F-15 TWS/Soft Locking Unrealistic?

[KlarSnow]

In the F-15 what you are seeing on the radar screen is a digitally processed and filtered result, anything IRL that you see on the screen has passed whatever filters and processing is in place in the radar to be displayed as a contact. You do not see anything like a raw radar return on the scope. They all look the same, no way to tell RCS.

 

IFF is indeed something the F-15C is known for, is partially why in Operation Desert Storm the F-15C's were running the A/A CAPs into Iraq, instead of for example the Navy's Tomcats. The Tomcat did not have the IFF capabilities that the Eagle did, and with the ROE set in place and the congested coalition air environment that was decided so as to reduce the potential for fratricide.

[Dudikoff]

IFF is indeed something the F-15C is known for, is partially why in Operation Desert Storm the F-15C's were running the A/A CAPs into Iraq, instead of for example the Navy's Tomcats. The Tomcat did not have the IFF capabilities that the Eagle did, and with the ROE set in place and the congested coalition air environment that was decided so as to reduce the potential for fratricide.

 

I don't recall IFF capability being the issue, but the F-15 radar's NCTR capability where the airplane's type could be recognized by the radar from it's engine turbine reflections from frontal aspect (which the AWG-9 didn't have being much older and without similar PSP updates).

Edited November 9, 2017 by Dudikoff

[Dudikoff]

We do know for the most part, or at least we can assume they're up to a certain level of programming (ie. in RL Serbian MiG-29 RWRs had not been programmed to warn against AMRAAMs, according to a bunch of testimonies which may or may not be accurate) but there's no reason to impose this in-game.

 

But, you're not really disputing what I've said. I've said that if we take a certain time period, it's quite questionable if a certain country has the signal intelligence data on the opposing airplane's radars or if the RWR's installed in their airplanes (meaning their antennas) could receive all the required frequencies and/or signal strengths/durations (e.g. M-link data).

 

Like e.g. Tomcat's older RWR (AN/APR-25, perhaps even AN/APR-45) was only useful against ground threats and the pilots used to switch off the audio warnings most of the time IIRC. Or e.g. was MiG-21bis' SPO-10 easily programmable at all (doubt it) and really kept updated to recognize newer radar modes and e.g. later active missiles?

 

Upgrading the RWR software might be a thing today, but it wasn't always so simple. Hence why they replaced the whole RWR systems and their antennas (e.g. on the Tomcat where the first such capability came with the digital AN/ALR-67 1990+ IIRC).

Edited November 9, 2017 by Dudikoff

[GGTharos]

But, you're not really disputing what I've said. I've said that if we take a certain time period, it's quite questionable if a certain country has the signal intelligence data on the opposing airplane's radars or if the RWR's installed in their airplanes (meaning their antennas) could receive all the required frequencies and/or signal strengths/durations (e.g. M-link data).

 

They receive all the same frequencies - M-Link is operating on the same frequency as your radar ... since typically the transmission is on the radar side-lobes.

IN any case, it's just as questionable to say that the capability did not exist, unless you actually know.

 

Like e.g. Tomcat's older RWR (AN/APR-25, perhaps even AN/APR-45) was only useful against ground threats and the pilots used to switch off the audio warnings most of the time IIRC. Or e.g. was MiG-21bis' SPO-10 easily programmable at all (doubt it) and really kept updated to recognize newer radar modes and e.g. later active missiles?

 

Unfortunately I haven't been able to keep track of Russian technology developments. I expect that if they had to change some vacuum tubes, they'd do it. IN essence recognizing an AIM-120 lock-on is just doing a simple RWR job of 'hey, lots of energy coming from this direction, sure looks like an STT signal!' ... and whether that is presented to the user, even if unrecognized, is a software decision.

 

Upgrading the RWR software might be a thing today, but it wasn't always so simple. Hence why they replaced the whole RWR systems and their antennas (e.g. on the Tomcat where the first such capability came with the digital AN/ALR-67 1990+ IIRC).

 

I don't know, TBH, but antennas that work for picking up SAMs can easily work for picking up AI radars also. I prefer an RWR manual instead of an anecdote, or seeing the RWR itself in operation. Everything I've seen so far is quite capable of picking up missile launches, and they weren't exactly brand-spanking new models. Again I'll refer back to the Phantom's Vietnam experience.

 

Anyway, TL;DR, ED probably leaves the warnings in because it's simpler this way, and the arguments against are about as good as the arguments for.

[blkspade]

Great thread! Couple of more questions:

 

IRL can the Eagle slave the AiM9 seeker ro the radar-lock for off boresight engagements?

 

In DCS the IFF just sort of works automaticly. Guess that might be classified on the real bird, but is it known for having that capability IRL?

 

In RWS/TWS mode the contacts on radar are always the same size, disregard of targeting a chopper or a An-30. Is it suppose to work like that? On the DCS Flanker, contacts have different sizes.

 

Best PRF setting to keep STT lock from failing?

 

In game its easy enough to extrapolate targets with the data provided. Using things like target speed, detection range and location. If you can see and lock something outside of 60NM its something large or a striker. Under 150 knots a helo, or well over 1000 knots at low altitude a missile. Missiles also completely lack a NCTR designation inside of 24nm, not even UNK. Speaking of NCTR, its becoming increasingly annoying that we aren't getting updates for it when they release new modules. Like the F5, where an AI one does show up, but player ones don't. I think the Huey is the last thing added with only the A-10C before that.

[Dudikoff]

Anyway, TL;DR, ED probably leaves the warnings in because it's simpler this way, and the arguments against are about as good as the arguments for.

 

Sure, it's a game after all; I wasn't speaking against the current implementation by ED, was just trying to add to the list of simplifications made.

 

I'm not really familiar with the current implementation, but IMHO it would be pretty useful if they would somehow classify radar types and weapons and then export these configurations in LUA files or something. Or it could just be made via simple lists of e.g. supported search radars, tracking radars/modes (perhaps a separate LPI list for e.g. TWS track) and those where launch could be detected.

 

So, e.g. you could modify that for your scenario, this or that RWR can or cannot recognize this radar, the tracking mode or the launch warning, etc. These could than be fine tuned by the community for e.g. different eras and available as mods.

 

Ideally, the configurations would involve start and end dates so you could just have one database file. That way you could simulate e.g. different RWR types in the F-14A throughout its career.

 

Of course, here I presume that all modules use the common DCSW RWR implementation which might not be the case?

Edited November 10, 2017 by Dudikoff

[Schmidtfire]

Dudikoff, that is some interesting ideas. Another idea would be to sort of overwhelm the RWR when ecm/jamming is used so it won't be reliable to get a launch sound every time. But I don't know if that is even realistic. I kind of like the current implementation, but it is a bit like a coordinated dance between two opponents. You hear the warning you turn, turn back and fire a missile etc.

 

It should probably be a bit more hectic and confusing. Trying to get a proper IFF and at the same time not trust the RWR to 100%. False spikes from jammers etc.

[Fri13]

It pretty much does mean that for fighters, the only known exception here is the MiG-31 which thanks to PESA radar can guide multiple SARH missiles simultaneously.

 

Mig-23, Su-27, Mig-29, Su-50 etc can all guide multiple R-27 or R-24 to multiple targets.

 

We are just stuck to Su-27S that can't as it was update just after.

 

 

That's a great way to hit nothing, and you're making a huge assumption about a lot of things that you shouldn't be. For example, any missile might self destruct in the absence of a target for x amount of time. Likewise the target, already warned of a launch might jink and then the missile won't find it when you lock onto it again. A subsequent lock-on might be prevented for any number of reasons. Your best bet with a missile in the air is to keep a high-Pk track.

 

That is why AIM-120 is shot almost always in STT so you can keep tracking the target and increase to accuracy for few midcourse updates you do before second pitbull phase activates and you can't guide anymore.

 

That is the whole idea of the "silent shoot" (that SARH is capable) that you don't give target any reason to maneuver as otherwise your midcourse guided missile will miss as your TWS can't deliver accurate data. Why SWT became needed change over TWS.

 

TWS really is good only against a non-maneuverable target like a super sonic bomber or high altitude aircraft.

Faster maneuvering targets and you shoot in STT if you don't have AESA to keep constant tracking without lags.

 

Once you are in range for estimated launch with your ARH, targets WILL start maneuvering and your TWS shot is wasted. Either shoot in STT or waste missiles against maneuvering fighters.

 

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

Edited November 11, 2017 by Fri13

[LowLee]

Mig-23, Su-27, Mig-29, Su-50 etc can all guide multiple R-27 or R-24 to multiple targets.

 

 

Are you sure? How? Semiactive missiles need a continuous focused tracking, and those radars can't track more than one target.

 

Mig31 has a very different kind of radar antenna that permit multiple tracking for semiactive missiles.

[GGTharos]

Mig-23, Su-27, Mig-29, Su-50 etc can all guide multiple R-27 or R-24 to multiple targets.

 

We are just stuck to Su-27S that can't as it was update just after.

 

No, they cannot. Give up that fantasy. They never could, and probably never will.

 

That is why AIM-120 is shot almost always in STT

 

How do you know that it is 'almost always shot in STT', and how do you know what the reasons are?

 

before second pitbull phase activates and you can't guide anymore.

 

What is a 'second pitbull phase'? There's only one. You go through cheapshot, husky, then pitbull. And yes, you can guide the missile during pitbull - it will use the M-link for cross-checks and to assist with ECCM.

 

That is the whole idea of the "silent shoot" (that SARH is capable) that you don't give target any reason to maneuver as otherwise your midcourse guided missile will miss as your TWS can't deliver accurate data. Why SWT became needed change over TWS.

 

SWT is a function of the radar type, not a need for guidance. And the stuff you're talking about is something that SAMs do, but AI intercept radars in general do not. Even the R-27 with its datalink is constantly guided via STT. There is no indication of this changing.

 

TWS really is good only against a non-maneuverable target like a super sonic bomber or high altitude aircraft.

 

Utter falsehood. TWS will comfortably handle 6g targets, and there is no 'maneuverable enough' target to throw off HDTWS if that becomes necessary. Straight out of the weapons manual.

 

Once you are in range for estimated launch with your ARH, targets WILL start maneuvering and your TWS shot is wasted. Either shoot in STT or waste missiles against maneuvering fighters.

 

My TWS shot will be just fine :)

[Fri13]

No, they cannot. Give up that fantasy. They never could, and probably never will.

 

You can say that to the R-27 manufacturer at the Ukraine... Or the Suhkoi or Mig.

That is reason why R-77 never didn't go to wide operational use in Russia as R-27 can do what is required. Silent shots up to end-game, multi-target simultaneously launching etc.

 

Or you can keep up in your dream that Russia is like from 1970 that use obsolete weapons that are no threat to anyone, that has no range nor guidance systems to hit at anything... And yet they and Ukraine manage to sell these weapons all around the world....

 

It is your dream that 4++ generation fighters are equipped with weapons that are obsolete. Give up that fantasy because we fly a obsolete first variant Su-27S.

 

How do you know that it is 'almost always shot in STT', and how do you know what the reasons are?

 

As actual pilots using AIM-120 says so.... If the target is not capable to maneuvering, TWS can be used. TWS lag causes you to drop the lock easily for maneuvering target as your target track is unreliable and your AIM-120 is wasting a lot of time flying to wrong point. That is if the target DOES maneuver, and everyone who detects that they are painted by a enemy radar, start to maneuver (change course) to avoid possible TWS shots. That is as well why SPO-15 is so powerful as you can estimate the emission power and why F-22 and F-35 got new features to re-adjust the radar power for targets so it is just enough to keep tracking without giving out emission power for range estimation.

 

What is a 'second pitbull phase'? There's only one. You go through cheapshot, husky, then pitbull. And yes, you can guide the missile during pitbull - it will use the M-link for cross-checks and to assist with ECCM.

 

There is two, as you say. "Husky" (HPRF, for scan, lock and track) and "Pitbull" (MPRF, tracking, metering and ECCM etc). After it goes to second phase, guidance is not possible as missile cuts the datalink. If you use STT, then you guide it all the way to the target.

 

But you do know all this as you have written as well so in the past... Don't drop the lock for "cheapshot".

 

SWT is a function of the radar type, not a need for guidance. And the stuff you're talking about is something that SAMs do, but AI intercept radars in general do not. Even the R-27 with its datalink is constantly guided via STT. There is no indication of this changing.

 

SWT means Scan-While-Track and it keeps updating target like STT lock, while spending little time to scan volume.

TWS means Track-While-Scan where radar keeps scanning volume but uses little time to update targets.

 

Again difference why AESA/PESA offers benefits as one can faster rate update the target position and build a more accurate and reliable track to estimate the new mathematical point where missile is guided in few datalink updates.

 

STT updates continually the missile and it is reliable method for maneuvering target as updates for track are fastest possible.

And F-15C in the current state is overpowered as it doesn't have multiple second lag in the TWS scanning to update the target and no dropping the lock for maneuvering target when it is not in the estimated point. Just like in reality, target capable for maneuvering ain't shot with TWS as once they start to maneuver, your missile is gone.

 

You have written this too in the past.

 

Utter falsehood. TWS will comfortably handle 6g targets, and there is no 'maneuverable enough' target to throw off HDTWS if that becomes necessary. Straight out of the weapons manual.

 

Straight from the pilots, do not use TWS for maneuvering target. Reason why new aircrafts are wanted to compensate limitations in older aircrafts than latest ones.

If you have one or multiple non-maneuvering targets you can use TWS as they can't change course so much that your track would fail.

If you have multiple target capable for maneuvering but likely doesn't do so, you can risk it and use TWS to get multiple shots at once.

 

 

My TWS shot will be just fine :)

 

Because DCS doesn't simulate TWS correctly. You will be totally fine.

Just like we don't have correct modes for the radars nor guidance nor even energy in the missiles.

 

WIP you say....

[Fri13]

Are you sure? How? Semiactive missiles need a continuous focused tracking, and those radars can't track more than one target.

 

You can guide the SARH missiles in if the targets spread ain't too big so the mechanically steered radar has enough time to update the position.

Even AIM-7 has this capability to be launched against multiple targets.

 

It seems that many forgets that what the missile is. Every missile is autonomous. It has a single main purpose and three functions. Its purpose is to destroy the target. And its three functions are

1) To fly to a mathematical point (it doesn't matter is it going directly to target or intercept)

2) To get close on the target (to get in explosive range)

3) Explode (complete the job)

 

Every missile has three critical elements:

1) Means to fly (Rocket motor and wings)

2) Means to fly to mathematical point (Sensor to find a target)

3) Means to explode (Sensor to detect a target)

 

All what you need to get target destroyed is to get the missile near the target, in that point the missile own autonomous sensors will detect a target and explode.

 

SARH missile can be guided only to a single target at the time, some targeting systems allows to swap the target even or can signal missile to explode even when missile itself doesn't detect the target.

 

Question is always just what is the best tactical advantage in the situation.

SARH missile like R-24R supports "silent shots" where you lock on after launch after the missile has reached the mathematical point where it is waiting to receive the radar emission from the target where to fly. Meaning when fired upon, target doesn't know the missile is heading at them until last few seconds when guiding platform radar locks on them.

 

You can do the same with IR missiles, shoot at them to mathematical point and let their sensor to scan the volume and find a target to track. In this case target doesn't get any warning about missile approach as the launching platform only needs to use its sensors or other methods to find a mathematical point where to launch the missile.

 

Missiles can have (and often does) a datalink that only purpose is to send couple times an update of new mathematical point and missile task is to do the flight correction to meet there in given time. Constant missile maneuvering means missile speed drops and its range drops. Why only few times updates are done as the target mathematical point can change radically, while the target actual position doesn't.

 

To understand that, it is like you would need to kick a ball to another player on field. You need to estimate other player distance from you for strength you need to kick the ball. You need to track the player to estimate the direction where it is going and then track player too by estimating speed where he likely will be so you can adjust your kick strength so the ball meets the player in given position.

If you read the game situation such that you have a two seconds time period to pass the ball to another player, you have limited time to track the player and then do estimation and set the ball flying. If in that time the player does maneuvers, your capability to estimate the position is very limited. For you the player can be stationary or it can be anywhere in his capability to move. So in football your task is to as well know what are the capabilities of the player and kick the ball, trusting that they can read the situation and track the ball and change their actions to receive the ball. And that is super easy, as both you and the player are trying to get ball from you to him.

In aerial combat it is the opposite, you are trying to get the ball to the player, who is trying to avoid it. It is like a dodgeball where group is trying to circle the players so they can't move and can receive a shot from any direction.

 

So when you have a missile, your task is to get it in optimal position so when launched it has energy to get close to the target and explode.

How you actually do that, is the technical side. But all that is required from the missile, is to get close and explode. And close means many meters instead direct hit. Closer then better. More powerful explosion better. More fragments flying on the target better.

 

Things are easy when things are close by, as the target has no time to move long distances.

It is like passing a ball to another player that is 2m from you. No matter how fast they are, it is for you easy task to kick the ball as they can't do 180 degree turn in such speed that you would really miss them. That is like a early IR missiles and why IR missiles does the majority of the kills as the distances are so short that in the short time they can't maneuver like UFO to suddenly change direction and speed.

 

Then there is a BVR situation. In a radical distances the target speed and capability to change direction, means that your estimation for mathematical point is very much guessing. Without datalink, your missile has only the mathematical point where to fly and expect something to be found there. With datalink you can send update of the target if its mathematical point changes so much from the estimated location at the launch, that the missile can do a course correction in expense of the speed in change to find target in a new mathematical point.

 

And longer the distance, wider separation the mathematical point has change to be.

 

Let's say that a AIM-120 will lose <5% of speed per second at level and <15% of speed at sea level just by going straight when ~Mach 3 on launch time (and the deceleration rate lowers as speed lowers). Add there maneuvers because course correction and speed drops faster. And if you send missile 90 degree to wrong direction and new course correction comes 3-5 seconds after launch or even just 10 seconds after launch, then what are the changes to intercept the target?

 

How quickly can a fighter flying at Mach 1.2 change its course by 90 degree and travel when target is at 50km distance at the launch time?

How accurate you can launch missile when you can update missile with new mathematical point only twice or only once per 4-5 seconds?

 

What happens when the target changes its course and speed couple times in 50km distance and then at 30km distance?

 

Let's say that you fly to north and target flies @50km @M0.85 at the launch time to SW (225) but changes its heading from 225 to SE (135) and accelerates @M1, that is 90 degree turn. Then seven seconds from that does a another 15 degree turn to east and keeps M0.85 while flying in 15 degree angle upwards.

 

Your mathematical point is jumping radically from one edge of the scan cone to a another edge. While your radar TWS receive update only every few seconds and needs to calculate a new mathematical point with a very short track.

 

TWS is like a strobe light with long delays between pulses.

STT is like a constant light or very rapid pulsing.

 

So think about you standing side of a soccer field with a flashlight in total darkness with the football. And then you have two scenarios.

 

A is where you use flashlight pointed to the player.

B is where flashlight is scanning whole width of the field from one end to another in 4 second period (it takes 4 seconds to move flashlight from one end to another).

 

Now you will need to kick the football to the player in the field.

How good change do you think you would have when in situation A, compared to situation B?

 

If the player is 5m from you, both are fairly easy as you can estimate the target speed and heading quickly and kick ball just little ahead of estimated direction.

 

But if the player is 30m from you, it becomes far more challenging in B scenario, while it is still little more difficult with the A situation.

 

Now, consider that game ain't anymore a football but it is a dodge ball... Now the player is trying to avoid your ball.

 

It is far more easier for you to try to kick the ball on the player in situation A as you constantly see its location. Than it is in situation B where you get to see the player only once every few seconds. You can estimate and guess where the player will be between the flashlight scans and kick/throw the ball there, but if between scans player has changed its direction and speed, you are going to miss awfully.

 

Now what would happen if you would get a ball that can change its direction to where ever the player is once it is detected? The ball has specific kinematic energy it can use to roll but every turn it does, will require it to spend that energy.

 

Is the A situation easier than B situation?

 

What if you have two balls and two players, this is third situation C.

In C situation you point rapidly the flashlight between the players. Just like you would just wave a flashlight as quickly you can with your wrist between the two players.

That becomes more challenging than just pointing it at one player, but you can still do two players. But in this case if we take the technology in, you would shine a red and green light altering the color between which one you are pointing (you tell one to go for green, another to go for red).

 

Then you can kick/throw two balls simultaneously but the time you spend lighting the players is limited. You give like a half a second light on both.

That is still way faster than scanning light going from one end of the field to another end of field.

 

And as you have split the light time per player in C situation, your capability to estimate where the player will be on next period is as well much lower compared to A but still better than in B.

 

If the balls are modified so they have different properties. Let's make a special ball that shines and lights up a close area of it by itself (Active Radar Missile). Now you can use that more easily to hit the players. You kick/throw it to estimated location and you hope that the player will appear close of that ball in time when the ball has enough energy to turn its direction.

In situation B, once the ball finds the player, it will turn itself toward it regardless where the light beam is going.

 

What if you would add there a datalink, where you have a remote control for the ball so you can turn it to new direction by your own estimation? Now every time the light scans the field and you spot a player location and heading changing, you would turn the ball to go to that location.

 

And as the players try to avoid the ball... What if you make it so that the ball lights up only when they become close to the players? And that you will guide the ball with remote control near them hoping they don't detect the ball and that you are close by?

 

What if you can do that in A situation as well? You could find the player and calculate the mathematical point where player will be and kick the ball and turning the light off keep the players thinking they are unfound, or even point the light to somewhere else. And as you know your kicking power and estimation when the ball gets close by, you will turn the flashlight On and either constantly light a one player or quickly swap between two to get the ball seeking the players. Now the players were surprised, almost like if the ball itself would suddenly light its close range and find you. But in this time actually, player doesn't know that the ball is already near them as they only see the flashlight from edge of the field as the ball itself guiding itself in dark at them.

 

And to go to the final points, when the ball doesn't need to hit the players. Your only task is to get the ball near the player. The ball itself will detect when it is few meters from the players and it would explode pop its close proximity to full of ping-pong balls. Now the player doesn't need to try avoid a single ball, it needs to avoid tens of small balls flying toward them.

 

In situation A, you don't need constant flashlight pointing to players. It is the STT mode. You can keep radar scanning or turn it off after launching the missile if the missile is Lock-On-After-Launch capable. You need radar only to find target and calculate the mathematical point based track and then launch missile.

 

The missile needs to be get close to the target so it can explode and shrapnel it spreads in the air, hits the target or the target flies in them.

A missile is a tiny object compared shrapnel it can spread out. So you want to get missile close, but not too close.

 

And how accurately you can get the missile to the area is only requirement. In the final second when the missile does its own calculations to explode, it doesn't need to hit the target and it is better if it doesn't hit the target as you don't maximize the damage by that way as the explosion and shrapnel doesn't have change to generate speed and area.

 

A SARH missile doesn't need an radar to explode. It doesn't even need radar to destroy the target if the target doesn't change its course from mathematical point. How accurate the mathematical point is from the actual target location is the critical requirement.

 

And how quickly can a target maneuver away from that mathematical point is the challenge. If one can suddenly stop or alter the course between the mathematical point generations, higher change there is to miss the target so the proximity fuze doesn't get triggered.

 

This is one of the things SARH missiles has disadvantage over ARH that you need to deliver guidance only in the final game when missile is LOAL capable and you don't need to point target continually until the time period when the missile is required to get to its explosive range.

 

This is example what Mig-23ML/MLD pilots could do, get the target data, launch the missile and keep scanning or turn even radar off to keep target flying closer to mathematical point, when then radar was locked on target so the R-24R could home to it. The target didn't get to know missile was even launched nor heading at their way as only thing they get is radar is locked in the final seconds but no idea there is a SARH missile just kilometer or two from them.

R-27R allows the same thing, keep scanning before final moments to guide missiles to own targets. The original N001 we have in Su-27S doesn't have capability than guide to single target at the time.

 

In the old designs and variants, you needed to keep the lock from the launch to the end and your target received the signal of launch.

 

Russians has the ways to make things silent like with their SAM systems that you could launch a missile without lock and only at the final seconds again turn the tracking radar on for lock to get the final accurate guidance, after that it was too late for pilots to do anything unless they reacted immediately by doing high maneuvers.

 

Usually at that point normal situation is that you stare a moment "the flashlight" wondering you got spotted, while your reaction should be "Hide Hide Hide".

 

In head to head, which one can do the defensive maneuvers in the end-game freely, has better change than the one that needs to keep guiding missile in. But long range shots are just waste of missiles when the target starts to maneuver as your mathematical point changes all the time and missile waste energy. Why an idea to get missile lofted above enemy and then use that energy stored to change course, is very effective.

 

Ones can go and dream that soviets sole air force operates without medium range missiles or their medium range missiles are so bad that once you launch the enemy can just laugh at you and do couple turns knowing exactly that they just wasted your missile.

 

The point is always to get the missile as close as possible and give as little time as possible for target to maneuver. Even the AIM-120 is guided to the end with STT mode instead just shoot in TWS mode and expect that target is stupid that just sits down waiting missile to get close. And this is problem in DCS as there ain't at all the tactical information available or possible to do in lacking functions in the aircrafts that combat is very simple and basic.

[GGTharos]

You can say that to the R-27 manufacturer at the Ukraine... Or the Suhkoi or Mig.

That is reason why R-77 never didn't go to wide operational use in Russia as R-27 can do what is required. Silent shots up to end-game, multi-target simultaneously launching etc.

 

That is very incorrect, on both counts. The capability you're claiming simply does not exist. Mentions of it exist, heck, even the F-15 radar upgrade pipeline mentioned simultaneous sparrow shots ...

 

In the end, it's all about putting multiple missiles on a single target, ie. managing radar channels because guiding missiles on the same channel isn't always healthy.

 

Or you can keep up in your dream that Russia is like from 1970 that use obsolete weapons that are no threat to anyone, that has no range nor guidance systems to hit at anything... And yet they and Ukraine manage to sell these weapons all around the world....

 

It is your dream that 4++ generation fighters are equipped with weapons that are obsolete. Give up that fantasy because we fly a obsolete first variant Su-27S.

 

It's not a dream, it's history. They have their reasons for choosing to do this; they're skipping a couple of generations of missiles with the RVV-SD.

 

As actual pilots using AIM-120 says so.... If the target is not capable to maneuvering, TWS can be used. TWS lag causes you to drop the lock easily for maneuvering target as your target track is unreliable and your AIM-120 is wasting a lot of time flying to wrong point. That is if the target DOES maneuver, and everyone who detects that they are painted by a enemy radar, start to maneuver (change course) to avoid possible TWS shots. That is as well why SPO-15 is so powerful as you can estimate the emission power and why F-22 and F-35 got new features to re-adjust the radar power for targets so it is just enough to keep tracking without giving out emission power for range estimation.

 

I think you're mired in misconceptions based on a couple of things you've read on the internet.

 

There is two, as you say. "Husky" (HPRF, for scan, lock and track) and "Pitbull" (MPRF, tracking, metering and ECCM etc). After it goes to second phase, guidance is not possible as missile cuts the datalink. If you use STT, then you guide it all the way to the target.[/quote[

 

No, it doesn't cut the datalink. What's the difference between TWS and STT datalink? Answer: None

Straight out of the weapons delivery manual.

 

But you do know all this as you have written as well so in the past... Don't drop the lock for "cheapshot".

 

I've seen real cheapshot tactics. So yes you drop the lock.

 

SWT means Scan-While-Track and it keeps updating target like STT lock, while spending little time to scan volume.

TWS means Track-While-Scan where radar keeps scanning volume but uses little time to update targets.

 

....

 

 

None of this is news to me. :)

 

And F-15C in the current state is overpowered as it doesn't have multiple second lag in the TWS scanning to update the target and no dropping the lock for maneuvering target when it is not in the estimated point. Just like in reality, target capable for maneuvering ain't shot with TWS as once they start to maneuver, your missile is gone.

 

You have written this too in the past.

 

I would agree that it's overpowered if you couldn't notch it so easily, like the real deal. In reality, those TWS patterns are set to produce a 2.2 second sweep with HDTWS being half of that, all of this backed up by frame memory. You're not maneuvering yourself out of it, let's be very clear, quite literally keep dreaming :)

 

TWS actually has a lot of features in RL that are not present and make that mode UP (under-powered), frame memory, automatic target designation, target stepping, target sampling data-blocks and a few other things. As it is, it's wrong, but OP ... hardly

You got it into your head that you could break a TWS track by just maneuvering ... again. Keep dreaming - who ever fed you that idea gave you the tip of some iceberg that's missing a huge pile of information.

And whenever and wherever I may have written this, my info is far better today - I wrote a LOT of things in the past which were incorrect for a variety of reasons, and a bunch of things that still hold :)

 

If you have one or multiple non-maneuvering targets you can use TWS as they can't change course so much that your track would fail.

If you have multiple target capable for maneuvering but likely doesn't do so, you can risk it and use TWS to get multiple shots at once.

 

TWS has been used against multiple maneuvering targets in RL in a real war. It didn't lose track even at ranges less than 10nm where the scan zones start to really narrow.

If you're not even aware of that engagement then I dare say that you simply haven't done your homework :)

[GGTharos]

He's sure of things he's made up, including assumptions on how the missiles and their data-links work; right from the system tuning/launch initiation requirements complete with initial data download (mathematical point? LOL! how about a not so accurate, initial english bias and head look angle command so that the missile can begin its search?) and settings for the seeker's target search parameters to how the missiles derives target closure and range before and after seeker lock-on, and on to the actual guidance algorithms and fuze settings based on shot parameters.

 

None of the RL versions of the SARH weapons in-game are capable of this, or more to the point, the platforms are not. You could make some argument about A/PESA radars being able to pull this off, but there's zero information regarding such capability.

 

NO ONE does this with mechanical radars, period. Even many SARH SAMs require a separate illuminator per target, save for the very most modern ones.

 

The funniest part is that he's talking about breaking TWS track and at the same time talking about guiding two SARH missiles with the same mechanically scanned radar.

 

Are you sure? How? Semiactive missiles need a continuous focused tracking, and those radars can't track more than one target.

 

Mig31 has a very different kind of radar antenna that permit multiple tracking for semiactive missiles.

Edited November 14, 2017 by GGTharos

[Sweep]

TWS has been used against multiple maneuvering targets in RL in a real war. It didn't lose track even at ranges less than 10nm where the scan zones start to really narrow.

If you're not even aware of that engagement then I dare say that you simply haven't done your homework :)

 

"Fox 6"

[blkspade]

[GGTharos]

^^^^

 

And those displays are heavily sanitized too, a lot of info is missing! :)

[Badlego]

In DCS, How does a AIM 120 behave while flying to a target that is tracked in tws Mode? Before Pitbull.

 

Is it continously following the maneuvers or in discrete steps when the Radar updates the targets position and Velocity?

[GGTharos]

Like all missiles in DCS, it continuously follows target maneuvers. In RL it would probably change things according to program - maybe every second, maybe every two or more, depending on time-to-go. That's partly due to TWS and partly due to energy conservation - SARH missiles do it for the latter reason also ... in RL.