AIM 54 STT vs TWS

[Ignition]

The manual says that in PD STT the AIM-54 has more range (about +10nm) than TWS because it receives more imput corrections.

Since STT will alert the enemy of the missile launch and it may start maneuver defensively earlier.

Wouldn't this be counterproductive?

[104th_Maverick]

Since STT will alert the enemy of the missile launch and it may start maneuver defensively earlier.

Wouldn't this be counterproductive?

 

Yes, against a fighter it would. Keep in mind, the aircraft was designed to take down large targets at long range who don't necessarily have the avionics onboard to detect a launch in STT.

[Nosferatuwhisky 1-1]

And the targets the Tomcat was primarily designed to take down would never be able to defeat a missile through maneuver. Imagine a Bear trying to do that.

[Ignition]

Of course, I didn't thought about old big planes.

 

 

Against modern fighters I guess stt is more effective (than TWS) at closer ranges.

[OnlyforDCS]

Well it all depends on the situation at hand. I think STT has some advantages over TWS and vice versa.

 

For example when firing into a target rich environment, it might be important to make sure a particular target has priority.

 

It is also much easier to retain lock on a target with a PD STT lock, especially when maneuvering. Remember in TWS the radar cone scans only 20 degrees either left or right. In STT you are only limited by your radar gimbals, which gives you more tactical options when engaging a single target.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Well it all depends on the situation at hand. I think STT has some advantages over TWS and vice versa.

 

For example when firing into a target rich environment, it might be important to make sure a particular target has priority.

 

It is also much easier to retain lock on a target with a PD STT lock, especially when maneuvering. Remember in TWS the radar cone scans only 20 degrees either left or right. In STT you are only limited by your radar gimbals, which gives you more tactical options when engaging a single target.

 

Just a bit more info: you're limited to 20 degrees with a 4bar scan; you can scan 40 degrees left/right with a 2bar.

[umkhunto]

Cruise missiles don't care about STT or TWS and the improved guidance updates from locking in STT, might be a preference if you're shooting at a cruise missile that is quite unlikely to take evasive action.

[Bad Idea Hat]

Cruise missiles don't care about STT or TWS and the improved guidance updates from locking in STT, might be a preference if you're shooting at a cruise missile that is quite unlikely to take evasive action.

 

 

The down side is that you can only focus on one missile at a time.

Somewhat related, but I suspect the only time Tomcats would have taken a six Phoenix loadout would have been in the case of "bomber strike inbound." In that case, getting their 6 missiles assigned in TWS mode, along with datalink to coordinate targets, would have been key.

[Ignition]

Cruise missiles don't care about STT or TWS and the improved guidance updates from locking in STT, might be a preference if you're shooting at a cruise missile that is quite unlikely to take evasive action.

 

 

That brings the question... can the AWG-9 see and track a cruise missile at 60nm?

 

 

And an even further thinking..., can a phoenix be guided with the radar of another F-14 (at least irl)?

[Victory205]

Rooskie Cruise Missiles were huge when the Tomcat/AIM54 were a thing...

[Fri13]

Why to use a TWS on a target that can maneuver, and you anyways need to guide the missile up to the range to command the missile seeker go active? About or less than 10 nm (18.5 km) for fighter when head-on or less than 6 nm (11km) when tail-chase, or below if you don't activate the missile own seeker.

 

That after a possibly long flight, with a limited scan zone and update rate, possibly good inaccuracy for target position and heading because their tactics....

 

If the target has a RWR and own radar or information via otherwise, they will know you are there, what are your intentions and possibilities. So they will already prepare to do counter measures based your own attitude and possibilities.

 

STT is likely in most situations the way better choice to go for.

 

And when targets are some non-maneuvering targets like bombers, attackers or high speed interceptors that can't turn, change heading or speed quickly, then a TWS is a good choice if you need more than one to be taken down quickly. As they do not care about are you TWS or STT and will push forward, so you want to maximize your capabilities instead play dum.

[TAW_Blaze]

Well it all depends on the situation at hand. I think STT has some advantages over TWS and vice versa.

 

For example when firing into a target rich environment, it might be important to make sure a particular target has priority.

 

It is also much easier to retain lock on a target with a PD STT lock, especially when maneuvering. Remember in TWS the radar cone scans only 20 degrees either left or right. In STT you are only limited by your radar gimbals, which gives you more tactical options when engaging a single target.

 

I haven't finished reading the manual but I'm fairly sure it's limited to certain degrees and bars around target track, not ownship centerline. Every other implementation of TWS works like that.

 

Why to use a TWS on a target that can maneuver, and you anyways need to guide the missile up to the range to command the missile seeker go active? About or less than 10 nm (18.5 km) for fighter when head-on or less than 6 nm (11km) when tail-chase, or below if you don't activate the missile own seeker.

 

That after a possibly long flight, with a limited scan zone and update rate, possibly good inaccuracy for target position and heading because their tactics....

 

If the target has a RWR and own radar or information via otherwise, they will know you are there, what are your intentions and possibilities. So they will already prepare to do counter measures based your own attitude and possibilities.

 

STT is likely in most situations the way better choice to go for.

 

And when targets are some non-maneuvering targets like bombers, attackers or high speed interceptors that can't turn, change heading or speed quickly, then a TWS is a good choice if you need more than one to be taken down quickly. As they do not care about are you TWS or STT and will push forward, so you want to maximize your capabilities instead play dum.

 

 

Not even close when there is a dense airspace with multiple targets between 20-40 miles. If there's a formation of 6-8 guys standing off in front of you you probably won't even know where the missile came from when it goes active. In comparison if he does it in STT most likely you immediately know that there's a launch and exactly where it's coming from. Huge difference.

 

Stealth is far more important than precision. The default reflex to a launch is to turn around and run. If you give away your launch by STTing him from 20+ miles your shot is a waste guaranteed.

 

The update rate difference is meaningless in the context of the target maneuvering and the missile arriving at the wrong position. The only problem is losing the target track more easily. But this would probably only happen if they are notching, in which case the update rate is not the biggest issue.

[HAAUK]

i like to stt and scare the bejeezus out of people

[bies]

i like to stt and scare the bejeezus out of people

 

Haha, I have the same. Tomcat STT ing 5-10 random bad guys in blue flag from some sick distance can cause terror and disorganise their actions a lot:megalol:

Some are making really stupid mistakes under the pressure expecting some Phoenix incoming at any moment...