TWS

[colubridae]

Can i ask the maximum number of radar returns that may be simultaneoulsy engaged in TWS?

 

 

col

[159th_Viper]

Mig 29, SU27 and SU33 can Track up to 10 targets simultaneously in TWS. No idea wrt F15

[jurinko]

I think F-15 can attack 8 targets simultaneously. Russian fighters can track 10 targets, but they can attack at once only 4 (MiG-31), 1 (MiG-29, Su-27), 2 (MiG-29S, Su-27M). At least the manual says so on page 115.

[GGTharos]

The Russian birds can engage one at a time.

 

The F-15C can engage as many simultaneously as it has AMRAAMs.

[S77th-GOYA]

In 1.12a, 4.

[wasserfall]

Maybe interresting to read, please follow the link!

 

http://pakistanidefenceforum.com/index.php?showtopic=32423&mode=threaded

 

Cheers

[Pilotasso]

Su-30MKI can do 4 silmultaneous attacks and theres a mig-29 variant that can do the same though I'm not sure if its operational yet because its only offered for export market.

[golfsierra2]

I think F-15 can attack 8 targets simultaneously. Russian fighters can track 10 targets, but they can attack at once only 4 (MiG-31), 1 (MiG-29, Su-27), 2 (MiG-29S, Su-27M). At least the manual says so on page 115.

 

The Russian birds can engage one at a time.

The F-15C can engage as many simultaneously as it has AMRAAMs.

 

So, how is it modeled in FC ? Like it's stated in the FC 1.1 manual page 115 (2 simultaneous engagements for the MiG29S) or like GGTharos wrote, one at a time ?? The MiG29S can fire R77, which should work about the same way as the AIM120. So if the F-15C can engage multiple bandits, why can't the MiG29S ?

 

I never figured out how to engage two targets simultaneously with the MiG29S.... I guess, it's not implemented.

 

Will it in BS ??

[Pilotasso]

Mig-29S cant, unless your close enough for pitbull on 2 or more targets each time.

[Frostie]

The manual says Mig29S can engage 2 targets , but whats with this '29S' is that a Mig not modeled in LO or is it the 29C , confusing because the russian 'C' is marked as an 'S' and according to the history of Mig29 there was both a mig29c and a mig29s??? :dunno:

[GGTharos]

There are some questions as to wether the MiG-29S (aka the 9.13S) is actualyl capable of truly attacking two targets simultaneously.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Well, if they're not the same aircraft, MiG-29C must be a NATO designation, since there is no such thing as the equivalent of the English letter "C" in the Russian alphabet. :)

[Esac_mirmidon]

Maybe this link could help a little about de MiG-29 designations...

 

http://www.aero-enthusiast.com/AC%20data/MiG-29.html

 

I always preffer russian original designations ( 9-12 , 9-13 ..... ) instead NATO names because not always NATO knows clearly about what they are speaking, ( maybe russians sometimes also ).

 

In this link you could see several C´s several 9-13 and several S´s...

 

Russian style o yeahhhh.....

[Alfa]

Well, if they're not the same aircraft, MiG-29C must be a NATO designation, since there is no such thing as the equivalent of the English letter "C" in the Russian alphabet. :)

 

The "MiG-29C" thing is simply a mistake :)

 

It is either a case of mixing up the NATO "FULCRUM C" reporting name with the MiG-29S designation - or forgetting to translate the cyrilic "C" in the Russian "МиГ-29C" designation.....i.e. МиГ-29C = MiG-29S :) .

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Heh...figured as much Alfa. :thumbup: Its probably just another one of those things that gets posted incorrectly on the net and ends up in 10,000 places in less than a week. Its also much like system designations for Russian equipment in LOMAC, which is one of the reasons I'm playing with those in the meinit at the moment...just to give the guys not familiar with the Russian alphabet a fair chance at googling some of this stuff to find out more about it.

[Alfa]

The Russian birds can engage one at a time.

 

The F-15C can engage as many simultaneously as it has AMRAAMs.

 

I don't think that is the case GG - usually there are three different things involved when talking about number of "simultaneously tracked/engaged targets".

 

1). number of tracked targets that can be displayed on the "scope" for selection of priority targets - i.e. the total number of contacts being displayed to the pilot in TWS mode.

 

2). number of tracked targets prioritised and "stacked" for engagement - i.e. targets that have been selected for engagement, prioritised according to threat level and for which the WCS is collecting missile launch parameters.

 

3). number of targets for which the WCS can simultaneously transmit command update to in-flight missiles = number of targeting channels.

 

I am not sure about the F-15C, but I remember reading that the F-18C can display up to 10 tracked contacts in TWS mode, prioritise up to 8 of them for engagement and provide command update to in-flight missiles for two targets simultaneously.

 

So you would have to distinguish between the number of targets that can be engaged simultaneously when the targets are within or outside seeker range of ARH missiles - in my opinion a true "multi engagement" capability concerns the latter as the former is more a case of performing multiple single engagements in quick succession.

 

For the "baseline" Su-27 and MiG-29 variants, the number of simultaneously displayed contacts in SNP(TWS) mode is 10, while the system can prioritise only a single target and provide missile command update for it.....simply because the N019 and N001 radars were designed specifically for the R-27R/RE SARH missiles :) .

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[GGTharos]

When I say 'engage' I mean 'attack' ;)

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, we're on teh same page :P

[Alfa]

Heh...figured as much Alfa. :thumbup: Its probably just another one of those things that gets posted incorrectly on the net and ends up in 10,000 places in less than a week.

 

Yes I think so too IK :) .

 

Its also much like system designations for Russian equipment in LOMAC, which is one of the reasons I'm playing with those in the meinit at the moment...just to give the guys not familiar with the Russian alphabet a fair chance at googling some of this stuff to find out more about it.

 

Yeah I see what you mean - but to be honest, you think would be better off googling on the real Russian designations if you want to find the more "authoritative" sources(manufacture sites)......because these rarely refer to the NATO designations ;) .

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[colubridae]

Thanks goya

 

I tried designating 5 contacts but only 4 would designate. The fifth took, but then the first was undesignated and the orginal 2nd became primary etc..

 

thanks again

col

[Alfa]

When I say 'engage' I mean 'attack' ;)

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, we're on teh same page :P

 

Just that there are two different perceptions of "simultaneous engagement" and that for the one concerning missile launch outside seeker range, the number might not be 8.....i.e. as many as the F-15C has AMRAAMs ;) .

 

I doubt the AN/APG 63 can support missiles for 8 targets simultaneously - doesn't seem very likely with a mechanically scanning radar - it is probably more than for the Hornet, but I don't know what the actual number is.....any idea GG? :) .

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[GGTharos]

Alfa ... this is directly from an F-15C pilot after he was asked this question:

 

"That's easy ... think of how many AMRAAMs the F-15 can carry. That many."

 

 

:D

 

 

Remember that in most cases, mechanically scanend radars will narrow the azimuth and reduce bar scans to perform TWS. Not reflected in LO.

[Pilotasso]

The basic APG-63 wich is simulated on LOMAC can only engage 4.

 

And the azimuth bar, I always activate it because the refrsh is just too slow and gets you nailed if you need to reaquire the target fast. Although it doesnt swich automaticaly, not using it could prove to be a deadly mistake.

[Alfa]

Hehe....well if you say so GG :) .

 

But I am still not quite convinced - I think I would like to know exactly how that question was posed for the reason I mentioned about the perception of "multi-engagement" :) .

 

In the conflicts I have read about involving AMRAAM deployment, the engagement ranges rarely exceeded ~ 20 km, so supporting the missile after launch may not have been necessary - in which case you could argue that the number of targets that can be simultaneously engaged would equal the number of AMRAAMs the F-15 can carry :) .

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Alfa]

The basic APG-63 wich is simulated on LOMAC can only engage 4.

 

Well I think it should be able to prioritise up to 8 targets for engagement - but being able to transmit missile command update for 4 would have been my guess as well :) .

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[GGTharos]

No, this is matter of sorting and doctrine. Remember that a fighter's target isn't another fighters, really: It will be multiple attack aircraft/bombers.

 

The question was 'how many targets can be simultaneously attacked with AMRAAMs'

 

In any case, the most that have been engaged have been 2 so far, and there's probably little reason to engage more unless you are facing more ooposition than your own group's size, which is reaonable mostly in a scenario where you'redefending against mixed fighter and attack forces larger that your own fighter group. I can't see this capability being utilized in other circumstances.

 

Hehe....well if you say so GG :) .

 

But I am still not quite convinced - I think I would like to know exactly how that question was posed for the reason I mentioned about the perception of "multi-engagement" :) .

 

In the conflicts I have read about involving AMRAAM deployment, the engagement ranges rarely exceeded ~ 20 km, so supporting the missile after launch may not have been necessary - in which case you could argue that the number of targets that can be simultaneously engaged would equal the number of AMRAAMs the F-15 can carry :) .

 

Cheers,

- JJ.