massive tweaking but as an example the jamming ship unlocks the victims targets at a rate based on his sensor strength. reworking the formula to produce a situation where really high sensor strengths make the delocking process drag out.

also where under certain fringe circumstances that the target cannot be ecm'd because his sensors are simply too strong relative to the jammers comong in

The problem is that this would be very OP for non-ecm ships as a way to break points/scrams.

I like the idea but I just hate the thought of some kiting ship that I catch in scram range jamming me even for a second in order to activate MWD again and either escape of reestablish range control. Evena short range ship could use it to great effect just as an escape tool.

Heck, with this, what would even be the point of core stabilizers.

one way to solve this (in keeping with original idea) might be to have something like 'residual jamming' where if a point is released/broken by ecm, it stays in effect for another short while.

ECM should not jam lock on as whole but simply reduce the amount of locks are possible.

Lets say

T1 ECM, reduce between 1-5 lock ons
T2 ECM, between 2-6
Faction, 3-6
Officer/Wh, 4-7

Still Chance based on Sensor strength.

So you need more Moduls and lose more Slots if you want to be sure.

I am going to argue that this is not very different than 7 SDs or 7 TD hitting a single ship. If you TD a hurricane 7 times it's not going to track very well. If you SD a hurricane 7 times it's not going to lock very well. If you are using 7 ECM mods to attempt to perma jam a single target I am very fine with that. IMO there are better uses for 7 ECM mods than to jam a single target even in a small gang fight.

The problem is that that was assuming the target is an instalocking loki with infinite sensor strength or something close to it. If you want to totally incapacitate a standard Scimi (which has an ECCM), lets assume a base Jam strength of 15, you get
Jam Length 6 seconds (5.62, but EVE rounds up)
Relocking time on a Cruiser 3 seconds (2.6 but again EVE rounds up)

So 3 Jams keeps the Scimi guaranteed permanently jammed. So each falcon incapacitates 2 Logi and has a spare Jammer for breaking tackle on itself (which, by the way, is another reason why guaranteed jams are bad. Initial tackle will never hold again.)

That is a very good point. And tbh idk how that problem would be solved. IIRC if you are pointing a target and are jammed then the point lasts until the point's cycle ends. I don't like the residual point because it makes the ECM mod ineffective. I would go for lengthening the cycle time but then you can't quickly point different targets.
Another take on the issue is what are they losing to gain that ECM mod? Especially in kiting ships you don't have a lot of spare slots. It come down to choices. Should the ECM mod be that powerful because they made the choice to bring it along instead of another hardener or a web?
It also shows that the design is working because ECM is fit to an unbonused ship which is something you would almost never see on TQ now. TDs and SD are fit fairly often to unbonused ships now.

There are a few problems with your comparisons.

Jamming is unlike any other ewar in existence for a few reasons:

1. There is nothing I can do to mitigate its effects; with TDs i can determine what script youre using and either close range or modify my flying to reduce transversal. with SDs i can just close range to make them less effective.
2. Jamming is much more effective against smaller targets, other forms of ewar are less effective for practical applications. EG TDs only effect small ships against ships their own size, frigates can usually still hit a larger ship despite disruption, also frigates generally have to be close anyway, so range is usually less of an issue.
3. The "counter mod" for Jamming has no other application; you would never fit it if you werent expecting jamming, but sensor boosters decrease lock time and tracking computers/enhancers are widely used.

All of these things are not addressed by your fix however I do like the idea of removing the randomness because randomness in a competitive game is universally bad

Falcon, Blackbird, Rook. Barring the rook, they're paperthin.

People say this a lot, and it's not right (well, I'll give you the Blackbird). The Rook is not that much tougher than the Falcon - assuming you choose to actually fit a real tank on your ECM ship - and both are capable of fitting a tank on par with other recons without crippling their function as an electronic warfare platform. They're 'paper thin' because people have a nasty habit of fitting a feeble armor tank or just completely omitting buffer in order to maximize jamming ability. (And because people hate ECM, which makes them a bullet magnet).

It's a bit of a tangent, but Caldari recons' supposed lack of durability gets cited a lot in discussions of ECM, and it's just not the case.

Its absolutely the case unless you try and equip an armor tank to a shield based race of ships and sacrifice its purpose in doing so.

If i'm expected to have an armor tank or bcs low slot setup in place of ecm strength why bring the ship to begin with? Nothing pumps out dps like 2 missile launchers and 1 turret.

I suppose at that point another tengu on the field would be optimal.