RWS/LTWS Auto Track

[IRememberJeep]

Hopefully someone can shed some light on this for me. I'm not sure if this is functioning improperly or if it's correct as I am still learning the TWS systems. I used the forum search feature but was unable to find anything concerning this specific topic. Apologies if this has been addressed already.

 

 

 

In TWS the radar always maintains an L+S target, but when switching back to RWS the radar continues to pickup and maintain an L+S target automatically. Do I need to hit reset when switching back to RWS to stop this behavior? :joystick:

 

 

 

I'd also like to note that my RWS has LTWS enabled. Would having LTWS enabled now cause RWS to automatically provide a L+S track like this? I say now in terms of TWS being recently released.

 

 

Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

[Harker]

If you already have an L&S target in TWS, switching back to RWS should indeed maintain it. RESET will clear it, in RWS.

And yes, if you disable LTWS, then RWS doesn't display the L&S target, so it should be dropped.

[Cytarabine]

I just noticed the same behavior so would be very interested in what the answer to this is.

[Jak525]

I just noticed the same behavior so would be very interested in what the answer to this is.

See what Harker said.

 

Remember: RWS (with LTWS enabled) and TWS are not all that different. TWS really just provides scan centering / volume limitations, and the EXP/SCAN RAID modes. Other than that, they're the same. If you really want you can even fire off an AMRAAM in RWS.

[Longiron]

See what Harker said.

 

Remember: RWS (with LTWS enabled) and TWS are not all that different. TWS really just provides scan centering / volume limitations, and the EXP/SCAN RAID modes. Other than that, they're the same. If you really want you can even fire off an AMRAAM in RWS.

 

This has been my experience, generally pure TWS seems useless in 90% of engagements.

I would add to the above the ability to engage more than 2 targets with pure TWS.

But when would you really be in that situation? have 8 fat dumb and happy bombers flying in formation nose on? unlikely. Far better to nibble at the edge 2 targets at a time, which RWS/LTWS supports just fine.

I would also point that as there seems to be no hotas for switching radar modes RWS/TWS it seems pure TWS is really a specific "tool" for a specific job. ie. bomber formations, and tight packs of fighters/bombers.

[Jak525]

This has been my experience, generally pure TWS seems useless in 90% of engagements.

I would add to the above the ability to engage more than 2 targets with pure TWS.

But when would you really be in that situation? have 8 fat dumb and happy bombers flying in formation nose on? unlikely. Far better to nibble at the edge 2 targets at a time, which RWS/LTWS supports just fine.

I would also point that as there seems to be no hotas for switching radar modes RWS/TWS it seems pure TWS is really a specific "tool" for a specific job. ie. bomber formations, and tight packs of fighters/bombers.

You can guide against as many targets in TWS as you can in RWS. TWS is just better so you can have the scan centering and scan volume limitations.

 

Certainly though, I agree. More than 2 is pushing it, but you can do it if you want.

 

You'll have the ability to select TWS with the TDC cursor soon, as you can the bar setting, etc.

[GrEaSeLiTeNiN]

See what Harker said.

 

Remember: RWS (with LTWS enabled) and TWS are not all that different. TWS really just provides scan centering / volume limitations, and the EXP/SCAN RAID modes. Other than that, they're the same. If you really want you can even fire off an AMRAAM in RWS.

 

I thought ppl loved TWS because the opponent's RWR doesn't show any alert (unlike RWS/STT) until the AMRAAM goes active which by then is often too late to evade.

[Harker]

In my understanding, TWS and LTWS aren't the same thing. TWS provides better/faster target updates, songs it actively attacks up to 10 targets. LTWS is a sub-mode of RWS that simply displays trackfile information for the selected contacts, but its update rate is not enough to guide reliably, even though it's still technically possible.

I would appreciate someone else's input on this, if they have a clear answer.

[Jak525]

In my understanding, TWS and LTWS aren't the same thing. TWS provides better/faster target updates, songs it actively attacks up to 10 targets. LTWS is a sub-mode of RWS that simply displays trackfile information for the selected contacts, but its update rate is not enough to guide reliably, even though it's still technically possible.

I would appreciate someone else's input on this, if they have a clear answer.

RWS can also attack 10 targets. The only reason TWS has a higher update rate generally speaking is because the scan volume is forcibly smaller. A 20 degree, 2 bar scan in RWS should yield the same track quality as a 20 degree, 2 bar scan in TWS. TWS is just better cause you can center the scan to always keep the target.

[Harker]

So there's no functional difference between the two modes, besides their scan patterns? They're just enabling the pilot to do different things with the same information? Kind of how LTWS enables the pilot to do more with info collected in RWS and TWS is just one step further?

That doesn't agree with my understanding of RWS vs TWS, since RWS is not supposed to correlate radar hits (bricks), as opposed to TWS, in which the MC tries to correlate each radar return to a previous one around the same spot, according to its vector. I also thought that radar power allocation was different between the two modes, depending on the number of fully tracked targets. I thought that LTWS was just enabling this feature in RWS, unless the Hornet's radar always operates that way and indeed the two modes are just different ways to handle the available information.

[Jak525]

So there's no functional difference between the two modes, besides their scan patterns? They're just enabling the pilot to do different things with the same information? Kind of how LTWS enables the pilot to do more with info collected in RWS and TWS is just one step further?

That doesn't agree with my understanding of RWS vs TWS, since RWS is not supposed to correlate radar hits (bricks), as opposed to TWS, in which the MC tries to correlate each radar return to a previous one around the same spot, according to its vector. I also thought that radar power allocation was different between the two modes, depending on the number of fully tracked targets. I thought that LTWS was just enabling this feature in RWS, unless the Hornet's radar always operates that way and indeed the two modes are just different ways to handle the available information.

From my understanding yes, pretty much. RWS correlates the hits as well. LTWS doesn't change any operation of the radar, it's just a user interface option to show the trackfiles. The mode that's truly different is Velocity Search which we don't have. This mode shows closure rate opposed to range and doesn't create trackfiles (or might create angle only tracks).

[IRememberJeep]

If you already have an L&S target in TWS, switching back to RWS should indeed maintain it. RESET will clear it, in RWS.

And yes, if you disable LTWS, then RWS doesn't display the L&S target, so it should be dropped.

 

This track isn’t the same L+S. For example I had switched from TWS to RWS and did a 180 which effectively breaks any track/lock. Now that I am in RWS and going in another direction RWS will automatically provide an L+S track on the closest target. This is a completely different aircraft, I’m now in RWS/LTWS.

 

Now is this normal behavior because LTWS is enabled in RWS? Does it still apply that I need to hit Reset when switching back to RWS if LTWS is enabled to prevent the RWS/LTWS system from providing an L+S like it does in TWS?

 

What’s throwing me off is that I switched back to RWS and this system is now acting like TWS still even on new tracks/targets in a totally different direction. I’m getting the feeling this may be wrong I do remember reading that LTWS cannot provide L+S data.

[Harker]

From my understanding yes, pretty much. RWS correlates the hits as well. LTWS doesn't change any operation of the radar, it's just a user interface option to show the trackfiles. The mode that's truly different is Velocity Search which we don't have. This mode shows closure rate opposed to range and doesn't create trackfiles (or might create angle only tracks).

Took some time to think about it. Actually yes, I do agree that LTWS is just a display option. It displays trackfile info that the MC has built. Besides range, heading, altitude, other attributes, such as IFF and rank. So RWS definitely builds and maintains trackfiles.

I'm just a bit confused as to the operation of RWS in the Hornet, then. It was always my impression that RWS doesn't correlate radar returns. It seems like it does though, in the Hornet, at least sometimes? I do occasionally notice brick trails from a single contact, which means that those two bricks weren't correlated, even though they were from the same contact (which can happen IRL, if the MC decides that those returns are not from the same contact; pretty cool to have this imperfection in DCS, if that's indeed what's happening).

My conflict stems from what I know about RWS as a radar mode (no correlation for bricks, just range, altitude, closure and heading) and what RWS does in the Hornet.

Also, it takes more processing power and returns to generate and maintain a trackfile, rather than just generating and showing uncorrelated bricks. Which means that the Hornet likely sacrifices raw detection potential for trackfile generation, although the radar and processing power of APG-73 Ph.2 might make this a non-issue. I'm guessing that RWS shows the initial return and builds the full trackfile in time, if more detection info is required.

To conclude, at least from what I've surmised, the Hornet, in both RWS and TWS, correlates radar returns, generates and maintains trackfiles, except maybe some trackfile extrapolation that TWS seems to be doing more of (that's indeed a difference that I both knew from before that also seems to exist in the DCS Hornet). The two different modes are different just from a man-machine interface perspective, in how they display that info and what they allow the pilot to do with it. Meaning that there is no difference at all in trackfile quality between a 40deg/4bar RWS track and a 40deg/4bar TWS track, the only different thing being that extrapolation.

Edited December 23, 2019 by Harker

[Harker]

This track isn’t the same L+S. For example I had switched from TWS to RWS and did a 180 which effectively breaks any track/lock. Now that I am in RWS and going in another direction RWS will automatically provide an L+S track on the closest target. This is a completely different aircraft, I’m now in RWS/LTWS.

 

 

 

Now is this normal behavior because LTWS is enabled in RWS? Does it still apply that I need to hit Reset when switching back to RWS if LTWS is enabled to prevent the RWS/LTWS system from providing an L+S like it does in TWS?

 

 

 

What’s throwing me off is that I switched back to RWS and this system is now acting like TWS still even on new tracks/targets in a totally different direction. I’m getting the feeling this may be wrong I do remember reading that LTWS cannot provide L+S data.

No, that's weird. If RWS dropped the previous L&S and especially if that track isn't in the radar's field of view anymore, it shouldn't randomly select another contact as a new L&S.

[Jak525]

Took some time to think about it. Actually yes, I do agree that LTWS is just a display option. It displays trackfile info that the MC has built. Besides range, heading, altitude, other attributes, such as IFF and rank. So RWS definitely builds and maintains trackfiles.

I'm just a bit confused as to the operation of RWS in the Hornet, then. It was always my impression that RWS doesn't correlate radar returns. It seems like it does though, in the Hornet, at least sometimes? I do occasionally notice brick trails from a single contact, which means that those two bricks weren't correlated, even though they were from the same contact (which can happen IRL, if the MC decides that those returns are not from the same contact; pretty cool to have this imperfection in DCS, if that's indeed what's happening).

My conflict stems from what I know about RWS as a radar mode (no correlation for bricks, just range, altitude, closure and heading) and what RWS does in the Hornet.

Also, it takes more processing power and returns to generate and maintain a trackfile, rather than just generating and showing uncorrelated bricks. Which means that the Hornet likely sacrifices raw detection potential for trackfile generation, although the radar and processing power of APG-73 Ph.2 might make this a non-issue. I'm guessing that RWS shows the initial return and builds the full trackfile in time, if more detection info is required.

To conclude, at least from what I've surmised, the Hornet, in both RWS and TWS, correlates radar returns, generates and maintains trackfiles, except maybe some trackfile extrapolation that TWS seems to be doing more of (that's indeed a difference that I both knew from before that also seems to exist in the DCS Hornet). The two different modes are different just from a man-machine interface perspective, in how they display that info and what they allow the pilot to do with it. Meaning that there is no difference at all in trackfile quality between a 40deg/4bar RWS track and a 40deg/4bar TWS track, the only different thing being that extrapolation.

I think RWS is or at least should extrapolate like TWS... but yeah, I agree with your conclusion.

[IRememberJeep]

No, that's weird. If RWS dropped the previous L&S and especially if that track isn't in the radar's field of view anymore, it shouldn't randomly select another contact as a new L&S.

 

That’s what I thought. Now to determine if this was caused by a latency issue or if I can reproduce it in SP.

 

I appreciate the insight. Thank you.

[IRememberJeep]

Ok so I figured out that hitting undesignate while in RWS the radar tries to, and sometimes successfully does mark targets as L+S / DT2. This is regardless of having been in TWS first or not. Shouldn’t undesignate in RWS just undesignate one’s Target?

 

Edit: Could someone explain to me what the Auto / Manual setting does for the AIM-120? This is on the Weapon screen to the left of the RCS / Size setting. Along the left side of the DDI.

Edited December 23, 2019 by IRememberJeep
Another question

[Jak525]

Ok so I figured out that hitting undesignate while in RWS the radar tries to, and sometimes successfully does mark targets as L+S / DT2. This is regardless of having been in TWS first or not. Shouldn’t undesignate in RWS just undesignate one’s Target?

 

Edit: Could someone explain to me what the Auto / Manual setting does for the AIM-120? This is on the Weapon screen to the left of the RCS / Size setting. Along the left side of the DDI.

No, in RWS Undesignate should step the L&S or swap L&S/DT2, just as it does in TWS. That is entirely correct behavior. Hit RSET to get rid of the L&S or disable LTWS.

 

Dont know, probably something to do with TWS scan centering and AMRAAM launching. Not functional as far as I can tell.

[IRememberJeep]

Ok so it's because LTWS is enabled. This is strange correct behavior in my opinion considering LTWS cannot supply L+S data, so why have that same feature in RWS/LTWS mode. Ya know? Why supply L+S if you cannot supply L+S? Why not just track and surveil? Ah well, it's the system in the Hornet apparently.

 

 

 

Is there a way to actually maintain a track in LTWS for surveillance without it losing it seconds later? Or is this somehow user error on my part? Otherewse I find it even more useless that it it would step between L+S & DT2 in LTWS.

 

 

 

For example when you single press designate it will track and box the target but then 2-3 seconds later drop it yet the target is still within radar parameters and being seen on the DDI.

 

 

Edit: I ask because it would be a cool feature to keep a DT2 on HUD while approaching two targets in RWS/LTWS.

 

 

 

 

Any info would be appreciated., especially if I'm understanding the system wrong.

Edited December 24, 2019 by IRememberJeep

[Neon67]

How many target can you engage at the same time using aim120 and tws? 2 or more?

 

Do I have to set tup the secondary target using the lock button or simply switch target using sensor depress switch?

 

Ho long should I wait after firing my missile to switch to my other targets?

 

I did some try just using the SDS, aim 120 flight straight and loose target when firing at 4 hostiles, so I must do something wrong

[VpR81]

How many target can you engage at the same time using aim120 and tws? 2 or more?

 

This is my question as well....

 

I did some research on both F/A-18 Radars, the older AN/APG-65 and the later AN/APG-73. I learned that the older AN/APG-65 in TWS mode is capable of tracking 10 targets simultaneously and attack (provide AMRAAM guidance) for up to 8 targets at the same time. Since the AN/APG-73 came in 1994 with the RUG Upgrade and all production models from Lot 16 up rolled out with the new Radar, i guess we have this Radar in the DCS Hornet as well. I couldn´find more specific data on the AN/APG-73 besides what the Raytheon homepage says, but i realy doubt they reduced the Radars multi target capability in TWS mode.

 

So if we can only attack 2 targets at the same time, i assume the DCS Hornets TWS mode isn´t complete yet..

 

edit:https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/apg73

Edited December 27, 2019 by VpR81

[Shimmergloom667]

How many target can you engage at the same time using aim120 and tws? 2 or more?

 

Do I have to set tup the secondary target using the lock button or simply switch target using sensor depress switch?

 

Ho long should I wait after firing my missile to switch to my other targets?

 

I did some try just using the SDS, aim 120 flight straight and loose target when firing at 4 hostiles, so I must do something wrong

 

The F-18 can build up to 10 trackfiles plus L&S and DT2, so that's the maximum you can engage. Easiest is to switch into TWS, have it auto-designate the L&S, FOX-3, step L&S with Undesignate-To-Designate, repeat.