Beamscanner

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.

You clearly have no idea what your talking about.. The AWG-9 was by far the most advanced fighter radar system of it's day, and one of the largest fighter radars ever. Even the F-15's APG-63 couldn't match it. The AWG-9 held it's title up to the release of the APG-70 (digital upgrade to the APG-63), but after that the APG-71 (digital upgrade to the AWG-9, on the F-14D) took that title again.. The APG-71(enhanced AWG-9) is still considered one of the best slotted planar array fighter radars ever built. Only out performed by the modern PESA/AESA designs. (even then, a lot of PESA radars don't match the detection range of the APG-71)

All in the title.

It should look like this

While pulse coloring is an option, radars are rarely ever designed that way. More often then not, those techniques are used to improve range resolution and S/N ratios. It's not all that complicated, at least this particular aspect isn't. As stated above all you do is change the PRF/PRI, and compare all the different echo ranges you receive in a single dwell period. The inaccurately measured echos will change position when you change your PRF. However, the accurate echo range won't change. Example: If I have a constant PRI of 100usec, then my max unambiguous range is 8.09nm (the time it takes light to travel 1nm is 6.18usec) (for a two way path, it's 12.36usec) (divide our 100usec Pulse repetition interval by 12.36 and you get 8.09nm) If a target exists at 10 miles I would get my first return after I have already fired a 2nd pulse. 10nm equates to a period of 123.6usec of travel time. Subtract the 100usec period from our first pulse period and the remainder is simply 23.6usec(the time our radar thinks it took the 2nd pulse to leave and come back) which is 1.9nm in distance for light speed. So we have our first inaccurate echo at 1.9nm. Radar engineers understand this dilemma, so modern radars are designed to consider that the echo wasn't from the most recent pulse, but the one before that one. Or perhaps the pulse even before that one. So on and so forth. So eventually, there is a bin that holds a number of range possibilities for the target, based on which pulse it could of been from. To calculate the range if fired from and earlier pulse, simply add one pulse interval period for each subsequent transmission possibility. If we were to file these potential ranges based on it being from the most recent transmission to the oldest it would look like this. (PRI is still 100usec/real target is still 123.6usec away aka 10nm) Range BIN for PRI 1 1.9nm (if returned from most recent transmission) 10nm (if from the pulse before that one ^) 18.09nm (if from the pulse before that one ^) 26.18nm (etc..^) 34.27nm (etc.. ^) 42.36nm (etc.. ^) and this could continue until a range the engineers decide is to far for the radar to see based on other factors. But If i cycle the PRI so there is a second and third PRI, we will see all of those false ranges change position but the real target range wont. (PRI of 80usec/real target is still ~123.6usec away) Range BIN for PRI 2 3.5nm (if returned from most recent transmission) 10nm (if returned from the pulse before that one ^) 16.47nm (etc.. ^) 22.94nm (etc.. ^) 29.41nm (etc.. ^) (PRI of 60usec/real target is still ~123.6usec away) Range BIN for PRI 3 0.29nm (if returned from most recent transmission) 5.14nm (if returned from the pulse before that one ^) 10nm (etc.. ^) 14.85nm (etc.. ^) 19.7nm (etc.. ^) As you can see, only one range doesn't change between the different PRIs, 10nm. This process is known as range match filtering. Though, more than three PRIs may be used IRL, as to eliminate harmonic blind zones. (Illustration below is just an visual aid, and is not based off figures above)

Make sure you turn off your jammer if you are trying to notch the seeker.. It would make sense that IF the jammer used doppler noise to mask your aircrafts doppler return, hiding in the ground clutter would be useless, as you'd be transmitting on a large number of Doppler freqs. Not just the ground doppler freq. So a AIM-120 could still auto switch to HOJ and track your jammer like a beacon. Also, the slower and lower you get, the wider the effective notch angle becomes.

?? the F4U spent 2 years dominating A6Ms before the N1K and KI-84 ever saw action. And only 10 A7Ms are said to have ever been built.. I'd rather be fighting battles against a well equipped 1942 Japan then a crippled 1944 Japan, where aircraft performance varied from buno to buno. Also, the manual for the aircraft better reference suicide tactics!

This seems to be the major hurdle for some of the upcoming aircraft. Any information on it's development would be greatly appreciated.

Hmmm, so 7th fleet huh.. A hint at a WEST-PAC or Persian Gulf map?

100% That's why I said what I said.. There can be no accurate date, until the product is fully complete. I think my prediction is realistic, so long as DCS 3.0 doesn't come out before then :smilewink:

HAHAHA!! Not a chance. Every single DCS module gets delayed, you can't trust the devs to give you an accurate date. I'm betting the Viggen might show up in 2nd half of 2016, F4U out in early 2017, and F-14 out in late 2017.

I honestly don't have the same degree of problems with this missile that I hear so many of you have. Though I wait till Rmax2 for all my shots.

Do you mean the target you had at the 7 minute mark..? AWACS calls bandit at 235 for 14, at 7000, Hot. You lost him because you turned off your radar.

The aircraft datum is not your AoA. The AoA represents the angular difference between the datum and the aircraft's true vector (in relation to the airflow). When those two indicators are separated by a wide margin, your AoA is high. Increase speed/nose down your aircraft, otherwise you will increase drag and lose lift. If you do not correct, your aircraft will stall out during excessive AoA. If you wish to fly at a low AoA, keep your speed up, and your angle of pitch low.

No worries, I can explain. Real life RWRs sense a LOT of signals in a wartime environment and it is the intention of the engineers to have as few false alarms as possible in their system, while still providing indications and warning to the pilot of an immediate threat. In order to meet this standard, criteria must be met for the system to declare a threat. Based on what I have observed in game, and what I know about radar theory, this is the criteria I believe exists. For detection of SARH missile launch: 1.the RWR must sense that a has it's ownship aircraft locked on to by a threat radar that can support a SARH missile. (that means the RWR senses that the amplitude of the threat signal is steady, indicating that the threat radar is staring at it, and not just scanning around. STT vice RWS/TWS) (if the amplitude is fluctuating in and out, that is a good sign that the radar is scanning around and not focused on you) 2. The RWR must sense that a guidance datalink signal is active and coming from the same direction in space as the threat radar locking it. (the guidance signal exists to support the SARH missile with target range and aspect, as well as direct the missile when its seeker is out of range from sensing the reflected illumination from the target) Both of these are required to give the pilot the missile launch indication from a SARH missile. In some cases the radar's waveform changes to a continuous wave instead of a pulsed signal.. this will also queue the RWR to the missile launch, but not all radars do this. In some cases, such as FLOOD mode, SARH missiles can be launched without a datalink to support it. Though in these cases the target has to be close enough for the seeker to pick up the reflections immediately, and has to be close enough to not have to fly in a lead pursuit in order to reach its target. In these cases, SARH launches wont be detected because only 1 of the two criteria was met. For detection of a Active Missile: 1. Identify that the signal you are receiving matches the parametric values (RF, PRF, PW, Scan, etc.) of a known missile seeker radar. (note: missile seekers look different from fighter radars) Pretty simple, right? If you see a signal that looks like it could match a missile seeker, alarm the pilot. What's more interesting though, is why the RWR doesn't go off when the Active Missile is launched. As many know, the 120 has a datalink. But if my criteria for SARH launch detection is right, seeing a datalink while not being locked on to does not fit into launch warning criteria. This is because in a real life scenario, RWRs will see alot of fighter radars and datalinks coming from many different angles, and without that criteria you'd have false alarms going off all the time. So what if you launch a 120 while in STT, will the enemy be alerted right at launch, as there is both a lock tone and a datalink? the answer is YES. and your indications will make it seem as if it was a SARH missile, until the Seeker on the 120 goes active. If you are launching the 120 in STT, yes the enemy will detect it. Launching in TWS wont alert them until the seeker goes active. Your not wrong here, but as you specified doppler processing for just this mode, I just wanted to clarify that every mode on this radar set uses pulse doppler processing, not just TWS. More specifically, TWS gathers all of the data(including doppler shift) it can on a series of returns from a single contact and uses this pattern to predict the position and velocity of the target for the next time the beam sweeps that area of space. STT does not put out more pulses.. the Pulse Repetition frequency or PRF, can be the same for TWS, RWS and STT.. The difference with STT, is that your antenna stops scanning a volume of space, and instead stares at the specified target, tracking it via a monopulse receiver. (4 quadrant receiver that measures phase and amplitude differences in order to determine angle of arrival) Haha, says who? It'd be extremely useful in a scenario where you are outnumbered, and wish to have a portion of the opponents wing-men defending.

How could anyone NOT want an F-16 in DCS??? Its a true BFM fighter, can accelerate like no ones business, and has some game in BVR and A-G. Its worth it just for the bubble canopy. I too would like more Russian aircraft, but the government doesn't want to give up detailed information on aircraft they either still fly or sell.

The reason the ruskies fire the IR missile first, is because it's likely that the IR missile would follow the trail of the SARH missile instead of its intended target. Why is that a problem you may ask? because the SARH missile can be tricked into following illuminated chaff, or some other form of decoy, instead of the target. Though, I've become skeptical about this still being part of their doctrine.. I think their modern doctrine involves keeping their radar off, and going for completely passive shots with the AA-10E/F(RF homing) and then once closer in with the AA-10B/D(IR Homing). All being queued by the IADS+datalink. Airborne and ground based jammers would be utilized to distort the opponents radar picture and help close the range gap of their air to air missiles.

IDK what your getting at.. I never said the AWG-9 couldn't perform SARH in STT. I said that it didn't make sense for the AWG-9 to perform SARH guidance on 6 targets(which would require TWS mode) at the same time. Yea... I know this. I stated exactly what you said as well... Frostie thought that the fighter radar being more powerful than the ARH seeker would mask it.. I stated that the RWR prioritizes signals by radar type rather than power. After having researched details, i have seen a lot of comments suggesting autopilot->SARH mid-course guidance->active terminal.. and not much on a data-link. Though I couldn't find any official resources on the matter. But as we discuss this, we must realize that if this is the case, it's not your typical SARH Lock(at least during a TWS shot). My primary concern on this is really about what indications the enemy will get during a TWS launch of a AIM-54. It is perceivable that the AIM-54 could launch in the blind(INS/autopilot) for a period of time until it reached a predicted range at which its seeker could passively receive radar reflections off the target for some course corrections. Though each of the missiles would have to use its own channel (ie the AWG-9 would change frequencies for each of the missiles seekers) in order to distinguish the reflection of its intended target. However, the missile would have no way to distinguish multiple reflections inside the same "illumination" beam (which is a pretty big beam considering the massive range between the targets and the AWG-9). The missile would likely steer towards either the biggest reflection(which may not be the intended target) or the reflection with the highest positive Doppler shift (the fastest closing object inside the main beam). However, this method alone would not provide range to the target during mid-course flight. I'm willing to bet that the signal being "illuminated" off the target would modulate it pulse timing sequence which the missile could interpret as either an indication of range or a time to pit bull. But this would indicate both SARH (for direction) and embedded information on a signal (i.e. a datalink, for range and possibly other variables) The main reason I want to discourage referring to the guidance method as just "SARH", at least in the context of this game(its not a simulation in the context of Radio Wave propagation, Electronic Warfare, etc..) is that people may expect to receive the same warnings from this missile as from an AIM-7. Which is not the case. The AWG-9 is not contentiously fixating it's emissions on its target. the fact that its scanning plays a significant part into this reasoning. Now of course its possible that some engineer programmed a RWR to freak out if it sees a AWG-9 scanning.. period. but that would mean that it'd go off any time it saw that AWG-9 signal. Regardless of whether it has launched a missile. If I was a betting man, I'd say that the AIM-54 used a combination of "SARH"(though its really not homing to a high degree of accuracy because of the scan periods) with embedded data in its pulse timing sequences(also known as pulse position modulation or PPM for short). Which would make all of us right and wrong to some extent, if true. Hopefully Leatherneck sorts this all out for us:)

You can never guarantee a kill, doesn't matter who your up against. I'd use every tool at my disposal against my enemy. Also, my NCTR doesnt give me any indication of the skill level of the radar contact.. must be broken :) Also, i'm not entirely sure that the ruskie RWR would ignore the Seeker signal because the F-15 radar is more powerful. The SPO-150 categorizes radar signals by radar type, and will prioritize the signals as such.. Some of those SAM systems are WAY more powerful than the AI radars, but it'll still show you the closest AI radar because it deems it more important. No...?.. but it's something it's advertised to be able to do. In almost all cases the F-14 didn't even fly with 6 -54s.. The point is that, by all indications, the AWG-9/-54 system didn't require any illumination of the target(which would otherwise spook the target to a missile launch) as seen with SARH engagements.

Yeah, there are a lot of tactics out there. some of which may work to your benefit if going up against an enemy unfamiliar tactic X. In your case, your assuming the enemy doesn't realize his RWR gives some estimated range from the signal. With said knowledge they could completely ignore your lock on.. But never the less, your right. Its always worth a shot.

STT does a better job at maintaining a track on a target, as its target fixated.(the antenna is not scanning, but is instead focused on the target.) Though this minor advantage is completely over shadowed by the fact that TWS wont spook the enemy. In most cases TWS is your best bet.. I wouldn't use STT until I come within visual range and my presence and position is currently known to the enemy.

yeah, but there's a lot of pilots who'd freak out and maneuver regardless of the signal strength. Sure a 51st driver (or whoever on here who would say otherwise) would know better, but many pilots online wouldn't. It would also work pretty well against a head on target to get him/her to defend and lose energy.. Not just in a chase. Remember, a RWR doesnt tell you when a radar has detected you, but tells you if it sees the radars energy and parameters. So, even though the seeker cant detect a target outside of X miles, the RWR would more than likely see the signal at ~4X (a much further range, but really depends on the RWR receiver/antenna setup). The RWR sees a much more powerful signal from the main beam then the tiny reflected signal that traveled round trip back to the seeker. Whatever the case, the AWG-9 radar would only be able to support 1 SARH engagement at a time if it did have that option.. And if doing so, would not be able to provide tracking guidance on any other target during this engagement. The mechanically scanned antenna would have to stay fixated on the target in order to support a SARH missile, and thus could not perform tracking on anyone else. (and thus couldn't provide mid course guidance for the 5 other -54s it's supposed to be able to support at the same time)

I doubt the -54 seeker would be sensitive enough to even see a reflected illumination from it's intended launch range.. Also, the AWG-9/-54 combo can engage 6 targets at long range simultaneously, and there is no way that the AWG-9 (a mechanically scanned planar array) can effectively illuminate 6 separate targets at once.. @GGtharos I assumed that the AIM-120 seeker could be fed power in a similar way as the AIM-9.. I realize that this would be dangerous because of the seekers lack of IFF, but it seems like something that is doable. It would certainly be a great trick for fooling enemy RWRs..

Last time i tested it in game the target got a lock tone prior to launch, and then a missile warning when the missile launches.. Which of course makes no sense.

1. Is it possible to use the AIM-120 seeker to lock targets prior to launch IRL? similar to the AIM-9.. 2. How does a targets RWR know when a missile has been launched in flood mode? AFAIK the emission is unchanged when a AIM-7 is launched in flood mode..