Beamscanner

Can we expect any progress in any of these areas? Currently, what you accomplish in a DCS mission has zero effect on the order of battle(for all teams) for subsequent missions. There is no carry over and so how well you did on a mission carries no weight. Personally, I find it exciting to see my previous actions effect future battles in a campaign. If I take out a jet, that jet should be removed from the enemies inventory completely for the rest of the campaign. It forces both sides to change their tactics when various losses are accounted for.

Can you provide any data on this?

here's an idea. What if the terminal stage of guidance is activated by a pre determined depression angle on the received SARH reflection (or jamming source). We know that the AIM-54 does a pop up to high altitude, and maintains that altitude until it triggers it's terminal stage and dives down. Example: a downward angle on target of -45 degrees or an angular rate of change of 1 degree per second or more, trigger the terminal dive. No range data needed. Sorry for the double post. I couldn't add these files to my previous post.

^Yeah I agree. The jamming signal might change it's amplitude(depending on the jamming program) or the seeker might move out of the main beam of the jammer thus decrease the received power. So its not especially useful to try and determine range from the jammer's amplitude, because it may vary for reasons besides range decrease. Most recent time to go makes sense.

No sure, we dont have any hard data. If you lose the target because its jamming you, the seeker will probably go to a HOJ mode.. But how it knows when to switch on its active seeker once in HOJ mode I dont know. The seeker can only be active for so long, turn it on too early and its a failed intercept. Perhaps for this reason it doesn't ever turn on and fly's passive PN into the jamming source..? If you lose the target because he got into your doppler notch, or you got hooked on chaff, you better have had the TCS locked on him. That way you can slave the illumination beam onto the target anyway. But you'd have to be close for this, and you still wouldn't have any range information.

The returns from a TU-22 are stronger then the returns from a MIG-29. The RCS of a TU-22 is significantly larger.. Thus it requires more power to mask the skin return from a TU-22 then a MIG-29. As stated above, range is also a huge factor. It's much easier to have a 1/1 or better J/S ratio at longer distances because two way path loss(the radar signal) is inversely proportional to range to the 4th power (1/R^4) and one way path loss(the jammer) is only (1/R^2). However, at closer ranges(like 10 miles) this loss is no longer significant enough to allow over a 1/1 J/S ratio. That is unless of course you have an extremely powerful jammer with high gain, and/or have an extremely small RCS (F-22 style).

The AWG-9 uses a mono-pulse receiver. If its getting jammed by the target, it can still determine the angular direction of the jamming source. You wouldn't need the TCS LOS, doesn't matter if the AWG-9 losses "lock" (range and velocity lock). If we were talking off axis jamming (being jammed by anyone BUT the target), then I'm sure TCS would be useful. Also, TCS range is roughly 10 miles.. Is the assumption that the TU-22(very large RCS) can prevent burn through at ~10 miles..? Burn through is a factor of Jammer/Skin ratio. The Skin here should be a massive value because the AWG-9s gain and output power and the large RCS of the Backfire. So the Jammer needs to be incredibly powerful and directional to maintain over a 1/1 ratio at 10 miles.. I know this isn't a statement of yours, but from AUS Air Power. Normally, everything I've found on that website is really good. In this case, what they are putting out doesn't match up. Perhaps there were more variables at play in their scenario..? edit: perhaps they meant that TCS could be used to help defeat chaff. (technically, a form of off axis jamming)

No technology is perfect. It's how we use what we have that's important. The F-35 will prove a useful tool.

Nope. It's possible. But its not reasonable to think that it will. I'd guess the viggen late this year. F4U first half next year. F-14 mid-late 2017

I recently made the switch from Steam to standalone. All of my aircraft modules automatically activated except the MIG-21bis. How do I activate it? I am using 1.5 and 2.0

^agreed. @gospadin Are you suggesting that the US has something to lose if they release information on Iran's dated F-14A's and AIM-54A's? Why would the US care if Iranian weapon technologies were exposed to the public? What risk is there? No doubt that the Russians sent engineers to dissect every piece of equipment on those jets in Iran.

Yea, hence my statement "the 120 will have little end game energy to play with." And that's my point. In a 1v1 scenario at 20 miles separation, the F-14 with the AIM-54 is far better off then someone with a AIM-120 because the AIM-54 has more kinetic energy and the AIM-54 seeker can detect it's target further out then the 120's seeker(meaning the f-14 can 'forget' the missile and defend earlier). Who said anything about spamming AIM-54s? Who said anything about shooting the AIM-54 at max range? I said Meaning firing the AIM-54 at 20 miles.

great guide! But of the 4 Long range missiles you sited, only the R-33 requires a hard lock from the launching platform. All the others are active missiles that can be launched in TWS/TAS.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2750224&postcount=35 -It's not a "vague" range.. it would be the accurate range relative to where the missile was launched from. -As stated earlier, this technique wasn't new for that period. And it doesn't take much to plot a couple of points on an X, Y, Z graph.. Yea, it's WAAYY too complex to plot the ISA data, the angle of the SARH reception, plot the target range every few seconds, and fly an intercept path. Better to disregard all of the common radar techniques in use during that period and try guessing range based off the varying intensity of a multi-path signal./S It doesn't guide straight in on the target, it's lofted, flies a lead pursuit and eventually dives down on the target going active around the same time. The SARH guidance gives it the angle to the target via the mono-pulse receiver on the missile, the best you can do if you're only using angle is PN. How does that change the PPM range theory? The pitbull range is static and determined by engineers long before the missile finishes development. It's a balanced choice between resources and probability of target detection. I'd guess they decided to activate the seeker at the same range it could detect a small fighter sized aircraft (~3sqm RCS). No reason to turn it on way earlier then that, even if the target had a MASSIVE RCS, you don't have that much power to play with and you don't want to let your target know your coming so early on. Facts: -The AIM-54 is expected to have a long flight -The AIM-54 seeker needs to be as powerful as possible to be effective(i.e. detect small targets at ranges more than a few miles away) -Size restrictions are pretty serious when it comes to missile designs, so battery sizes and max pitbull ranges are made very conservative. That being said, if your RCS theory was at play, the missile seeker would very likely go pitbull early(due to the points I previously posted) and waste its precious power supply long before detecting/reaching the target in a long range engagement. I'm sure the SARH could/does still provide some support. But if the active seeker goes dry, illuminations once every couple of seconds won't result in a successful engagement. Someone implied that a datalink might exist, since the F-14 could use it's TCS and not the AWG-9 to engage a target. I was debunking this idea, because no datalink would be needed when the missile's radar could see the target at the same range as the TCS. And finally, here is evidence of AWG-9 "output command signals" referencing the radar's PRF and PW (potentially indicating Pulse Position Modulation). This data relates to the AWM-23 test equipment used to test the AWG-9 transmitter. http://mil-spec.tpub.com/MIL-T/MIL-T-81785C/MIL-T-81785C00011.htm Agreed

You said "IMHO, it sounds rather complex for the time period" referring to PPM. It's not. It was in fact the method of choice for that period. Additionally, using the amplitude of a multi-path signal from a separate transmitter to queue seeker activation is entirely more complex then determining range via target position updates using PPM. It is also unreliable to use this method because the indicated RCS at any given moment will vary. The target's RCS varies when: -The target changes aspect (showing its belly vs it's nose) -The target opens it bomb-bay -The target's radar changes it's aspect (scanning vs. fixated) -The target's control surfaces are in motion Additionally, the perceived RCS will change when: -Another larger aircraft in the distance is in the AWG-9's beam -Another aircraft exists between you and the intended target (potentially, an ally) -The target or any of his wingmen start jamming on the same freq. -The target releases chaff Furthermore, the S/N ratio will continuously vary due to background noise, sidelobe jamming, chaff clouds, ground clutter, etc.. If this was the way it worked, the missile's seeker would easily be activated well outside of it's detection range, and likely run its battery dry prior to impact as well as inform the target of it's existence prior to the seeker detecting the aircraft, allowing the target to escape. Finally, this method wouldn't allow the missile to fly a lead pursuit, as it cannot deduce target range. The AIM-54 doesn't use missile tracking+command guidance AFAIK.. I linked that book simply to highlight that PPM was a common technique during that time frame. What I think is happening is that the AIM-54 receives data on the targets position via coded PPM messages embedded the AWG-9's radar pulse set. The AWG-9 embeds this data in it's PRF when it's beam sweeps the target. The AIM-54, having an Inertial Sensor Assembly (ISA), tracks it's own position and data on the targets position relative to where the missile was launched (which the F-14 could measure) is passed to the missile to determine the targets current range from the missile. Another question that I brought up was to how the individual missiles knew which reflection was their intended target. If I'm right and PPM is used, a sequence start code could be used to tell the missile which of the reflection's pertained to their specific target when multiple missiles were launched. Thus allowing the missiles to ignore reflections that didn't have the proper sequence code embedded in the PPM (i.e. ignore the reflections and positional data of targets the other missiles were going after). A code such as this, would be set up between the AWG-9 weapon system and the missile prior to launch(maybe even prior to take off?). This would match up with what captain_dalan had read. It's semantics because it didn't change the point I was making, and has no direct relation to the overarching question on whether the AIM-54 uses a datalink.. Also, because were not getting an F-14 with an IRST, and most F-14A's didn't end up with an IRST. The document that nick found indicated that the TCS was used to hand off (bore sight) the AIM-54 seeker onto a target. No data needs to be sent to the AIM-54 in this case because the AIM-54 seeker's detection range is probably better then the TCS's detection range. Meaning the seeker is told where to look just prior to launch, and activates immediately after launch. no link required http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2748679&postcount=7

looks like they expanded the displayed area of the map far enough to include NAS FALLON.. Perhaps they hope to include the Fallon Range Training Complex (FRTC) someday..?

Nick, as always, nice work!:) Dalan, do you still have that resource? Mircovax, I believe you are thinking of the AIM-47, the precursor to the AIM-54. The AIM-47 was supposed to get an IR seeker for terminal homing but they couldn't meet the size requirements with the addition of the IR receiver. Also, the AIM-47 never went operational..

Determining range based only off signal strength is infinitely more complicated... No radar that exists uses that. PPM was pretty common before digital processing came around. A lot of old SAMs used PPM for missile guidance. Here is a radar book from 1959 that explains the use of pulse modulation as a means of command guiding missiles.. https://books.google.com/books?id=a0TxaTq2rQIC&pg=SA1-PA48&lpg=SA1-PA48&dq=pulse+position+modulation+missile&source=bl&ots=3TL9fQKJyN&sig=TRF66iWT19c0rL9B6w3xFXQqlVk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjC1PfRn5zMAhUB5mMKHVGODKEQ6AEIJDAB#v=onepage&q=pulse%20position%20modulation%20missile&f=false Semantics The point I made remains. The range for the optical system on the F-14A and F-14B was short enough for the AIM-54 seeker to get a lock immediately after launch. Indicating that a datalink would not like be required in order to perform this short range engagement.

Exactly what I stated in my first post Yup, this was my conclusion in the post I linked from another topic.. Though its not RF modulation, its Pulse Position Modulation (modulating the pulse timing) for the range information. The theory is that the PRF of the AWG-9 is slightly modulated every so often, with the embedded data providing target range to the missile which sees the PRF modulation reflected off the target. This technique is known as Pulse Position Modulation or PPM, and is not considered a "datalink" in the engineering world as it is mechanic of the radar itself and not a dedicated 'datalink'. Just like a flashlight is not considered a 'datalink' even though it can be used to relay information if modulated. Similar to the flashlight, the AWG-9 wouldn't be able to embed that much information into the signal as compared to a traditional "datalink". PPM was a common technique used during this period of history. What engineers typically refer to today as a 'datalink' (be it a cell phone connection or Wifi, etc) is a signal dedicated to transmitting information. Usually via RF shift keying or Phase shift keying from a CW signal, not a pulse one. Nope. The F-14a didn't have an IRST, it had TCS. TCS range was about 10 miles. At that range the AIM-54 seeker could lock the target itself, and thus not need a datalink..

First off, by "mid-course SARH" we don't necessarily mean using STT. As we all know, up to 6 AIM-54s could be launched on 6 different targets. So being a mechanically scanned radar, you couldn't use STT for a multi-target engagment.. What we really mean when we say "mid-course SARH" is 'bi-static radar reception'. The AIM-54 isn't homing in on the target like a AIM-7 or R-27. But it is using the radar reflections off the target to update the targets relative azimuth and elevation from the missile during mid-course flight. I had your same thought process awhile back too when I was still learning more about the AWG-9 engagement process. You would think that you'd need an ESA to time-share a CW illumination for accurate missile tracking on multiple targets(Like what some Russian ESAs may do). But the AIM-54 doesn't need a continuous illumination during mid course.. It doesn't need to be updated every microsecond. Instead, the AWG-9 runs it's normal TWS mode (no CW illumination) and the missiles presumably get reflections from the intended target every couple seconds. No launch warning should ever be present for the AIM-54. The target should only see the missile once its go active at terminal. Ingame launch indication requires 2 things. (only talking missile launch, not active missile seeker indications) 1. A hard lock from a threat radar 2. An active datalink from the same radar(or at least the same direction in space) If your missing one or both of these things, you should not be able to know a missile has been launched on you specifically. This is a logic based conclusion. For instance, a RWR may see a ton of missile datalinks at a given time(any datalink within 100+ miles), but they may not be at your own aircraft. Likewise a radar may lock you up, but not fire a missile. neither by themselves mean that you've been launched on. As such, you need both to indicate that a missile was probably launched at your aircraft. So no warning should ever be given if a missile is launched in TWS. Additionally, if the AIM-54 does not use a datalink, then it shouldn't give a launch warning even if launched in STT.(similar to AIM-7 launched in Flood mode) See my previous posts for more details http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2687175&postcount=37 http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2669661&postcount=43

Naw, you may have larger RCS aircraft behind the intended target, who are well out of range of the missile.. Lets hope!! The E-2 targeting would indicate the inclusion of a datalink.. However, I can't find anything on the 54 using one. All I've seen is mid course via SARH. Though they may just mean to say that the E-2 could provide range data to the aircraft when the AWG-9 was being jammed..? Also, nice find blacklion. But I think the typical range for the TCS is 10nm and the seeker on the 54 is about the same if not better. So they probably did a TCS 'handoff' to the missiles seeker in this case.

Little material can be found on the guidance process of the AIM-54.. But here is what we know. Missile is launched in autopilot for a period of time at some point a time multiplexed SARH mid-course guidance takes over, with the AWG-9 painting the targets at specified intervals (information on a AIM-54 datalink has yet to be found, and likely does not exist) the missile or missiles passively receive these reflections off their specified target and correct themselves as required The missile seeker will go active when it believes the target is within detection range of its seeker. (presumably a greater distance then the AIM-120 seeker, due to it's larger antenna) What we don't know.. How does the missile get target range information during mid-course? (needed for lead intercept solutions and seeker activation) How does the missile distinguish the reflection from its intended target during mid-course if multiple targets rest inside the beam of the AWG-9 at that moment. Given the range of these engagements, the AWG-9s beam must be relatively large. Better yet, can it distinguish its intended target given these circumstances, or does it just home in on the biggest reflection?

Please don't compare the pk of a SARH to an active missile.. Indications are everything.. Also, give credit where it's deserved. The 54 has a larger seeker and greater kinematic range then the AIM-120. At a 20 mile shot, the 120 will have little end game energy to play with. At that range the 54 will run you down if you don't break LOS.. Furthermore, after much investigation, it turns out the 54 has no datalink. So the enemy should not receive an RWR indication if its launched in STT or switched to STT near end game(providing continuous target updates vice every couple seconds in TWS). A hard lock+datalink combined is required to indicate a missile launch. So the AIM-54 launched in STT should have the same indications as the AIM-7 launched in flood mode (just a hard lock, as no datalink is present). The only indication that the enemy should receive from a 54 engagement is the missile's seeker at terminal, and of course the AWG-9. No launch warning should ever be seen, regardless of the radar mode being used. This is in contrast to a 120 launched in STT, which does give a launch warning to the enemy. Because of this, an F-14 RIO can start getting targets to defend/break off from an engagement by simply locking them up(as they may think they've been launched on).. That's a pretty powerful tool if you ask me. Previous posts on RWR missile launch indications in game http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2687175&postcount=37 Post on AIM-54 engagement process http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2669661&postcount=43

As we all know, smileys are used in conjunction with a lot of different things. So no, it alone did not indicate sarcasm to me. If anything it looked like a playful poke (tongue out and all) from a MIG-21 fan.. Also, him starting his post with a fact,"fishbed is multirole too", then rolling into his 2nd statement with "and the f-14.." indicated that he was carrying on from his previous statement(the factual one..) and not starting a new thought. It can be difficult to convey sarcasm when you start your thought out with a fact. Hindsight is 20/20, so it may be easy to say 'yea that could have been interpreted as sarcasm' once you've already been told that it was.. But I agree, we should stay on topic.

Maybe you should use "/s" or "j/k" like the rest internet and not assume people can interpret your text any other way then what it spells out. Ah yes, the 'you can't/didn't read' response. Apparently you are upset and don't know how to control your emotions. Obviously, I couldn't have responded the way I did without having read your post in the first place.