TWS2, using 1.5.4 how does it work?

[fitness88]

I've read old posts, is there anything more current explaining in detail how to use TWS2, under version 1.5.4?

 

Thank you.

[simo1000rr]

TWS2 ? is this somthing new ? i only know TWS . there are no 1 or 2 versions.

[Sweep]

^^MiG-29S

[simo1000rr]

^^MiG-29S

 

Oh my bad , i was thinking of the F15 . Scratch that .

[fitness88]

Yes Mig-29s...you can track and fire on 2 planes at the same time.

[TheFurNinja]

I may not be correct on the procedure. But I do believe you "box up" one target with the TDC until a cross appears over it. From there you select a second target in the same fashion.

 

From that point there will be a

 

"T1 LA T2"

 

displayed on the HUD. When both T1 and T2 are displayed that means you have launch authority on both targets.

[fitness88]

I may not be correct on the procedure. But I do believe you "box up" one target with the TDC until a cross appears over it. From there you select a second target in the same fashion.

 

From that point there will be a

 

"T1 LA T2"

 

displayed on the HUD. When both T1 and T2 are displayed that means you have launch authority on both targets.

 

Thanks that sounds like what I've been seeing but didn't have the organization of it. Do the target planes get any notification while they are on TWS radar?...or just when the R77 locks it up when the missiles go pit-bull?

Edited August 31, 2016 by fitness88

[JazonXD]

Thanks that sounds like what I've been seeing but didn't have the organization of it. Do the target planes get any notification while they are on TWS radar?...or just when the R77 locks it up when the missiles go pit-bull?

 

I have not tried it yet but since it is given that it's a TWS mode... it probably means that the receiving aircraft will have no indication until the missile goes pitbull.

[fitness88]

I have not tried it yet but since it is given that it's a TWS mode... it probably means that the receiving aircraft will have no indication until the missile goes pitbull.

 

Thanks...nice rig you're running!

[Frostie]

I have not tried it yet but since it is given that it's a TWS mode... it probably means that the receiving aircraft will have no indication until the missile goes pitbull.

 

I tested it when it first came out and sure enough it gave a lock and launch warning to both aircraft. Not sure about now though but no doubt nothing has changed, this functionality seems a bit of an after thought.

[fitness88]

I tested it when it first came out and sure enough it gave a lock and launch warning to both aircraft. Not sure about now though but no doubt nothing has changed, this functionality seems a bit of an after thought.

 

Is it possible the lock and launch warning to both aircraft came after the missiles went pit-bull?

[Frostie]

No not when tested at its release.

[fitness88]

No not when tested at its release.

 

What about TWS [not TWS2] mode, does that also alert the other aircraft?

[DarkFire]

What about TWS [not TWS2] mode, does that also alert the other aircraft?

 

TWS1 appears to work like the TWS mode on the Su-27, so while it will give a "29" alert on western RWR, or the airborne emitter alert on a SPo-15, it won't generate a lock alert tone unless you have a target bugged and until it eventually drops in to STT mode at ~85% of Rmax missile range.

[Frostie]

TWS2 is more like STT2.:)

[fitness88]

TWS1 appears to work like the TWS mode on the Su-27, so while it will give a "29" alert on western RWR, or the airborne emitter alert on a SPo-15, it won't generate a lock alert tone unless you have a target bugged and until it eventually drops in to STT mode at ~85% of Rmax missile range.

 

The "29" alert on the western RWR would be from the 29's transponder and not from the western plane being scanned by a 29's TWS1 mode. Is this correct?

[Drona]

The "29" alert on the western RWR would be from the 29's transponder and not from the western plane being scanned by a 29's TWS1 mode. Is this correct?

 

No, not correct. The western RWR can tell the difference between different types of radar based on the signal frequency. The Su-27 and MiG-29 reads as a "29" spike due to both radars having the same kind of frequency.

[DarkFire]

The "29" alert on the western RWR would be from the 29's transponder and not from the western plane being scanned by a 29's TWS1 mode. Is this correct?

 

No. Russian military aircraft don't have transponders. They have IFF systems (interrogate & reply) but not transponders. As a MiG pilot, if your radar is activated, i.e. sending out radar energy, if the radar sweeps over an opposition aircraft (let's say an F-15C) the RWR in the Eagle will detect the signal being sent out by the radar of the MiG, will categorize it as a MiG radar and will show the "29" symbol on the RWR display. The angle off the radar beam and maximum range which will cause a contact will appear on RWR depends on many other factors in reality but that's the basic concept.

 

Whether or not locking on to a bandit with TWS1 or 2 modes will generate a lock tone is open to debate. The digital signal processing algorithms used in RWR gear, both western and Russian, are some of the most closely guarded secrets of aircraft avionics design. So, unless we can get the answer from a NATO pilot who's been locked on to by a Luftwaffe MiG-29G during a training mission, we'll probably never know for sure.

 

In game the entirety of electronic warfare is simulated very simplistically, almost certainly due to the fact that our computers have to simulate all sorts of things like aerodynamics, unit AI, graphics, sound etc. etc. Having an accurately modeled EW environment would unfortunately probably be impossible with current PC hardware.

 

As an example, there's a video floating around YouTube that features a talk with some of the designers of the unsuccessful (in that competition at least) YF-23 ATF prototype. In the video one of the designers comments that their prototype aircraft had more computing power on board than the entirety of the rest of the company combined.

 

I'd love to see a properly modeled EW environment in DCS, but the combination of necessary computing power and classified nature of all the systems, probably even older ones, means that it's probably impossible.

[JunMcKill]

One note, when you launch a R-77 in the MIG-29S, have more than 80% probabilties to fail the kill, launching two in TWS2 mode, will makes you fail twice! :) my advice, use the R-77 at very close range if you want to hit something. I'm still racking my brain, asking why the Russians used these bad missiles in their most modern jets ;)

Edited September 2, 2016 by JunMcKill

[fitness88]

Kunz; Thank you for straightening out the RWR/radar relationship.

 

DarkFire; Thank you for elaborating.

 

JunMcKill; Thank you but I really didn't think the missile was that bad, I've had a fairly good kill ratio albeit against AI planes...I realize flying against a good human pilot might have a different outcome.

 

Does the RWR have to be in the cone of the plane's radar doing the sweep for the RWR to light up his ID?

Edited September 3, 2016 by fitness88

[JunMcKill]

Kunz; Thank you for straightening out how the RWR/radar relationship.

 

DarkFire; Thank you for elaborating.

 

JunMcKill; Thank you but I really didn't think the missile was that bad, I've had a fairly good kill ratio albeit against AI planes...I realize flying against a good human pilot might have a different outcome.

 

Does the RWR have to be in the cone of the plane's radar doing the sweep for the RWR to light up his ID?

 

Yeah Im talking PvP, and the human pilot have not to be good, because they hear the warning launch from the very beginning, and the game R-77 model make him drag a lot when in subsonic, almost bleeding all the speed in seconds

[DarkFire]

Does the RWR have to be in the cone of the plane's radar doing the sweep for the RWR to light up his ID?

 

It depends. Probably depends on the sensitivity of the RWR receiver and the type of illuminating radar. The radar cone for most 'older' mechanically-scanned radar types isn't simply a cone: the beam pattern actually looks like this:

 

 

So where the target RWR will detect the radar emission at maximum range when the main lobe scans over the target aircraft, it's possible that the RWR could also detect it when the target is scanned over by the side lobes.

 

Radar designers do all sorts of funky things with beam shaping in order to suppress the generation of the side lobes, partly for this very reason. Whether or not a given RWR set will detect and identify side lobe emissions is also down to the very secret digital signal processing systems.

[fitness88]

Yeah Im talking PvP, and the human pilot have not to be good, because they hear the warning launch from the very beginning, and the game R-77 model make him drag a lot when in subsonic, almost bleeding all the speed in seconds

 

Thanks for the drag info on the R-77...I'll check that out.

[fitness88]

It depends. Probably depends on the sensitivity of the RWR receiver and the type of illuminating radar. The radar cone for most 'older' mechanically-scanned radar types isn't simply a cone: the beam pattern actually looks like this:

 

 

So where the target RWR will detect the radar emission at maximum range when the main lobe scans over the target aircraft, it's possible that the RWR could also detect it when the target is scanned over by the side lobes.

 

Radar designers do all sorts of funky things with beam shaping in order to suppress the generation of the side lobes, partly for this very reason. Whether or not a given RWR set will detect and identify side lobe emissions is also down to the very secret digital signal processing systems.

 

All the more power to the EOS!

[Dudikoff]

I'm still racking my brain, asking why the Russians used these bad missiles in their most modern jets ;)

 

Well, technically they never did use them (as only about two dozen MiG-29 9.13S could have used them), they just exported them all (as RVV-AE). ;)

 

They just recently started getting the new R-77-1 missiles, though.

Edited September 3, 2016 by Dudikoff