Beamscanner

1. roll the aircraft 45 degrees and seeing if the signal stays or goes away (IRL it wouldn't go away it would just get weaker, but in game they act like the beamwidth of the antennas are absolute) 2. The AGM-88 has a receiver that can be utilized as a makeshift sensor. Several modes are available to the AGM-88 that do not require the F-16 HTS pod. HARM as Sensor (HAS) mode uses the harm itself to find, track and launch the HARM. Preplanned HARM engagements also exist, assuming you know the rough position of the source and that its active.

The antenna scanning its narrow field of view gets the rough angle to source, and uses phase mono-pulse comparison techniques to get the precise angle.

Yes it does. I'm not sure I figured much of anything out.. Just stumbled across this while messing with the lua files. My main goal is to have continuous threat audio with the RWR. Its silly watching a SA-6 lock me up and it being completely quiet. (only hearing the initial sound)

This mod bypasses the search mode switch on the AN/ALR-87 control panel (F-5E RWR), allowing all emitters to be shown simultaneously (like IRL). Hopefully Belsimtek will fix the switch soon so that it functions according to real life (its a de-clutter switch, not a one or the other switch). See my previous post for more info https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3176094&postcount=19 Mod is JSGME capable / Passes integrity check F-5E RWR fix.rar

I am trying to mod the RWR audio with FC3 aircraft. Can anyone help me interpret this lua script. Its the default audio script for search radars. function onEvent_search(emitterType) if sndSearchDefault ~= nil then ED_AudioAPI.playSourceOnce(sndSearchDefault) end end I added my new sound file (the SA-6)as so sndSearchDefault = ED_AudioAPI.createSource(host, RWR_soundsPath .. "SearchNewUS") SA6acqsnd = ED_AudioAPI.createSource(host, RWR_soundsPath .. "SA6acq") sndLockDefault = ED_AudioAPI.createSource(host, RWR_soundsPath .. "LockNewUS") sndLaunchWarning = ED_AudioAPI.createSource(host, RWR_soundsPath .. "LaunchWarningUS") sndNewThreat = ED_AudioAPI.createSource(host, RWR_soundsPath .. "ThreatNewUS") The audio is placed in the correct place. What I need help with is the function command to trigger the audio when say an SA-6 search radar is on, vice some other radar. I tried to alter the function like this function onEvent_search(KUB_1C91) if SA6acqsnd ~= nil then ED_AudioAPI.playSourceOnce(SA6acqsnd) end end Am I going about this the wrong way?

I am trying to get this mod to work with FC3. Can anyone help me interpret this lua script function onEvent_search(emitterType) if sndSearchDefault ~= nil then ED_AudioAPI.playSourceOnce(sndSearchDefault) end end I added my new sound file (the SA-6)as so sndSearchDefault = ED_AudioAPI.createSource(host, RWR_soundsPath .. "SearchNewUS") SA6acqsnd = ED_AudioAPI.createSource(host, RWR_soundsPath .. "SA6acq") sndLockDefault = ED_AudioAPI.createSource(host, RWR_soundsPath .. "LockNewUS") sndLaunchWarning = ED_AudioAPI.createSource(host, RWR_soundsPath .. "LaunchWarningUS") sndNewThreat = ED_AudioAPI.createSource(host, RWR_soundsPath .. "ThreatNewUS") And tried to alter the function like this function onEvent_search(KUB_1C91) if SA6acqsnd ~= nil then ED_AudioAPI.playSourceOnce(SA6acqsnd) end end Am I going about this the wrong way?

Finally, The "search" button acts as a de-clutter switch, removing non-threat emitters from the display. It does not act as a only fire control or only search radar filter. Threat emitters will be displayed at all times. Meaning that: Search Mode selected (green) = Displays "S" emitters and threat emitters Search Mode not selected (not green) = Only displays threat emitters (search mode switch will flash if the is a "S" emitter being received but is not being displayed. You must realize that in order for the RWR to determine if a signal is emitted from a search or fire control radar, it must have already identified the signal. So why would the RWR not show a threat emitter, if its already processed the signal? Obviously the RWR would not hide a threat emitter if the pilot had "search" selected. And while proper documentation is obviously difficult to come by, we do have footage of a similar RWR in action. Notice the SA-2 and SA-6 threat emitters being displayed while the "search" mode switch is selected. Not only that, but there's a launch warning on the same panel with the search mode selected. As such, search mode does not hide threat emitters. Also, target acquisition emitters, such as the SA-6 acquisition radar do not count as "search" radars. Only emitters identified as "S" are "search" radars. (such as low band early warning, ATCR, etc.) TLDR the ALR-87 (and all ALR-XX) should present threat emitters no matter what. The only emitters that may not be displayed are "S" emitters (low band early warning/ATCR) if the "search" button is not selected. That being said, currently the DCS ALR-87 only shows threats if search mode is not selected. Also you guys apparently linked SAM acquisition emitters, such as the SA-6, to "search" emitters. This should not be the case. Only emitters identified as "S" should be in the "search" radar pool.

Electronic Warfare Fundamentals, 17-9, RWR Audio http://falcon.blu3wolf.com/Docs/Electronic-Warfare-Fundamentals.pdf "In addition to generating threat symbols for each identified threat, the signal processor also generates threat audio. Threat audio first alerts the aircrew to the detection of a threat system. This RWR audio is generally referred to as “new guy” alert audio. The signal processor can also present constant audio from a selected threat. The aircrew controls this function through the interface control unit. The constant audio provided by an RWR system can be either “real” or synthetic. “Real” audio is normally based on the actual pulse repetition frequency (PRF) of the threat system radar whether the signal processor has identified it or not. Synthetic audio is based on the classification of the threat (SAM, Al, etc.) as determined by the signal processor. The signal processor also generates a launch warning audio when the signal characteristics of the threat indicate a missile launch condition exists." So there are 3 main types of RWR audio. 1. New guy audio (synthetic) 2. Constant Audio (usually "real" audio generated from the threat radar's PRF.. Unique to the radar not the RWR) 3. Launch Warning Audio (synthetic.. generated when the RWR detects a waveform associated with a missile launch) You guys have 1 and 3.. But not 2. And because of that your RWR is very quiet.

You have the synthetic tones of the ALR-87. But you do not have the "real" sounds of the radars themselves. Here is a great example of "real" radar audio the radar audio and synthetic audio combined is what the pilot hears. Synthetic tones are unqiue to RWRs (ALR-X vs. ALR-Y). But radar audio is not.. It doesn't matter if you are using the ALR-87 or ALR-46. Radar audio is dependent on the radars illuminating you. (the audio is generated from the radars PRF and scan) Now a mod was made awhile ago for the DCS A-10C RWR that adds radar audio to the system. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=110840 Perhaps you guys can make your RWR compatible with this mod.

I wonder if there will be an option to hide the stick so we can see the bottom display.

Cant wait to see carrier ops tomorrow!

Wonder why they're gone!? maybe Anita knows?:music_whistling:

IRL pilots are fed pulse audio from their radar warning receiver. This audio is not a synthetic signal generated by the RWR like a launch tone or a "new signal" queue, but a direct translation of the Radars Amplitude variation. The radars Pulse Repetition Frequency (PRF), scan pattern and scan duration all act like a form of amplitude modulation. Subsequently, if a radar has a unique PRF, scan time or scan pattern, it's audio will be unique. Prior to automated identification techniques, pilots used the unique audio of various radars to help identify what radar was emitting. I believe DCS could significantly improve its immersion factor by introducing unique audio samples to each radar rather than using the same signal beep to represent every radar. Here are some examples of radar audio: SA-2 and SA-6 simulators active at the same moment Old SA-2 Model (sounds like fast phone ringing) Old SA-2 model (the one that sounds like a fast phone ringing) http://www.burrusspta.org/audio_files/audioswf14a.html New SA-2 model (does not sound like a phone ring anymore) If creating a standard set of radar audio files is not possible, perhaps building all future RWR code similar to the A-10s so that we can modify the LUA and trigger unique audio files ourselves. I have a feeling that at some point ED was interested in doing this, as I see that there is an SA-8 TT audio files in the DCS files.

Whoever made these sounds isn't familiar with ELINT/military radar... Almost all the tracking sounds beep. The tracking sound shouldn't beep at all.. The "Emit. - Silent" time is actually an apparent 'off' time, that occurs when the radars beam moves off of your receiver. If a tracking radar is looking at you, then the radar beam is fixed on you and does not scan around. Meaning you wont hear beeps, you will hear a constant tone (based on the PRF/PRF modulation).

You are clearly biased and ill informed. The U.S. didn't spend billions of dollars on a useless missile that defined the design of their fleet of F-14s (a multi-billion dollar platform). How about some facts. Compared to the AIM-120, the AIM-54 has: -far more energy -a higher top speed -a larger seeker antenna (longer detection range) -a much larger warhead (larger blast radius) additionally, -In one of its multi-shot tests, one of the missiles performed a 16g maneuver, successfully intercepting its target. -The AIM-54C+ went IOC in 1990, 4 years before the AIM-120B.. So expect similar ECM equipment and techniques. -The downward plunge during end game (during a long range shot) ensures high energy at intercept Intercepting a drone making a 6g maneuver:

I'd get the ultra wide 1440p display.. Better visibility and better frame rates than going with a 4k monitor.

Hey maybe Hollywood can start using a new prop for their movies! Seeing the warthog stick in every movie is getting old. But on a serious note, I hope a new throttle is inbound. My only gripes with the warthog are associated with the throttle, not the stick. (Very bad Slew Cursor, and poor mic and coolie switches IMO)

A much cheaper and more convenient solution for VR.. http://www.roadtovr.com/samsungs-new-headphones-trick-your-inner-ear-to-move-you-in-vr/

Is this team working on a licence with ED? Do we know if they have proper resources?

Ahh.. Couple of things I saw, but granted we are so far removed from this that it could be well beyond us. I am sure you guys are aware of some of this. -He didnt' break lock as he had no lock in the first place. -Its a stretch to say he denied lock, when "easty" couldn't get a lock before or after. (not until much closer) -The close-in dogfight modes with fighter radars use a medium to low PRF in order to perform 'all aspect' detection and tracking. These waveforms are more ambiguous to Doppler, and are thus more susceptible to clutter in the main beam. -These radars are also highly automated and utilize clean screens. The Low Blow allows the operator to look through the clutter and manually pick out targets. Granted, its not easy or reliable, and so its performance is operator dependent. -And finally, a short lived effects of the chaff due to walshys turn only proves my point that the chaff used in the beam is not very effective. As walshy turned left, the chaff 'moved' right and was no longer a factor. Buts that my guess, I might be way off, but theres certainly no point to debate what we will never know. Maybe chaff with a beam is more effective than i expect or give it credit for. Certainly chaff works in game, but we all know that CMs are not simulated properly.

The SA-3 does use these features. But the target can be tracked manually as needed if countermeasures are noticed. I'm sure they could, and I'm also sure they could manually 'fix' the track. This is why I think chaff+split-S+jamming is the best way to take on the SA-3. The chaff and jamming will help hide your true return in the noise, and the split S instead of the beam keeps you on the same azimuth as the chaff you've released. Again at short ranges chaff is less likely to be effective if your beaming. It wouldn't.. Beaming makes chaff less effective while at short range. Haven't seen the thread or source, but I'm sure chaff illumination (jamming signal reflecting off the chaff) was at play. Right, if you are beaming the leading edge tracker may still follow you. But because its automated, it may track the larger return (the chaff), who knows. Either way, I'd much rather hide below or behind the chaff than off axis from it. Without jamming, the radar operator will pick you out once you leave the res cell the chaff is in.

Besides everything that's been stated. -Know the location of the enemies airbases. Determine their main flight path from their airfield to the 'hot spots'. -Know the number player on the enemy team, and what they are flying. take this into account in both visual recognition, and electronic recognition via your RWR. -Associate visually acquired missile shots with the kill log. -Assume an ROE that requires multiple identification ques. -Stick with an IFF equipped aircraft. -Take the first punch, and use the enemies engagement to validate your own. But as many have stated. communicate, communicate, communicate

Jamming can be used to degrade or remove the Low Blow Operators ability to distinguish the true skin return from the chaff with the A-scope. Making the chaff more effective. Beaming is of course more reliable than flying straight towards the Low Blow, but typically people on this forum expect a beam maneuver to completely mask them like it might in a look-down doppler notch scenario against a pulse doppler airborne radar. Not the case for this pulse radar designed to track low altitude targets. And as has been stated, the azmiuth cell in small, so the chaff bundle only applies to the res. cell its located in (yes chaff can degrade the S/N ratio via sidelobes, but not enough to mask a beaming target) and when your jet runs through a res cell every second, the chaff wont help you very much. The 'trick' isnt to remove the leading edge tracker from the equation. Its to make it work against the radar. By dumping chaff as you reverse your range, the radar will hold onto the chaff bundle because its the closest return at that bearing. Add some jamming, and now the operator will struggle to identify the true skin return when the aircraft moves to another range cell. Meaning that the target becomes very hard to locate even after it gets some range separation from the chaff. Regardless of what AUS Air power says, the SAM has in fact proliferated around the world and is still in use by many nations.. This would not be true if chaff was effective in practice. In regards to the OP Without an on board jammer or active decoy the F-5E is going to struggle to defeat this SAM. A beam is not as effective as it is against pulse doppler radars at higher altitudes. Try range reversals and changing your altitude. The missile will waste just as much energy trying to lead you if change your flight path in the vertical as it would if you changed direction in the horizontal. though, with the downward maneuver it has the chance to crash into terrain.

Im trying to mess with the ALR-87 script lua to get this to work with the F-5E. The problem is I'm currently having problems getting the RWR to work normally, haha. BTW thank you for this mod.. I dont even fly the A-10, but I'm excited to see this mod flourish in the upcoming F/A-18C. I really hope ED brings radar audio someday. The generic ping really throws off the immersion for me. Real life pilots have made use of raw RWR pulse audio for decades to help inform them on the threat environment.

Thats sad to hear.. IRL beaming isn't effective against a SA-3... 1. The SA-3 has a relatively short range. If the target drops chaff at a bearing of 090, beams the SA-3 at these short ranges then it will rapidly change its bearing from the radar. Seconds after dropping chaff the target will be at a bearing of 093 while the chaff is still at 090. This change in bearing means that the main beam of the radar (which is fundamentally narrow, but even more-so at short ranges) moves outside of the chaff bundle, making it less effective. 2. The SA-3 operators use 'A-scopes' that allow them to distinguish aircraft skin returns from chaff. The chaff return has an intense increase in amplitude, while an aircraft skin return has a more gradual increase in amplitude over time, due to certain parts of the air-frame being more reflective than others. Jamming+Chaff is the best way to defeat older SAMs as well as downward vertical maneuvers. An Australian think tank states that the Low blow has a single shot Pk of 50-90% if the target uses chaff. That's extremely good for a 1961 SAM, and probably explains why this 6nm SAM has proliferated around the world. http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-S-125-Neva.html