Multiple target engagement

[Poopskadoop]

Okay, we all know the Russian aircraft aren't capable of simultaneously engaging multiple targets using TWS mode like the Eagle can, but today I was wondering why the Russian aircraft cannot engage multiple targets by using a SARH missile and then, while the SARH is outbound, locking a different target using an IR missile. It seems like it should be possible, but it isn't; the SARH will lose lock if you try using any other targeting mode. Such an option would very helpful when you're up against impossible odds in the flanker. I was wondering if this feature is a true technological limitation or something that simply wasn't implemented in LO.

 

To clarify: why, for example, can you not track one target with the radar and then use your helmet mounted sight to fire an R-27ET at the next target before the 27ER has reached the previous target?

 

By the way, what was the first model of flanker and fulcrum that featured true multi-target engagement? I just don't understand why such a feature wasn't implemented immediately. The flanker was never produced in extremely large numbers, so it would reasonable to assume that, in the event of an armed conflitct, it would be forced to fight against uneven odds.

[FVMAD]

Well you can shot R-27ET first, and R-27ER after :)

 

Of the present soviet crafts in LO, only MiG-29C is capable to engage multiple target, but it wasn't done in LO.

[britgliderpilot]

Well you can shot R-27ET first, and R-27ER after :)

 

Of the present soviet crafts in LO, only MiG-29C is capable to engage multiple target, but it wasn't done in LO.

 

From what I hear, the multiple-target engagement on the MiG29C was as a result of the ARH missile capability rather than modifications to the weapons system.

 

The MiG29C in Lomac CAN have two missiles in the air simultaneously if you break lock, re-lock, and then fire the second after the first has gone active . . . . some report that that's the way the real thing works.

 

 

Alfa should have more accurate details on that.

 

 

As regards use of the helmet-mounted sight separately to the radar . . . . don't know.

 

I'd suggest that if you're firing WVR missiles (which effectively the -ET is) at the same time as BVR missiles, you're in trouble anyway . . . . grin.

 

And when the Flanker was conceived surely it was supposed to be built in numbers?

[Poopskadoop]

Well, here is the situation I had in mind:

 

I lock one target at 15-20km, fire the SARH, and then use the IRST to lock the next target, which is easily possible at those distances. Now, I know that I cannot yet fire my ET, but I wait patiently, avoid the missile fired at me by the first enemy, and then, when in range, I fire the ET. The ER probably hasn't had enough time to hit or miss yet, or it has just hit, but the advantage is that I am already prepared to engage the next target instead of having to frantically look around me to see where he is, something that often gets me killed in such scenarios.

[Pilotasso]

No russian aircraft in service can employ true multi target engagement. Only the Malaysians Mig-29's and indian Su-30 MKI can do it unless Im forgetting some other export versions.

[britgliderpilot]

Well, here is the situation I had in mind:

 

I lock one target at 15-20km, fire the SARH, and then use the IRST to lock the next target, which is easily possible at those distances. Now, I know that I cannot yet fire my ET, but I wait patiently, avoid the missile fired at me by the first enemy, and then, when in range, I fire the ET. The ER probably hasn't had enough time to hit or miss yet, or it has just hit, but the advantage is that I am already prepared to engage the next target instead of having to frantically look around me to see where he is, something that often gets me killed in such scenarios.

 

 

Hmmn.

 

Would require separating the weapons systems, allowing the computer to have two locks at the same time from different sensors.

 

If the EOS is designed to pick up a lock that the radar loses . . . . I'd presume they're slaved together at the moment.

 

I don't believe the real aircraft could cope with it, but I can't be certain - can only speculate about the design decisions that would have led to it.

 

Think it requires someone who can read the Russian manual to have a look ;)

[Kindred]

Well you can shot R-27ET first, and R-27ER after :)

 

Of the present soviet crafts in LO, only MiG-29C is capable to engage multiple target, but it wasn't done in LO.

 

Is this true? I love the mig, due wish for more.....

 

PS> I wish for all air frames...

[GGTharos]

I think the manual says you can decouple the two. Wether you can direct two weapons in this manner however is unclear.

 

As for the MiG-29C's multi-target capability, well, /someone/ knows, but they ain't talkin'!

[Kindred]

I think the manual says you can decouple the two. Wether you can direct two weapons in this manner however is unclear.

 

As for the MiG-29C's multi-target capability, well, /someone/ knows, but they ain't talkin'!

 

I'll take what is permissible then :smartass:...:joystick:

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

No russian aircraft in service can employ true multi target engagement.

What is a “true multi target engagement”? How do you define it?

 

MiG-31 can simultaneously guide (provide radar energy) 4 missiles on four targets. And it could do that 20 years ago.

 

Regards,

[Poopskadoop]

No russian aircraft in service can employ true multi target engagement. Only the Malaysians Mig-29's and indian Su-30 MKI can do it unless Im forgetting some other export versions.

 

Eh? I'm quite sure some variants of the flanker and fulcrum do have this capability. I also know the MiG-31, as someone already mentioned, has had this ability for quite some time.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Its true, there are a few Russian aircraft in service that have this capability. The MiG-31 has actually been quite the impressive multi-engagement sensor platform for AT LEAST the 20 years Hajduk mentioned. Perhaps Pilotasso's post was a little premature...but the models of flyable Russian aircraft in LOMAC don't have this ability. ;)

 

Much like the A-10 doesn't have quick-draw, which is actually fairly accurate for the era this sim is intended to model.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Perhaps Pilotasso's post was a little premature...

Well, Pilotasso was talking about “true multi target engagement”. I wonder what he was talking about? He also explicitly mentioned “ no Russian aircraft in service”?

[fulcrum251]

LockOn game is a simulation for 1989 year.isn't it?

[Pilotasso]

Well, Pilotasso was talking about “true multi target engagement”. I wonder what he was talking about? He also explicitly mentioned “ no Russian aircraft in service”?

 

with SARH missiles, you have to wait untill the first missile hit for the next one to swich from datalink into guided mode. I.E. you cant ripple the missiles any way you want but rather in a way to guide a single missile at a time.

 

True multi target capability sends all missiles to their targets in TWS without compromises except the radars own viewcone, and all missiles can swich to guided mode at any time because they are active.

 

I dont know the Mig-31 that well, but being the R-33 a SARH the first method has to be still be applyied independedntly of the Migs radar TWS multi target track capability. What it does however is to mimimize this multi target method compromises because an electronic steered signals can swich between targets instantaneously. I think this is so because it is not convineint to present each SARH missile with 2 or more distint reflections to home on in.

[britgliderpilot]

LockOn game is a simulation for 1989 year.isn't it?

 

No ;)

 

 

The set of aircraft range both sides of that date - aircraft like the Ka50, Su25T and Su34 haven't fully entered service in real life even today. Similarly, some aircraft in Lomac have been retired for some time.

 

However, where aircraft are modelled that are fighting against one another, they usually are modelled at the same age - the F-15C, Su27, and A10 are all at late-eighties, early-nineties spec.

 

It really is a fictional timeframe :P

[Poopskadoop]

with SARH missiles, you have to wait untill the first missile hit for the next one to swich from datalink into guided mode. I.E. you cant ripple the missiles any way you want but rather in a way to guide a single missile at a time.

 

True multi target capability sends all missiles to their targets in TWS without compromises except the radars own viewcone, and all missiles can swich to guided mode at any time because they are active.

 

I dont know the Mig-31 that well, but being the R-33 a SARH the first method has to be still be applyied independedntly of the Migs radar TWS multi target track capability. What it does however is to mimimize this multi target method compromises because an electronic steered signals can swich between targets instantaneously. I think this is so because it is not convineint to present each SARH missile with 2 or more distint reflections to home on in.

 

Every source I've read more or less heavily implies that the MiG-31 can simultaneously guide up to four R-33 AAMs at four different targets. I understand that an ARH version of the R-33 was considerd during the initial design phase, but the SARH was chosen instead. Perhaps the method of guidance isn't the same, but the effect is, more or less, probably the same. Thus, I do not see why it should not be called "true" multiple target engagement. Also, there is a newer version of this missile called the R-37, and I believe this has the option of being an ARH.

 

Besides that, I'm sure some of the newer flankers and fulcrums are capable of guiding ARH missiles in TWS mode against multiple targets. Surely the Su-35 can?

[Guest IguanaKing]

The MiG-31 could guide those missiles easily, actually. It was one of the first aircraft with an electronically-scanned array, so its radiation patterns could be directed quickly enough to guide early SARH missiles to multiple targets.

[GGTharos]

Yep, however, the R-33's effectiveness is directly proportional to the ability of that radar to strobe on the target - this means the more targets, the worse the missile's guidance updates (more time between them)

 

Unlike an AESA, which CAN divide its beam into multiple beams and -truly- guide multiple missiles, the PESA of the MiG-31 must actually time-share between these targets. The R-33 itself is purely an anti-bomber missile, and from what I hear its performance against fighters is far worse than that of the AIM-54C+/ECCM/SEALED (which is in fact capable of intercepting supersonic, maneuvering, JAMMING anti-ship missiles).

 

The R-37 is a development of the R-33 with much better anti-fighter capability, and active guidance, which will make the MiG-31 a -much- more potent opponent against fighters, /however/ ... keep this in mind:

 

The MiG-31 doesn't run around looking for fights with fighters. This is a /defensive/ aircraft whose purpose is to destroy bombers trying to drop nuclear weapons on Russia! Much like the F-14, whose primary goal was to destroy bombers and missiles bound for its carrier - though the 14 was designed as an all-around fighter as well and the rest of its armament reflects this.

[Pilotasso]

Besides that, I'm sure some of the newer flankers and fulcrums are capable of guiding ARH missiles in TWS mode against multiple targets. Surely the Su-35 can?

 

The Su-35 as a combat aircraft never existed. And the other Fulcrums and Migs that can multi engage were all exported as the R-77 was (not in service with Russia).

[Poopskadoop]

The Su-35 as a combat aircraft never existed. And the other Fulcrums and Migs that can multi engage were all exported as the R-77 was (not in service with Russia).

 

What do you mean it never existed? Do you mean to imply it was never fitted with the necessary equipment to engage targets or that it never entered service? I see the latter as being more of a financial limitation and I know the former is false. Russia can build these aircraft for export, but, as I understand, prefers not to spend that money on its own airfroce, which is regrettable but understandable.

 

But surely some variant of the Su-30 or Su-27 that is in service does have this ability, no?

[britgliderpilot]

What do you mean it never existed? Do you mean to imply it was never fitted with the necessary equipment to engage targets or that it never entered service? I see the latter as being more of a financial limitation and I know the former is false. Russia can build these aircraft for export, but, as I understand, prefers not to spend that money on its own airfroce, which is regrettable but understandable.

 

But surely some variant of the Su-30 or Su-27 that is in service does have this ability, no?

 

In someone's service, yep. I believe the Indian Su30s do, and the Russians are upgrading their Su27s to more complex avionics (while keeping the same airframe) which will allow multiple-target engagement.

 

However, that's only just happening now.

 

 

Regarding the Su35 as a combat aircraft . . . . well, it's a tricky point. I think what Pilotasso means is that there was no fixed spec for a combat-capable fighter for series production - the Su35 as displayed and publicised was effectively a tech demonstrator.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Yep, however, the R-33's effectiveness is directly proportional to the ability of that radar to strobe on the target - this means the more targets, the worse the missile's guidance updates (more time between them)

 

Unlike an AESA, which CAN divide its beam into multiple beams and -truly- guide multiple missiles, the PESA of the MiG-31 must actually time-share between these targets. The R-33 itself is purely an anti-bomber missile, and from what I hear its performance against fighters is far worse than that of the AIM-54C+/ECCM/SEALED (which is in fact capable of intercepting supersonic, maneuvering, JAMMING anti-ship missiles).

 

The R-37 is a development of the R-33 with much better anti-fighter capability, and active guidance, which will make the MiG-31 a -much- more potent opponent against fighters, /however/ ... keep this in mind:

 

The MiG-31 doesn't run around looking for fights with fighters. This is a /defensive/ aircraft whose purpose is to destroy bombers trying to drop nuclear weapons on Russia! Much like the F-14, whose primary goal was to destroy bombers and missiles bound for its carrier - though the 14 was designed as an all-around fighter as well and the rest of its armament reflects this.

 

Yup. The MiG-31 was meant as a long-range interceptor of bombers, not to mix it up with fighters. I agree, PESA had to time-share guidance updates, but it was still faster than a mechanically-scanned array. ;)

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Yep, however, the R-33's effectiveness is directly proportional...

Don’t forget that MiG-31 technology is also more then 20 years old.

 

And MiG-31 will simultaneously target two cruise missiles 15km away flying at 30 feet altitude and a B-52 that launched those cruise missiles at 55 km and 30 000 feet altitude. The “Flash Dance” is still the most powerful fighter radar out there and will burn through any known ECM farther then any other know fighter aircraft radar. Not bad for something that’s more then 20 years old.e

[GGTharos]

I don't see your point. The F-14 was chucking missiles at multiple targets for quite a while now; as for jamming ... uh, how many times do I have to say 'there is no burn through'? Burn-through works only for side-lobe jamming, like angles jammers. There's effectively no burn-through for mainlobe jamming, wether you like it or not.

 

Plus, some deception jammers are so good your radar won't even know it's being jammed (typically present on bombers due to their size)