Triggerjo23

Not quite the case. The missile is still tracking semi-actively via data link. TWS is also semi-active which is why both PD-STT and TWS are tracking in SARH/DL untill the moment they go pittbull or the radar goes flood. I don't think that the radar will change modes though when in PD-STT at a certain time though as the update said SARH/DL all the way to target. P-STT however does not act as SARH/DL and it will give a missile warning all the way to target. This does not matter as much though considering the fact that P-STT is only realy effective up to 30 miles and when your missile has a long burn time and can fly realy fast then you are not as disadvantaged by this.

@Crash2 So what you are saying is that the missile launch in PD-STT using SARH/DL does not give the target a missile warning? Somewhat like the R-33 I am guessing.

Yeah my point there was not that it gets an RWR warning, my point was that it has a sensor which simply tells it that a missile has been launched. Someone was trying to make the argument that you should not get a warning if you don't know who the target is and I was stating that as an example to the contrary.

Yes precisely my question. The DL transmission should mean no missile warning and the PD-STT should mean more accurate and faster refresh to the missile guidence. That seems logical to me but we won't know if we are wron unless we get an answer from HB or actual linked documentation. The DL signal would not be enough to tell the targeted aircraft that a missile has been launched as there is so many other DL transmitting objects in the enviroment. Also, the DL signal is not spotlighted either or else the radar would not be in PD-STT on the targeted aircraft so it is not like the signal would be any stronger or anything. The higher fidelity tracking information from PD-STT means the missile does not have to go active. No of course this could all be wrong but I don't have any documentation to say otherwise.

Then you should still get a warning to tell you a missile is in the air. It would be stupid not too if you had the capability to sense a missile fired in TWS even if you do not know who it is fired on. The A-10 can sense missiles being fired the principle occurs here. They are not always sure they are the target but the missile warning is given anyway. You know why?.. becuase it is the safe thing to do rather than take a missile to the face. Also, how many Jets are injecting DL signal into the enviroment from all directions. The missile will recieve the DL signal via an address just like every other DL recieving object. With all of the signals being sent out I doubt very much an RWR will be able to tell the diference between the backround signal from everyone elses DL. DL transmission should not give an RWR warning because it should not be distinguishable from the backreound noise unless you can decode it. If you are unwilling to link documentation then we won't get an aswer will we. If you won't link any documentation then what you are saying simply seems like it is speculation rather than fact, so help us out and link where you learned what you are saying.

Yes exactly, and considering the fact that TWS missiles are tracking using DL it would if Tharos is right give the target a missile warning or there should be at least some indication that a missile is in the air. Also, considering that if you fire on a cranking opponent who then turns in whilst speeding up then they could potentialy get inside the 16 seconds TTI or even below. In that case the missile impact point would be close to or before the TTI reaches 16 seconds which would mean either very brief or no missile warning as the missile only goes active at sixteen seconds. The missile must be able to hit that target whilst guided via DL or missiles would be defeated far too easily. We are asking the same question and I think only HB can realy answer it definitively. Iron Mike has disapeared though. :(

The RWR does not detect data link signal as is does not come from the radar. As I said, if that was the case then your RWR would know every time a missile was fired in TWS too, which is not the case is it. I don't think there should be an argument on this part, DL is not sensed by an RWR. If it is transmited by the target then the same issue airses, why can you not sense a TWS missile being fired if that is the case. TWS tracking is done via DL too.

@Jackbilt24 The AIM-54 is best when fired on long range targets only if they meet these perameters: They are flying slow at launch and then go full power to top speed. (Only realy applies if you know they must fly towards you and fight you). If they are cranking and you expect them to turn in or know that they must. (Generaly best at above 20-40 miles). They are well under Mach 1 and are somewhere between 30-40 miles. It is all about either the weapon control system and when it tells the missile to go pitt-bull or how well they can evade.

Data Link is not an injected signal an RWR will sense otherwise you would know every time someone launched in TWS.

If the missile is guided via data link then there should not need to be a change to the waveform. This is why I am asking about SARH/DL. I think it is best to wait on an answer from Heatblur as we are just going around in circles I feel.

As I have said, you are talking about this as if you know a lot and are giving quotes, however many other people I have spoken to about this have said the opposite, hense the confusion. Also, some of the people disagreeing with you have a considerable amount of knowledge of the Tomcat and post their own quotes and justifications. This is why I am asking Heatblur for an answer. I am not saying it does either, I am looking for an answer to the question from Heatblur as we all seem to be speaking diferent language here. There also seems to be some diferences in the documentation from Heatblur and what you are saying. What you posted above does not state it is talking about SARH/DL or whether the missile was fired in PD-STT or P-STT. Just seems best to get an answer from Heatblur as we are going in circles. I am looking for a difinitive answer for the people who tell me the opposite too as well as myself as I can not find proper documentation on this and the speculation gets frustrating.

That still does not answer the question. I believe that is talking about TWS-SARH/ARH which is evident in stage three where it says up to six missiles can track like this. That is information on the SARH portion of flight for TWS launched missiles.

I am afraid I am not confusing the term active. Quote from the Heatblur F14 manual. As you can see, it implies as a fall back that the missile can be guided via TWS which is data link all the way to target. TWS SARH/ARH In TWS the AN/AWG-9 is capable of supporting the launch of up to 6 AIM-54 missiles against 6 different targets concurrently. In the first stage of the AIM-54 engagement, the missile is guided semi-actively by the AN/AWG-9 radar using both guidance commands transmitted via the radar and radar energy reflected off the target. Then when the missile is within range of its seeker’s ARH mode the AN/AWG-9 commands the missile to switch to ARH. Absence of this command via the AN/AWG-9 radar means that the missile won’t switch to the ARH mode. The AN/AWG-9, however, continues to transmit guidance commands to the missile as a fallback in case the missile can’t acquire the target autonomously. This means that the AIM-54 isn’t a “fire and forget” missile per se but it can be considered autonomous after transfer to ARH.

The hint is in "SARH/DL". PD-STT illumination does not give a launch warning, a luanch warning is only given once a missile is actualy launched. The question is, does the WCS distinguish between a fox 1 and fox 3 and if so does that mean the "DL" part of that statement means that the missile recieves information via data link rather than the missile seeing the illuminated target via its seeker head. As I said before, considering the fact that this can be done from long ranges and that the missile lofts from PD-STT launched above 10nm it would be dificult for the missile to track soley on the illumination. A fox 1 lofting when fired from 20nm is not the same as a Phoenix being launched from 50-80nm and lofting. It is perfectly reasonable to think that the way the missile tracks the target is diferent from the way an AIM-7 tracks the target.

@dundun92 Also, TWS is also SARH but with the missile switching to ARH at a certain time or range to target. The fact that the acronym "SARH" is being used does not indicate full radar illumination. STT implies radar spotlighting but not full flood. So, PD-STT SARH/DL is also not an indication of flood. It is merely an indication that the missile is tracking via information from the mothership radar and that data link is being used to communicate that information.

You are also answering questions about the AIM-7 when questions are being asked about the Phoenix. The AIM-7 does not track in SARH/DL so there must be a diference if a destinction is being made. My question is about that diference, the AIM-7 has nothing to do with how the Phoenix tracks in SARH/DL. The issue seems to be getting even more confusing here.

No sorry you are definetely not understanding as you are answering a question which was not asked. I am asking about the Phoenix in SARH/DL specificaly and not about the AIM-7. They are not just diferent missiles, they function entriely diferently so quoting a RIO who said that the AIM-7 gets a diferent tone is not the right answer as a Phoenix is not an AIM-7.

HB said it goes SARH/DL all the way to target and does not go active. They said that in the latest patch notes. That gives no indication of wether it it full illumination or not which is why I am asking and realy only Heatblur can answer it properly. Also as I said before, SARH/DL from PD-STT would give much more acuracy on tracking information than TWS will so there is no real reason why it would not be able to track via DL except for the update speed being a limitation. The reason a fox 1 must get full illumination on target is becuase its seeker requires it to realy see the target and track. In the patch before these missile bugs there was a similar update where HB said that they updated the tracking so that the Phoenix could track via TCS, I have no idea if this is how it is meant to be but I have found that fox ones can do this too since that patch. So things are getting confusing as to whether it is meant to be this way or not. There seems to be a lot of speculation around the issues rather than actual backed up information which is what I am looking for, an official answer.

@dundun92 STT and PD-STT are not two completely difernet things. I think you have to recognize that guiding a fox three which is capable of comunicating with the mothership via data link via HPRF is unesesary. The Phoenix is not a fox 1 so does not need this, the limitation if any would be in the WCS of the Tomcat not the guidence of the missile. So what I am asking is specificaly wether the Tomcat decides to go HPRF when you pull the trigger in PD-STT when a Phoenix is selected or does it decide to stay PD-STT and guide the missile on target via data link. Of course for a fox 1 it needs full ilumination, but a fox 1 can not comunicate with the firing ship like a fox three. Also, the Phoenix when fired in PD-STT is in SARH/DL guidence, essentaily my question is "What is the significance of the /DL part of that statement". Also, another question is, can you switch from TWS to PD-STT when the missile is mid flight. Say if a track is lost in TWS 30 seconds from impact. All questions for Heatblur.

@GGTharos I am not sure if you are understanding me right here as there is confusion on the subject. Can you link documentation which states that when launching in PD-STT the target will most definetely get a missile warning please? Just looking for clarity on this rather than hearsay.

@GGTharos From the discussions I have had there is quite a lot of confusion over this subject. Also, you can guide missile via TCS at the moment too and I think this needs some explination. Also you need to consider the significance of the fact that the missile lofts and can be launched from well beyond visual range in PD-STT. If the missile is lofting then it is only right to asume that it does not have the target in gimbal it whole journey. There is also the fact that a fox 3 comunicates via data link hense SARH/DL. I am not asuming an answer here though, just looking for confirmation from HeatBlur on what should actualy be happening. A definitive answer from them will solve any confusion.

@IronMike Hi, just a quick question. When firing in PD-STT should the target aircraft get a launch warning or just a lock warning. There seems to be some confusion about this as some say it is a bug but some say it is meant to be that way. I would imagine myself that SARH/DL means it does not give a launch warning. I understand that it should not go active when fired from PD-STT though. Thanks.

Here are some Track files of tests we did. Nine Tracks per pilot total. Three tracks per test with three tests done. Test 1: TWS None Maneuvering Maneuvering Light Maneuvering Heavy Test 2: PD-STT None Maneuvering Maneuvering Light Maneuvering Heavy Test 3: TWS to PD-STT None Maneuvering Maneuvering Light Maneuvering Heavy Some interesting results all round. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1xN8pT5TyPmLUCXOCim04-GYq7kNh99-N?usp=sharing

Task Force Trident TFT Orange TFT Lynx

Task Force Trident Sign Up SATAL Gold 2020 League: Gold Squadron Name: Task Force Trident Discord: https://discord.gg/fB6TQPa Contact person: {TFT} Rage ¦¦¦|○ Ši Aircraft Selection. F14, F18, F16, F15 Pilot Roster: {TFT} Rage ¦¦¦|○ Ši (United Kingdom +0 Zulu) {TFT} Chewy ¦¦| šiv (US -4 Zulu) {TFT} Crash ¦¦| šii (US -4 Zulu) {TFT} Stahl ¦| (Austria +2 Zulu) {TFT} Rex ¦| (US -7 Zulu) {TFT} Raven ¦| (UK +0 Zulu) {TFT} Busta ›› (US -4 Zulu) {TFT} Ghost ›› (Russia +3 Zulu) {TFT} Hailsing ›› (Brazil -3 Zulu) {TFT} Plague › (Hungary +2 Zulu) {TFT} Animal ›(South Africa +2)```