[INCLUDE TRACK] Incoming MRM and RWR

[-NMS- Ikaros]

Hello.

 

While being chased by aim -120 missiles the position of the M symbol on the RWR is always steady in distance at the inner threat circle and it never changes distance threat relative like it does in the F-16. This way i never know when the missile has lost the pursuit capability and i keep spending fuel to evade it..

 

Could this be changed to make this great aircraft even better?

 

Thank you.

Edited November 5, 2020 by Wags

[dorianR666]

this affects all emitters in hornets rwr, it completely ignores distance. for example, IRL the lethal/critical stems on HUD change their length based on estimated threat level ("distance"), but they dont in dcs hornet. equivalent issue with placement of emitters within rwr rings.

 

i think what you report is just a special case of this larger issue - dcs hornets rwr displays only type of emission (not locked/locked/launch), not "distance".

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/english/digital-combat-simulator/dcs-f-a-18c-hornet/wish-list-aa/236921-rwr-correct-as-is-is-the-rwr-complete

[-NMS- Ikaros]

Got it, but is it so hard to be fixed?

 

RWR is a major contributor in Situational awareness and without it functioning like it should the hornet will be inferior in this aspect.

[Ahmed]

The RWR cannot magically judge distance..... The Hornet RWR can classify threats as non-lethal, lethal and critical (just ED has implemented it wrong imo, based on public docs and available HUD tapes, as has been reported plenty of times), but, in any case, a reasonable educated guess is that any 120s locked on you would be presented as critical threat together with anything causing ML tone.

 

There is no such a thing as "progressive lethality" moving towards the center of the RWR as the OP requests.

[-NMS- Ikaros]

How come in the F-16 does the M Symbol change position in relation to the threat circle distance then?

 

I mean that in the F-16 the contacts and missile symbols are progressive.

[Ahmed]

Because the DCS viper simulates the ALR-56M, and the DCS hornet simulates the ALR-67(V)

[dorianR666]

The RWR cannot magically judge distance..... The Hornet RWR can classify threats as non-lethal, lethal and critical

there is no need for magic.

signal strength (="distance"), among other things, is factored into distinguishing between non-lethal and lethal rings. its kind of the whole point of it, lethal = within range of posing threat but not yet being a threat. currently in dcs hornet, this is done purely by presence of absence of STT lock.

 

the thread i linked compiles links to many reports containing evidence of this ability, unfortunately it appears ED locked/deleted most of them (1.16?).

[Harker]

there is no need for magic.

signal strength (="distance"), among other things, is factored into distinguishing between non-lethal and lethal rings. its kind of the whole point of it, lethal = within range of posing threat but not yet being a threat. currently in dcs hornet, this is done purely by presence of absence of STT lock.

 

Yep, correlation of the emitted signal strength with that platform's max known lethal range (and some extra, for good measure) is what determines if the signal is considered "safe" or "lethal". There is a certain unclassified document for the first iteration of the AN/ALR-67 that describes this process.

 

Heatblur's F-14 (ALR-67) has a more useful approach, where it will place any hostile, potentially dangerous emitter in the lethal ring, regardless of distance, but this is also wrong.

 

 

Razbam's AV-8B is the only module of the three that has a mostly correct logic for its ALR-67(V)2 (I believe it's the (V)2, like our Hornet). Emitters belonging to potentially dangerous systems are placed on the safe ring until they are close enough to pose a threat, whereupon at this point they are moved to the lethal band. That's correct.

 

There's an issue there (which might not be an issue and it could very well be how the real thing works) with the threat being moved to the critical band when it gets particularly close even if it's not guiding a missile or locking you and it flashes if it locks and/or fires, but the HUD RWR cues differentiate between the latter two. That logic could actually make sense though (safe, lethal, very lethal, critical). So, the AV-8B's RWR can currently be used to obtain full situational awareness about emitters around you.

 

ED should take a look at the AV-8B's RWR logic and implement it in the Hornet. Both aircraft have the exact same RWR and the way it works in the AV-8B makes much more sense, according to available, unclassified information.

[Ahmed]

Agree with all you say, Harker. Also especially with the 3rd parties having done a better job than ED despite multiple bug reports on the issue, and I hope that ED some day revisit their general ALR-67 simulation and also HUD EW symbology.

 

However, regarding the OP's claim, there is a big difference between being able to classify a particular emitter as lethal and non-lethal depending on plenty of signal characteristics, including power, and being able to estimate if a monopulse radar active missile locked on your aircraft "has lost pursuit capability" or not (in OP's words).

[Harker]

However, regarding the OP's claim, there is a big difference between being able to classify a particular emitter as lethal and non-lethal depending on plenty of signal characteristics, including power, and being able to estimate if a monopulse radar active missile locked on your aircraft "has lost pursuit capability" or not (in OP's words).

 

I went a bit OT before, but yes, I agree with this (educated guess, nothing more). The RWR is not based on pure signal analysis. It's there to warn the pilot and the plane and it operates on a "better safe than sorry" basis.

 

Your RWR doesn't know the kinematic state of the missile. For the sake of conversation, let's say that your RWR can calculate that the signal is emitted from roughly 5 NM away. How does it know if the missile is going Mach 2 or Mach 0.2? Perhaps it can calculate that too, but it'll take time to determine - time you can't afford to lose, if it turns out that the first case is true. It's safer to assume that any active missile seeker is a threat at all times. The pilot can gauge the actual threat and choose to ignore the warning, based on their experience and their situational awareness.

[-NMS- Ikaros]

In the F-16 i know that the missile has lost its kinematic energy when the symbol is moving outwards, or a contact at my six cannot shoot me if it is on the outer ring.

[Harker]

In the F-16 i know that the missile has lost its kinematic energy when the symbol is moving outwards, or a contact at my six cannot shoot me if it is on the outer ring.

Different RWR. The F-16 has the ALR-56M. AFAIK, that one primarily displays signal strength, it's simpler. Different logic, different implementation. The Hornet's RWR would be much more useful if the more complicated threat ring logic was modeled correctly.

[-NMS- Ikaros]

I cannot believe that a newer type of RWR like the ALR-67 shows just bearing to threat and thats all for a 60+ million worth jet.

[dundun92]

Your forgetting that IRL pilots arent playing games like yours with evading AIM-120s. They have a minimum abort range for a reason. They arent timing missile defense based on exactly how far away it is on the RWR. Not only may the RWR display not be capable of showing it, RWRs arent that accurate IRL, definitely not for this kind of thing. The F-16 RWR (along with most DCS RWRs) in vastly overmodeled and is wayyy to accurate. Not that I dont evade missiles the same way in DCS. But just saying I dont expect it for an RWR IRL.

[-NMS- Ikaros]

I understand your point and you are very right, but is the real ALR-67 showing signal strength? If yes it should be modeled in Game for us DCS F-18 operators to have "better sa"

 

Only a real F-18 pilot could answer about this.

[Swift.]

I understand your point and you are very right, but is the real ALR-67 showing signal strength? If yes it should be modeled in Game for us DCS F-18 operators to have "better sa"

 

Only a real F-18 pilot could answer about this.

 

There are a fair amount of hornet HUD tapes showing the HUD EW, haven't seen any yet that show signal strength

[-NMS- Ikaros]

The one on the HUD is advisory i think, the one one the lower right is of our interest.

[Ahmed]

Tlepolemos, there are real manuals, publicly available, that describe this. I advise you get ahold of them and read them before insisting more on your point.

[-NMS- Ikaros]

Tlepolemos, there are real manuals, publicly available, that describe this. I advise you get ahold of them and read them before insisting more on your point.

 

Please show me.

[Ziptie]

 

Please show me.

 

We are not allowed to share NATOPS manuals here on the forum - but you can google search for it and reference the items you desire to reference.

 

Cheers,

 

Ziptie