Poopskadoop

Thank you, gents. Now, the last question I am wondering about is the last one in my first post. It would seem to me that having the ability to guide a radar missile (either TWS or STT) and be able to utilize an IR seeker head while the other missile is still guiding would be a good capability to have. Imagine it: you're in your Su-27 and you launch an R-27ER. Meanwhile, you use the R-27ET's seeker head to acquire and fire on another target. Imagine the same for an F-18 , F-14, or F-15. It seems like it would be a simple software issue, not a technical limitation. Is the reality more complicated than it seems? I know most aircraft like to slave the radar to an IR target, but... I mean... does it have to? Why isn't this a thing?

Interestingly, at least according to the wiki article, some air forces didn't opt for mid-course updates for their AIM-120s, essentially making it a "let's hope the target is still somewhere around where we thought it was at launch when it pitbulls" kind of deal.

Yep, looks like the AIM-120 is INS to ARH. Thanks for explaining the AIM-54. I couldn't find any information that clarified it.

Thanks, that's very informative. :thumbup:

I think I found the answer to part of my question in the wikipedia article for the AIM-120. Apparently, it does not continuously receive data from the aircraft's radar but rather is given a snap shot at launch and is then guided by INS (inertial navigation), with possible mid-course updates if the radar can afford it, until the seeker is active. Okay... that makes sense. So the radar doesn't do much of the work in TWS for an AMRAAM. I think what I was suggesting in my first post was more or less correct, that the missile is given a "rough" direction to fly until pitbull.

I suppose I should rephrase part of my question. I understand why SARH missiles cannot be guided by TWS. What I don't understand is why the AIM-120 or any ARH missile can be guided if it is effectively identical to a SARH missile until the seeker goes active.

I'm confused by the term "actively seeking." From my understanding, the sparrow, being semi-active, has no guidance capabilities of its own without the target being painted by your radar, no? Is this not identical to the functionality of an AMRAAM before it goes pitbull? Otherwise, how is the AIM-120 guided prior to pitbull?

My question partly relates to discussions in a previous thread I made on the "ode to Mongo" mission for the F-18C. I want to understand more about the TWS function of aircraft in general, and I'm sure there are some smart folks here that can answer my questions. So, how does the AWG-9 radar of the tomcat simultaneously guide multiple AIM-54s and the APG-73 of the hornet guide multiple AMRAAMs but neither the tomcat nor the hornet can guide AIM-7 Sparrows simultaneously against targets? Both the AIM-54 and AIM-120 are effectively semi-active missiles until they are within range to engage their active seekers, is that not correct? My understanding is that semi-active missiles cannot be guided in TWS mode unless the radar is a PESA and literally splits the beams, such as on the MiG-31. So how does that work? Does the computer give the missiles "rough" guidance until the seeker heads go active? Is it just the fact that the software is not integrated to work with the AIM-7? Further, why does ECM negate track while scan from a technical standpoint? Is there no provision for TWS to guide against multiple scrambled returns until the missile can engage some kind of Home-on-jam or otherwise get close enough to burn through the ECM? Also, when did they introduce TWS mode 2 for the MiG-29S!? I had no friggin' idea it could engage multiple targets with the R-77 until I was messing around with the options yesterday. And would the J-11A, which can launch the R-77, really not have this functionality as well, given the similarity of the radars? Finally, why does no aircraft in dcs (and I assume the real counter-parts) have the capability to guide a missile in STT while setting up a shot from an IR seeker? The AIM-9, R-73, and R-27ET do not require the radar to fire on a target, so why do aircraft not have such a simple functionality? Many thanks for anyone who can answer my slew of (possibly) silly questions.:thumbup:

I don't know. For some reason your wingman isn't on the radio list if you're using simplified communications (the \ key). I could be missing something simple. Communications and how it's integrated into a mission is the final frontier for me with the F-18. My wingman usually figures it out and engages on his own but ends up wasting his sparrows at long range. If he survives, he seems to proceed immediately to the bomb target, usually getting shot down by a SAM in the process. The other SEAD flight engages the air defenses on their own, but they seem to take their sweet time. After splashing both MiGs, I usually circle around a few times outside the target area to wait for the HARMs to do their job before I head in with the bombs.

Sorry, I very much disagree, at least I would never say "far superior." The F-18 is a superior aircraft because of BVR, better SA, better avionics overall. Take that away and it's really up to what the missiles decide to end up doing. If the flights merge, then the F-18's better turn rate and AoA tolerance will help line up another shot much faster, but that doesn't mean you can't simply get blown out of the sky by a MiG's first volley of missiles. So no, a neutered F-18 should not be expected to win a "fight hands down." Its better flight characteristics do not make it missile proof.

To me it seems like the F-18 pilots were surprised by the AWACS callout based on what I've read and were basically committed (or thought they were). My only point is that if you're close enough to fire sidewinders, A MiG-21 (as well many, many other aircraft) is close enough to fire on you. It's obvious that in real life situations where a visual ID is required, the pilots would be routed to the best possible position and given as much information as possible. But if I'm staring a MiG-21 head-on, closing for a fox 2, and he sees me, the outcome is not certain at all. I understand that US strategy and tactics are there to prevent this situation.

Haha, yeah that's my gripe with NATO aircraft. While I've been flying the F-18 exclusively as of late, having taken the time to learn what all those symbols mean, I've always been a Flanker pilot at heart. I still vastly prefer the Su-27's clean hud and SA despite it being more primitive. Sure, the F-18 provides you with a lot more information, but a lot of it seems redundant and clutters up the hud. I find myself darting my eyes from the SA page to the radar scope back to the hud. It can get a little disorienting. The only thing that really sucks on the Flanker and Fulcrum is the SPO-15 RWR. However, it's still functional and I've gotten used to the watching the pips when I have an incoming missile to know exactly when to dodge. To put it plainly, I would much rather fly the Flanker if the opposing F-18 doesn't have AIM-120s.

Perhaps we've been underestimating the AI's response to missiles. It isn't very good at air combat maneuvering and rarely wins a gun fight, but perhaps ED has improved their situational awareness and anti-missile flight profiles in some respects, maybe too much in some. I will have to study its behavior more closely as I approach for a launch and afterwards. I wonder if a lot of those Iraqi pilots didn't just fly straight into the sparrows.

Played the mission a few more times. My only conclusion is that Sparrows are practically useless. If they were like this in reality, I can see why a pilot would just opt to close in for a sidewinder shot. Of course, I doubt they were this ineffective in reality. I've heard the drag values on missiles have been kind of screwy since a few updates ago. I don't know if it has been addressed yet, but my problem isn't the missile losing steam; it's the fact that almost every single time the radar loses lock at some point. It doesn't look like the enemy is notching me. It just straight up drops the lock. Now, the MiG-21 I fire at does usually start turning away from me, and I think I'm often chasing him when I lose the lock. It could be that or it could be him spamming chaff, but still... By comparison, AIM-120s are practically guaranteed kills. Unfortunately, most of the missions and the campaign that come with the F-18 module equip you with AIM-7s. I'm just wondering if anyone else is having trouble with sparrows.

"Undesignate" doesn't work? It's the same key as Hi nose wheel steering. Otherwise, I have no idea what your radar is doing. I'm not having this issue. Make sure you don't have something bound to a button/slider/or hat switch that occasionally receives input when you're not giving any. The stupid throttle on my X-52 pro is always twitching back and forth slightly. Also, another time I had bizarre problems with all sorts of random things happening until I realized the usb chord for my Hotas was pressing down on a few keys, lol.

And I assume the reason the F-14 can engage multiple targets is due to the AIM-54 being active guided? Forgive me if this is kind of basic info, but I always thought every active guided missile is as good as semi-active until pitbull. How does that work? Does the guidance computer just give the missile an estimate on where to fly until it can acquire the target on its own?

Interesting info, guys. Thank you. Does anyone then know how a MiG-31 guides its R-33 (SARH) missiles simultaneously against four targets?

No, I don't think so. At least the secondary target marked with "X" on the hud still shows while the first Sparrow is guiding towards the primary. I should maybe check to see if I lose lock the instant I switch to the secondary. However, it doesn't boot you out of TWS mode. Also, after briefly checking wikipedia, I had no idea the AIM-120 was deployed as late as 1991. So any engagement of Soviet aircraft against NATO forces would have been the Sparrow against the R-27 and R-27ER. Kind of embarrassing I am just now finding out. I always pictured Flankers and Fulcrums flying against F-16s, F-18s, and F-15s armed with AMRAAMs. Being a Flanker pilot by nature, I don't feel so ancient anymore in comparison. Because honestly the Sparrow is kinda... meh. LOFT mode is nice, I suppose, in certain situations.

By the way, as for the dcs mission itself, I have a lot more trouble than the pilots did, although it's mostly because I'm trying to get both kills for myself because I'm greedy. Is it just me or is trying to use TWS mode with Sparrows pretty much pointless? Or it seems the AI knows exactly what to do. I'll get track of both targets early in the engagement easily enough. But by the time I'm in a decent enough range to fire, I will inevitably lose one or both of them. Often, I'll lose lock after firing the first sparrow on the primary. Usually the MiGs first split up in opposite directions and one dives to the ground to fly past us, meaning there's no way the radar can keep scanning for both and I rarely if ever get the chance to fire on the secondary before its lost. I know how to use the system and I've read all the guides. It just doesn't seem super viable in a combat scenario with AIM-7s due to its range (AIM-120s are a different story). Better to STT one and have your wingman take the other one. Then there's the bomb target. Well, I haven't really mastered that yet, but SEAD really drags its ass in that mission. There's always something left on the ground to fire on me even after circling around a couple times. I think I just don't know how to use the radio system, because the \ key doesn't even give me options for my wingman in this particular mission. The game mentions something about having "allied flight reports enabled." I'm not sure where that option is. Also, is there any way not to have your Sparrows default to LOFT mode?

Yes, I remember watching a video of some press conference (I guess) where the pilot was describing the events. Said it failed to track outright. I'm sure there were some hush-hush meetings behind closed doors about that one. Not a good look for our most advanced sidewinder, no matter how many times it has been tested successfully against target drones.

I'm surprised we don't lose more aircraft in situations like these. A MiG-21 (or really just about anything) is about as likely to kill an F-18 as vice versa. Hell, a Cessna 175 modified to carry sidewinders would be a threat. I guess it all comes down to coordination, tactics, and pilot experience.

Thanks very much!

Here's the article I am referencing some of this information from https://theaviationgeekclub.com/this-vfa-81-f-a-18c-driver-scored-the-first-of-only-two-u-s-navy-mig-kill-during-operation-desert-storm/ Bit of a different scenario. Apparently an E-2 confirmed them as bandits, and they were flying head on towards each other. The Su-22 shoot down was an attempt to get it to divert from its course, allegedly towards a US-aligned rebels position. I remember the pilot mentioning he drove right up next to the guy, flashed his weapons, tried communicating, but the Su-22 pilot kept course. Since it was basically shooting a non-maneuvering target, the decision to use the AIM-9X, I believe, was to use the lower cost missile and provide real world combat data for it.

After playing the mission that simulates the first scored kills of the F-18 against 2 Libyan MiG-21s (I forget the name), I researched the original encounter to find out what the actual pilots did. One of the F-18 pilots who scored a kill mentions that he fired an AIM-9 first, then a sparrow. He lost track of the AIM-9 and thought it had (or would) miss and so fired a sparrow. The sidewinder did hit, however, and the sparrow chased after the smoldering MiG. The other F-18 dispatched the other MiG with just a single sparrow. So... my question is why would an F-18 pilot fire a sidewinder first? I understand the Soviet doctrine and reasoning behind firing two seeker types in tandem and firing the IR first (so it doesn't track the radar missile), but they usually fielded equal range variants of a particular IR and radar missile for that purpose. The article I read mentions he got a lock at 10 miles, hot. I could find no information about the specific range when he launched the sidewinder, but 10 miles seems way too far for an AIM-9. Why would you not lead with a Sparrow first? The only reason I can think is so that you aren't stuck guiding the Sparrow. IIRC, switching to the AIM-9 causes the Sparrow to lose tracking, no? Still, by the time you know a Sparrow is going to miss, you would be in ideal range for the AIM-9, which seems like a better situation. Am I missing something here? Am I underestimating the real effective range of an AIM-9?

I mean, it's hard to tell really. In guns only, every time I go up against an AI Su-27 or MiG-29 in an F-18, I win. However, every time I fly the flanker or fulcrum against an AI F-18, I win. I can't even tell if its easier for me in one or another. Point is, I think flying against players is the way to go. An AI MiG-21 did totally own me once, though. Not sure how I let that happen. I must have been holding on to my missiles while he had none. That thing had no problem keeping up with me. On an unrelated note, flying the MiG-15 against the Sabre is something I have yet to beat the AI on. Those early fighters are a mystery to me. What do you mean I can't turn hard with a ridiculous AoA and fly in any direction I please? There seems to be a lot more forethought necessary. I never know when, at what speed, and in what direction I'll get my best turn.