TWS

[Banzaiib]

Will TWS work when EA begins? Or will it be a later add-on?

[=OPS=Slider]

Even tho it's gonna be called "early access" or "open beta", Heatblur claims that it's gonna be more complete rather than incomplete.

[kengou]

I am expecting TWS to be there. I believe major features will all be present and the TWS is sort of the selling point of the AWG-9.

[BlackLion213]

Yes, TWS works now and will be working during EA.

 

-Nick

[Kazius]

From what I am getting out of all the hype. It would probably be a very short list for Heatblur to just post what won't be implemented until later :)

[turkeydriver]

If you watched the livestream- you saw AIM-54 launches on F-5s...these were taken in TWS.

[Blaze1]

Does Heatblur model the manoeuvring limitations imposed on the F-14 by the TWS modes, as well as the consequences of exceeding those limitations?

[Naquaii]

Does Heatblur model the manoeuvring limitations imposed on the F-14 by the TWS modes, as well as the consequences of exceeding those limitations?

 

Yes. Though depending on how closely we will end up modelling the AIM-54 it may vary.

[Blaze1]

Yes. Though depending on how closely we will end up modelling the AIM-54 it may vary.

If you don't mind me asking, what is the correlation between the AIM-54 model and the TWS model?

[Naquaii]

It relates to the fact that the AIM-54 as far as we've found needs to receive an active message from the AWG-9 to go active at all which would force the F-14 to keep track of targets until the missiles go active via that command.

 

Currently our AIM-54s behave more like AIM-120s in that respect and can go active on their own, we're working on changing this however.

[Blaze1]

It relates to the fact that the AIM-54 as far as we've found needs to receive an active message from the AWG-9 to go active at all which would force the F-14 to keep track of targets until the missiles go active via that command.

 

Currently our AIM-54s behave more like AIM-120s in that respect and can go active on their own, we're working on changing this however.

I see.

 

Sorry, my previous message wasn't very clear/specific. The limitations I was thinking about are those imposed because of TWS being sensitive to aircraft (ownship) motion, so there are pitch rate, roll rate and g-limits in place to prevent venturing into antenna stabilisation problems, which will cause loss of TWS processing and the dropping of tracks.

[Naquaii]

I see.

 

Sorry, my previous message wasn't very clear/specific. The limitations I was thinking about are those imposed because of TWS being sensitive to aircraft (ownship) motion, so there are pitch rate, roll rate and g-limits in place to prevent venturing into antenna stabilisation problems, which will cause loss of TWS processing and the dropping of tracks.

 

Ok, yeah, because of the nature of the TWS track and that we've actually modelled the track files and so on in the AWG-9 that's kinda already in.

 

Like in the real aircraft the best TWS results are if you fly straight and level and we are tuning it to try to be as realistic in this regard as possible.

[GGTharos]

Why would ownship maneuvering cause problems? The radar should have plenty of torque to deal with maneuvering, and a missed hit shouldn't cause huge deals for a track, should that happen.

[Blaze1]

That's great to hear Naquaii.:thumbup:

 

Off the top of my head, I think those limits are a maximum of 12°/s in pitch, 60°/s in roll and 3G.

[GGTharos]

That would make the AWG-9 a little less impressive.

[Naquaii]

Why would ownship maneuvering cause problems? The radar should have plenty of torque to deal with maneuvering, and a missed hit shouldn't cause huge deals for a track, should that happen.

 

It has more to do with the precision of the F-14 INS and it's ability to correlate new returns with old track files. It's not necessary to see the target with each radar sweep but when you're maneuvering it adds errors to the system.

 

That and the fact that this is one of the earliest examples of a system like this.

[falcon_120]

That would make the AWG-9 a little less impressive.

Not at all given the year it was made. In any case you normally dont do crazy maneuvers in the long range bvr phase, certainly no need for a hard 5g turn for a crank.

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

[Dudikoff]

It has more to do with the precision of the F-14 INS and it's ability to correlate new returns with old track files. It's not necessary to see the target with each radar sweep but when you're maneuvering it adds errors to the system.

 

There's something similar in the Su-27 manual - during the midcourse guidance phase of the missile there are some limitations on maneuvering (the airplane shouldn't change its horizontal angle by more than 60 degrees per second; 30 for R-27R missiles made before mid-1986) to ensure correct calculations for the missile updates.

Edited January 27, 2019 by Dudikoff

[FWind]

It relates to the fact that the AIM-54 as far as we've found needs to receive an active message from the AWG-9 to go active at all which would force the F-14 to keep track of targets until the missiles go active via that command.

 

Currently our AIM-54s behave more like AIM-120s in that respect and can go active on their own, we're working on changing this however.

 

The AIM-54C have comman-inertial.It will like AIM-120？

[GGTharos]

Interesting. Makes some sense I suppose, though 3G is a very restrictive limitation.

 

 

 

It has more to do with the precision of the F-14 INS and it's ability to correlate new returns with old track files. It's not necessary to see the target with each radar sweep but when you're maneuvering it adds errors to the system.

 

That and the fact that this is one of the earliest examples of a system like this.

[whiteladder]

It has more to do with the precision of the F-14 INS and it's ability to correlate new returns with old track files. It's not necessary to see the target with each radar sweep but when you're maneuvering it adds errors to the system.

 

That and the fact that this is one of the earliest examples of a system like this.

 

The Haynes manual on the F-14 has a section where they talk about this:

 

"The AN/AWG-9 was married to an early mechanical gyroscope-driven INS, which was relatively reliable. It did, however, have a propensity for failure during dynamic flight. When this happened, AN/AWG-9 processing (which relied on the INS to determine the F14 dynamics and the radar tracking to determine the bogeys dynamics )suffered. Following an INS failure, the RIO would rapidly switch the AN/AWG-9 into pulse mode and use basic geometry and mental gymnastics to keep track of the radar picture."

[Bad Idea Hat]

The Haynes manual on the F-14 has a section where they talk about this:

 

"The AN/AWG-9 was married to an early mechanical gyroscope-driven INS, which was relatively reliable. It did, however, have a propensity for failure during dynamic flight. When this happened, AN/AWG-9 processing (which relied on the INS to determine the F14 dynamics and the radar tracking to determine the bogeys dynamics )suffered. Following an INS failure, the RIO would rapidly switch the AN/AWG-9 into pulse mode and use basic geometry and mental gymnastics to keep track of the radar picture."

 

 

Ahh, the point where I put my finger on my nose and call "not the RIO!"

[Dino Might]

So, with the need for pitbull signal from ownship, that means losing TWS lock midcourse trashes the missile? I'm curious whether it makes sense to start shooting Fox3s into a scrum. Only concern for blue one blue there would be that the missile seeker loses track after it has gone pitbull and then re-acquires on friendly, right? Suspect that is less likely than ownship losing midcourse TWS track, which is a big concern for BVR 120 shots into the furball.

[GGTharos]

The WCS could still give the 'go active' command after losing track, just to ensure that the missile is not completely lost. Does it? I don't know :D

 

As for shooting 120s into a furball - why? Just why? You shouldn't be shooting anything into a furball until you can get that bandit isolated. If you believe it can't happen with a SARH or IRH missile, that's just because DCS doesn't model it but circumstances can certainly exist to make this happen.

 

So, with the need for pitbull signal from ownship, that means losing TWS lock midcourse trashes the missile? I'm curious whether it makes sense to start shooting Fox3s into a scrum. Only concern for blue one blue there would be that the missile seeker loses track after it has gone pitbull and then re-acquires on friendly, right? Suspect that is less likely than ownship losing midcourse TWS track, which is a big concern for BVR 120 shots into the furball.

[turkeydriver]

Some one with more knowledge help me here. AWG-9/ AIM-54/F-14 combo as advertised, tracks 24, shoots 6, and each AIM-54 is coded to its own target. Does this just mean Missile EPROMs hold a register that matches a track file in the AWG-9 computer? I was hoping this meant the missile once coded and fired, could not go mad dog on a blue aircraft. Anyone with knowledge help me out here if you can.