Beamscanner

Considering that the aircraft can engage 6 targets simultaneously, then it does NOT need to hard lock targets for the aim-54. It would have to do TWS for that. Not sure if RWRs of the day were designed to pick up the mid course link(or if they ever have). But I'd say that it's really unlikely. Especially considering how rudimentary the spo150 is. Aim-54s dive on their targets at high speed. So I'd guess that the time between pitbull and splash is short:)

Hmm... I say keep it realistic.. Or as close to realistic as you can get. I'd also say that coming WVR of a flanker is a dangerous and lethal situation, and survival may depend on the effective use of all of your systems. Including emergency modes.

to play devils advocate.. not that anyone here is the devil :) Radar beams are not perfect. The advertised beam widths usually represent the majority of the the directional gain, but depending on the antenna type and frequency side lobes of various shapes and gains exist(on both transmit and receive). The signal to noise ratios of the missile's receiver and the aircraft radar are likely not of similar values. 1. The seekers antenna is smaller then the radars antenna(less sensitivity / larger beam width)(hence the use of a powerful CW emission for target illumination) 2. There is likely less clutter rejection processes and filters on the missile then on the radar (due to power consumption, size restrictions, and costs associated with consumables). Another factor when considering the signal to noise ratio is the targets RCS. By design, Chaff is shaped and sized to match the target emissions wavelength so that it not only reflects RF energy, but re transmits the energy out in the form of a dipole antenna. Because of this, the RCS of a small cloud of chaff is significantly greater than that of and aircraft (whose return is mostly that from the optical reflectivity of the air frame and not so much a matched resonating frequency) That being said, a cloud of chaff outside the radar's illumination cone will still be illuminated to a certain degree (sure, much less then inside the cone). But the RCS of the chaff is greater than that of the target aircraft, so conversely more energy may be seen off the beams axis depending on the angle and range between these objects in space. The aircraft's radar may not be effected during this process(even if the missile is), because it's superior signal to noise ratio, smaller beam width, robust clutter rejection techniques, (Doppler filters, side lobe suppression, etc.)

I just tested flood mode in game. Apparently the target is now getting a hard lock tone before launch, AND a launch warning once the missile has been fired. Can someone from ED explain this..

Just looked up PN. Very simple and effective operation. I'm surprised I have never come across this before. Always assumed passive missiles, without external information, directly chased their target. AIM-7 without range is still going suffer though. My question is where or not the aim-7 seeker uses a Doppler filter to break out targets in ground clutter..

As I said previously, the manual states that the RWR uses the presence of the mid-course guidance (from a SARH missile) to indicate a missile launch. Without this present, as with the FLOOD mode, it wouldn't know a missile was launched. The HPRF used for tracking is also used for illumination, thus it can't be used to tell if a missile was launched. Im not denying that the midcourse link wouldn't disappear after a certain point, in your standard STT engagement. In game RWRs continue to warning you of the launch for a period of time after it disappears. But a missile launch in FLOOD mode never generates this link in the first place. Thus, no launch warning. The Missile has no range information and only sees the illumination off the target (providing it azimuth and elevation). The radar isn't tracking anything in flood mode. So the missile would have to be flying a pure pursuit path. (chasing this illumination) @SDscorch The key difference is better range with AIM-7

Probably not. The DCS F-15 manual mentions that some RWRs trigger a launch indication via the missile datalink. If GGTharos is correct, and the same HPRF waveform used to illuminate a target in STT is also used in flood mode then you wouldn't want to program your RWR to indicate a launch every time you get hard locked. It's extremely unlikely that any link exists during flood mode, as there is no target tracking solution being generated by the radar. So no link, no launch warning. One thing IS clear. You can NOT tell if a missile has been actually launched in FLOOD mode. Only that FLOOD mode has been turned on. So I guess what we see now in game (just a STT tone) is correct. Or at least makes the most sense. Not a huge threat though. the missile fired can only be launched at 10 miles, has to fly a pure pursuit route to intercept you, and it requires the launching aircraft to fly straight towards you.

The thought process that the "blind" spots of the RWR completely mask the emission when you are maneuvering. IRL you would very likely still see the powerful emission of a illuminator or active seeker thats focused its beam on you and is relatively close. regardless if its in your RWR "blind" spot. As I stated in my last post, antennas are not perfect. (i.e. the "blind spots" are not perfectly blind, and thus extreme power would likely penetrate the air frame, or be strong enough to be picked up in the antenna side lobes.

Variable, or automatic, gain controls are used in the amplifiers to limit spectrum clutter and noise from being processed. yes. But a high power radar that's close in, being received under these conditions, isn't going to match the background noise floor... In nearly all cases it would be immensely more powerful.

This thought process around here needs to stop. Yes, in a grossly simplistic world the field of view of your RWR antennas is perfect, no energy is reflected off terrain, and no RF energy seeps through your airframe(and into your antenna from behind) But that's not at all how the real world works. In reality, directional antennas are never truly 100% directional, they just have more gain in one direction than another. That being said, a relatively powerful radar, and/or very close radar(i.e. an AIM-120 seeker), will still induce energy into your receiver even if you have maneuvered, albeit at a quieter level. It could be from your RWR antenna side lobes, terrain reflections, or even energy that passed through and bounced around your airframe. It's likely all of the above to a certain degree. TL/DR: If the radar is close and/or powerful, it will still likely show up on your RWR if you have maneuvered and place the emission outside of your RWRs "field of view". Which on the basis of Antenna theory can never be perfect.

Are we expecting those towed decoys to come with the module..? Because that would surely improve this birds chances against a flanker.

Have been flying FC3 birds for about a year. I play 3-4 times a week, for ~3 hours sessions. Almost exclusively online in PVP servers. Average sortie kill rate is 3 kills in the eagle, and 2 kills in the flanker(assuming I'm up against 120 equipped enemies). I rely on a high level of SA to be competitive, and wish to play with others who excel in this respect as well. In addition to A-A, I also enjoy flying SEAD missions with the su-25t. (Can't wait to upgrade to the F/A-18c for this mission set) (GMT -7)

NP, we all make mistakes. However, I would like to say that my experience in this sim has shown me that people tend to jump to the conclusion that pilots not affiliated with a squadron don't know what they are doing. Not everyone does this, but I've seen it more than a few times. Thanks for the post

That's not how RWRs are designed to work.. being locked up within X miles would constantly trigger a "missile launch".. and would never trigger a "missle launch" warning outside of Y miles. (not the case) It IS true that Radar warning receivers have limited gains, bandwidth and sensitivity and thus require a signal to meet a certain threshold in order to process. But the amplitude in and of itself does not change the identification of the emitter... (EP techniques (LPI for instance) attempt to make use of these limiting factors, and many others) There is a unique waveform associated with flood mode, nothing about that unique waveform changes when an AIM-7 is launched. As such, if a RWR is not designed to give launch warnings from that emission(only giving a hard lock indication) then it ALSO shouldn't when the missile has been fired in that mode. You cant determine if a missile is in the air or not, so its up to the programmers as to which indication is given. AFAIK it should give a missile launch warning(even if there isn't a missile in the air), because (again AFAIK) the waveform used is the exact same one used to illuminate a target during an AIM-7 missile launch. This is a classic case of double standards. Everything Nerd1000 has said is true.

I believe introducing realistic audio tones into DCS World would add to emersion and allow pilots to distinguish radars and potentially radar mode/intent. Some in-game RWRs don't identify specific radars, but rather radar type. IRL, RWR audio is used to supplement the identification process. Additionally, the intensity of the tone provided some indication as to whether or not the radars main beam is staring at them(indicating a lock on) or if the radar was relatively close(as compared to the same radar's audio at various ranges) I understand that the data required to build these audio files is in most cases classified (PRF, PD, Frame set, beamwidth, Scan type and time). But I estimate that a 75% solution could be built with the available resources online. Many online institutes maintain parametric information on pre-90s era radars, and others have relatively smart estimates on what they think the parameters are, based on the function and characteristics of the radar itself. I truly believe that even a 30% solution would be better than the audio we have now.

To clarify, tracking modes (such as STT) on fighters do not use a CW illuminator unless a missile is being fired. They will not use a CW illuminator on a target prior to launching, this is the primary reason why in-game RWRs know when a missile has been "launched" as the only difference between getting locked up in STT and a missile launch(as per your RWR) is that CW waveform. A CW Illuminator can be used without actually firing a missile when using a "Flood Mode". You can trick pilots by using this mode as well. The same cannot be said for some SAMs.

DK1 res = 512000 pixels per eye DK2 res = 1036800 pixels per eye (a little better than a 720p display) CV1 res = 1296000 pixels per eye (comparable to a 900p display) as a comparison 480P = 307,200 pixels 720p = 921,600 pixels 1080p = 2,073,600 pixels So it wont be bad, but it just wont be great. remember that your card will have to be able to handle 2 ~900p displays at 90 FPS..

Yes, there is some loss in tracking/illuminating 4 targets at once (vice single target engagement). The problem isn't beam position(as stated by someone earlier), it's a duty cycle problem. The seekers on the SARH missiles require 'sufficient' illumination dwell periods in order to track on to the target. Assuming, by available unclassified information on the internet, that the FLASHDANCE radar only has 1 transmitter(its a PESA). This will surely limit it's effectiveness against maneuvering targets that would otherwise need to be 'stared' at(as to improve tracking rate and accuracy). Though I am exceedingly confident that this was thought through by it's designers and would guess that 4 is the highest it could go without significantly hindering the performance of the engagement. Not sure what your asking about as far as the radio frequency is concerned.. Are you referring to the seekers getting confused by the illumination of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th target? If so, that could be handled by periodic 'look' times that match the 'dwell' time on the specified target. Alternatively, separate illumination frequencies could be used for each. (IDK what this radar in question uses)

Is Link-4, 4A, or 4C being modeled for the F-14A/B?

I agree that we should keep the modules as realistic as possible. It's true that F-14s were not upgraded to use the AIM-120 operationally. But it's also true that F-14's would be carrying at least 2 AIM-94c missiles for BVR engagements. So your also NOT going to get the "real experience" if the server your playing on bans the Phoenix missile. The argument for keeping the module legitimate exists on both sides of this debate. So, if the community decides that they don't want to give the F-14 the major weapon system it was designed for(the Phoenix), then the true nature of the beast is lost. In this case, for the sake of fair play, the F-14 should have another ARH missile...the 120. What the F-14 uniquely offers is the ability to engage targets at very long range whilst delaying the targets ability to recognize the inbound threat. If you take away the long range ARH from the F-14 in multiplayer, then it is no longer the F-14 known historically. There goes your realism. Giving the F-14 a AIM-120, if the Phoenix is banned, at least keeps the platform closer to what it was designed for. Also, whoever related this concept to giving the SU-27 the R-77 missile is dead wrong to do so. Integrating the R-77 with the SU-27's vanilla radar system is much more complex and requires new/modified hardware. Comparing this with the compatibility between the AWG-9 system and the 120 is not a fair. Most of these complex requirements already exist in support of the F-14's Phoenix ARH.

ah.. I don't see why it wouldn't be appropriate to assume something that makes sense. I don't mean to say its true, but the reason we make assumptions in the first place is because the truth is unknown to us. It very well could be that the flanker requires its radar on for IFF to work. But it doesn't make sense to needlessly limit your system architecture that way. Though quite often the truth doesn't make sense. Whether the passive ability of the flanker was a focus or not, it definitely has significance in the air. Especially when you're provided a great picture from ground radar. A small tweak to the IFF system would go a long way. Also a discrete datalink for the ET would improve it in so many ways! Silly to think that Russian engineers would omit something already in place. Perhaps funding?

?? Did you think that I didn't already know that I was making an educated assumption? If we have a definitive answer, why not post it and end the topic? Also, the concept of IFF only is pretty common. Even ATC radars can operate in beacon only (IFF only) modes, as per FAA regulation 6360.13, titled "Beacon-Only Air Traffic Control Radar Beacon System". And that came out back in the 80s. So it seems like an appropriate assumption to say that the Russians can allow their IFF system to transmit when the radar is not transmitting. Considering all the other effort they made into making the flanker silent.

The radar and IFF system use different emissions (i.e. completely different freqs and pulse parameters). typically tactical IFF systems on fighters are arranged in an array on the radar aperture itself. The IFF antenna array forms a narrow beam in space through wave-front beam forming. This IFF energy is meant match its propagation with the direction of the radar energy, as it makes sense that the pilot would want to interrogate a target he is seeing/tracking on radar. But just because the IFF antenna is on top of the radar, does not mean that it requires the radar to be turned on. All the IFF system needs is something to que it to a particular direction. Like say, an optical tracking system. The IFF system itself uses a much lower frequency than a radar, around 1 GHz. Airborne Intercept radars typically operate between 8-13 GHz. IFF signals operate much higher than the RWR antennas can see (usually they aren't designed see below 2GHz, as there are not many threat radars below that freq range) Its seems very likely that if the Russians designed their EOS to be able to que the radar, that it should be able to turn IFF on a target without giving away that it's there with its radar signal. I mean the whole point they implemented the passive IR tracking and laser range finder was to be able to engage passively. Also, the A-10 has cameras scattered around that look for visual indications of a missile launch. IR missiles, such as manpads are passive homing. They have no RF emissions, besides perhaps a close-in proximity fuse (but that Omni directional signal is likely low power and designed to operate in a freq range that the enemy cannot see or jam)