SU-33 JAM/ECM doesn’t affect AIM120 TWS shots

[jwbflyer]

Hopefully not duplicated- I was under the impression that jamming precluded TWS shots with no warning until Pitbull. So, I jam and every NATO jet is still able to throw a 120 at me with no warning until pitbull. Is this a bug, or am I wrong to expect this? Not trying to defeat a 120 with jamming, just trying to force a missile warning at launch instead of pitbull.

[ricktoberfest]

Hopefully not duplicated- I was under the impression that jamming precluded TWS shots with no warning until Pitbull. So, I jam and every NATO jet is still able to throw a 120 at me with no warning until pitbull. Is this a bug, or am I wrong to expect this? Not trying to defeat a 120 with jamming, just trying to force a missile warning at launch instead of pitbull.

 

In game, the only thing jamming does is shorten the range you can lock a target. And it really only works on FC3 aircraft. So only the F15 is susceptible to it on blue side.

[dundun92]

Theres no reason ECM would force a missile warning at launch. Even if STT was forced, STT does not give launch warnings for AMRAAMs.

[jwbflyer]

No, I’m not saying ECM forces missile warning at launch. I was under the impression that:

1) TWS was the only mode that slung missiles with no warning until active, and

2) Jamming/ECM would preclude a TWS shot, at least at longer ranges.

I am currently reaching out to a few folks for the source of this info.

 

If I remember correctly, I’ve had guys jamming where I could not acq/shoot in TWS in the 14, but switch to STT lock.

 

Regardless, if the SU-33 only reduces the range of other FC3 airplanes, then that’s not an aircraft capability (sim) issue, that’s a module integration issue between the devs and DCS/ED. IMO,R.

[jwbflyer]

Well, here it is. DCS SU-27 Manual:

 

No TWS when enemy is jamming.

 

Now, technically this source applies to the SU-27. But what I’m hearing in game play is “it only reduces a bit of range, and only in FC3 jets”. All of what we’re seeing in action, is not what the manual says.

[dundun92]

1 is incorrect, at least in DCS. Both SAM (F-16) and STT give no launch warnings for AMRAAMs. As for IRL it's going to be RWR specific, not something there's gonna be any public info about.

As for 2, for most FF aircraft jamming effects simply havent been implemented yet. Also in the ECM does completely disable Su-27 TWS at all ranges. In the F-15C it makes TWS unusable outside of 22nm.

[jwbflyer]

1 is incorrect, at least in DCS. Both SAM (F-16) and STT give no launch warnings for AMRAAMs. As for IRL it's going to be RWR specific, not something there's gonna be any public info about.

As for 2, for most FF aircraft jamming effects simply havent been implemented yet. Also in the ECM does completely disable Su-27 TWS at all ranges. In the F-15C it makes TWS unusable outside of 22nm.

 

Copy all. Thanks. Guess I’ll adjust tactics. Hope the developers and ED/DCS fully implement soon, but I’m guessing its not high on the list.

[Seaeagle]

Missile launch warning is one thing, which indeed may be RWR specific, but you should at least get a lock warning if your ECM forces the opponent radar into STT mode - it doesn't tell you whether a missile has been launched, but does give you a fair warning to expect one.

 

 

[dundun92]

Missile launch warning is one thing, which indeed may be RWR specific, but you should at least get a lock warning if your ECM forces the opponent radar into STT mode - it doesn't tell you whether a missile has been launched, but does give you a fair warning to expect one.

 

 

true, but being within the WEZ of a bandit is probably enough of a fair warning, spike/nail or otherwise :).

[ACME_WIdgets]

I read somewhere in DCS that Russian SCAN mode ihas about 15% less range than TWS mode.  Plus there is a speed trade off (the TWS is a faster scan - since it's a narrower scan cone).
When BluFor jam, the SU-xx radar switches to SCAN mode automatically - so indirectly BluFor jamming reduces the Su-xx radar range.
    My BEEF is that when BluFor jamming stops, the radar should go back to TWS AUTOMATICALLY.  Seems like a no brainer to me.

I'd also like to see the SU-xx radar target RANGE/elevation/target size be "stored" so when going from RADAR to EOIR and back to RADAR - I don't have to reset the scan distance and elevation.  This creates a HUGE advantage for BluFor in mid ranges (30-6km) as it takes many seconds to reset radar range/elevation/target size.
The same should be for the EOIR elevation - once I set EOIR elevation, remember it damn it.  Even if I go radara - eoir - radar, etc.
 

[dundun92]

34 minutes ago, ACME_Widgets said:

I read somewhere in DCS that Russian SCAN mode ihas about 15% less range than TWS mode.  Plus there is a speed trade off (the TWS is a faster scan - since it's a narrower scan cone).
When BluFor jam, the SU-xx radar switches to SCAN mode automatically - so indirectly BluFor jamming reduces the Su-xx radar range.
    My BEEF is that when BluFor jamming stops, the radar should go back to TWS AUTOMATICALLY.  Seems like a no brainer to me.

I'd also like to see the SU-xx radar target RANGE/elevation/target size be "stored" so when going from RADAR to EOIR and back to RADAR - I don't have to reset the scan distance and elevation.  This creates a HUGE advantage for BluFor in mid ranges (30-6km) as it takes many seconds to reset radar range/elevation/target size.
The same should be for the EOIR elevation - once I set EOIR elevation, remember it damn it.  Even if I go radara - eoir - radar, etc.
 

The first part is correct afaik, though I could be wrong. And I personally havent seen much of a difference detection range wise, you may want to test this yourself.

The second part I agree, but because of FC3 things it doesnt work like that, IRL this stuff is set with buttons and knobs so resetting radar modes should have no effect.

Edited December 22, 2020 by dundun92

[GGTharos]

On 11/7/2020 at 11:56 PM, jwbflyer said:

No, I’m not saying ECM forces missile warning at launch. I was under the impression that:

1) TWS was the only mode that slung missiles with no warning until active, and

2) Jamming/ECM would preclude a TWS shot, at least at longer ranges.

I am currently reaching out to a few folks for the source of this info.

 

The APG-63 is capable of tracking and attacking an ECM strobe in TWS according to the -34 (not modeled in DCS).   What the results of such an attack would be are another matter.

 

The difference for the Su-33 is that it is assumed (maybe incorrectly) to use the old radar processor that the Su27S does, which was not capable of dealing with ECM in TWS mode.

Edited December 22, 2020 by GGTharos

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

Do we know if the Su-27S and 33 ever received the Ts100M?

It seems as if maybe a later production 90s model or during overhaul since the planes are still in service would be prime time to get it

Edited December 22, 2020 by TaxDollarsAtWork

[GGTharos]

I'm pretty sure they eventually did, but sources for such things are beyond my reach - I think people in the Russian forums might be better able to search for such facts.

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

What else do we know about the Ts100M? Based on the MiG-29S numbers can we get a decent estimation on what improved n001 detection will be like? I think dish info is out there somewhere dunno what else would be a factor

[Seaeagle]

15 hours ago, ACME_Widgets said:

I read somewhere in DCS that Russian SCAN mode ihas about 15% less range than TWS mode.

That sounds odd - it should be the other way around. The longest detection range should be obtained in "Encounter"(HPRF) search mode, while TWS(SNP) involves tracking which is less than detection range - IIRC this is set to some 80% of detection range in DCS.

 

15 hours ago, ACME_Widgets said:

Plus there is a speed trade off (the TWS is a faster scan - since it's a narrower scan cone).

 

Hmm - the radar cannot scan the full azimuth range, but needs to "slice" it up into zones(left, center, right), which is set manually and AFAIK this also applies to TWS - i.e. the radar scans the same volume of space in TWS as in search.

 

15 hours ago, ACME_Widgets said:

hen BluFor jam, the SU-xx radar switches to SCAN mode automatically - so indirectly BluFor jamming reduces the Su-xx radar range.

As mentioned above, I don't think thats the case. It just precludes the use of TWS(which btw probably shouldn't be the case IRL) and denies range information in search modes.

15 hours ago, ACME_Widgets said:

My BEEF is that when BluFor jamming stops, the radar should go back to TWS AUTOMATICALLY.  Seems like a no brainer to me.

It probably should, but then the question is whether the mode setup is correct in DCS.

15 hours ago, ACME_Widgets said:

I'd also like to see the SU-xx radar target RANGE/elevation/target size be "stored" so when going from RADAR to EOIR and back to RADAR - I don't have to reset the scan distance and elevation.  This creates a HUGE advantage for BluFor in mid ranges (30-6km) as it takes many seconds to reset radar range/elevation/target size.
The same should be for the EOIR elevation - once I set EOIR elevation, remember it damn it.  Even if I go radara - eoir - radar, etc.
 

Yes radar settings that are set by knobs on the radar panel in the RL aircraft should stay, but then I guess that also requires the whole radar functionality to be overhauled.

[Seaeagle]

13 hours ago, GGTharos said:

 

The APG-63 is capable of tracking and attacking an ECM strobe in TWS according to the -34 (not modeled in DCS).   What the results of such an attack would be are another matter.

 

The difference for the Su-33 is that it is assumed (maybe incorrectly) to use the old radar processor that the Su27S does, which was not capable of dealing with ECM in TWS mode.

 

As far as I can gather both the MiG-29 and Su-27 should not necessarily be forced out of SNP due to ECM. There is a three-way switch on the radar panel for the purpose - IIRC something like; "off" - default position, one position for "normal tracking" only (ignoring jamming contacts) and one for jamming contacts only(ignoring anything else).

 

So it looks like in the off position, the radar attempts to resolve any contact on the scope and as such may be highly suceptible to ECM, while in the other positons it either filters out contacts that cannot be resolved due to interference or concentrates on those exclusively and attempts to track them by their strobes.

[Ironhand]

18 hours ago, Seaeagle said:

As far as I can gather both the MiG-29 and Su-27 should not necessarily be forced out of SNP due to ECM. There is a three-way switch on the radar panel for the purpose - IIRC something like; "off" - default position, one position for "normal tracking" only (ignoring jamming contacts) and one for jamming contacts only(ignoring anything else).

 

So it looks like in the off position, the radar attempts to resolve any contact on the scope and as such may be highly suceptible to ECM, while in the other positons it either filters out contacts that cannot be resolved due to interference or concentrates on those exclusively and attempts to track them by their strobes.

I believe the switch you are referring to is labeled “Composite Active Jamming—Active Jamming—Disabled”. It’s used to select how the radar handles the [edit] various [/edit] jamming environments. In a sense, in the real aircraft, you’re always in an SNP mode. There is no knob/button/or whatever to switch from OBZ to SNP.

Edited December 23, 2020 by Ironhand

[ACME_WIdgets]

OK, so I just ran repeated tests.  I apologize, as it is ILV mode(default) in SCN that causes the significantly reduced radar range sensitivity.
Test: Su-33 at A40 hot against 3 F-15c at A40 (abreast 23nm spacing)  in ME, open-beta.

Results:

   Su-33 radar:  SCN - ILV  = avg 45nm first detected

                          SCN - Hi   = avg 60nm first detected

                          TWS - Hi   = avg 62nm first detected

Notes: SCN and TWS show about the same azimuth coverage (23nm left or right from center F-15 at 62nm distance hot)

            If switching between SCN and TWS more than 3 times, the radar seemed to go wonky(not detect until targets were about 30nm).

[Seaeagle]

17 hours ago, Ironhand said:

I believe the switch you are referring to is labeled “Composite Active Jamming—Active Jamming—Disabled”. It’s used to select how the radar handles the [edit] various [/edit] jamming environments.

Exactly. The switch is in question(on the MiG-29 radar panel) is labeled "АП"(up position), "ОТКЛЛ"(center) and "АПК"(down position). I must admit I haven't tried to find out what the abbrivations stand for, but I once found a description of what they do - basically as you said, the switch is for setting how the radar handles ECM, but as far as I can remember it specifically mentioned SNP submode.

17 hours ago, Ironhand said:

In a sense, in the real aircraft, you’re always in an SNP mode. There is no knob/button/or whatever to switch from OBZ to SNP.

 

Well thats what I was referring to earlier about the accuracy of the mode setup in DCS. I.e. that rather than SNP being a completely separate radar routine(like in DCS), In the real aircraft it is included as a submode under main search mode with automatic transition between each step of the entire targeting sequence(search, tactical analisys/target priorisation, single target track and attack). But as I believe we have discussed at an earlier point, there is apparently a manual option to remove SNP functionality from the targeting sequence by the SNP/PPS - ZPS switch.

[Seaeagle]

12 hours ago, ACME_Widgets said:

OK, so I just ran repeated tests.  I apologize, as it is ILV mode(default) in SCN that causes the significantly reduced radar range sensitivity.

Yes "ILV"(for "Interleaved") also known as "Automatic" is a search mode that alternates between HPRF and MPRF and as such is attributed with a lower head-on detection range as compared with the pure HPRF "Encounter" search mode. In the MiG-29, the "scope" is scaled to a max range of 150 km in "Encounter", while its 100 km in "Automatic".

[jwbflyer]

On 12/22/2020 at 6:45 PM, ACME_Widgets said:

OK, so I just ran repeated tests.  I apologize, as it is ILV mode(default) in SCN that causes the significantly reduced radar range sensitivity.
Test: Su-33 at A40 hot against 3 F-15c at A40 (abreast 23nm spacing)  in ME, open-beta.

Results:

   Su-33 radar:  SCN - ILV  = avg 45nm first detected

                          SCN - Hi   = avg 60nm first detected

                          TWS - Hi   = avg 62nm first detected

Notes: SCN and TWS show about the same azimuth coverage (23nm left or right from center F-15 at 62nm distance hot)

            If switching between SCN and TWS more than 3 times, the radar seemed to go wonky(not detect until targets were about 30nm).

 

Yes, I have seen the SU-33 radar chose to just not paint an aircraft. I am visual, looking right at the 6 of another jet and no radar return (with correct prf).

[Ironhand]

1 hour ago, jwbflyer said:

 

Yes, I have seen the SU-33 radar chose to just not paint an aircraft. I am visual, looking right at the 6 of another jet and no radar return (with correct prf).

And, in those instances, what was the closure rate? Or its opposite, the rate at which the range was opening? If too low, the contact falls into the notch and isn’t displayed.

[jwbflyer]

5 hours ago, Ironhand said:

And, in those instances, what was the closure rate? Or its opposite, the rate at which the range was opening? If too low, the contact falls into the notch and isn’t displayed.

Possible but switching to EO produced nothing so if it is supposed to happen that way, then the bug would be a logic that is not allowing the EO function as well.

[TotenDead]

On 12/22/2020 at 7:37 AM, GGTharos said:

 

The APG-63 is capable of tracking and attacking an ECM strobe in TWS according to the -34 (not modeled in DCS).   What the results of such an attack would be are another matter.

 

The difference for the Su-33 is that it is assumed (maybe incorrectly) to use the old radar processor that the Su27S does, which was not capable of dealing with ECM in TWS mode.

 

 

РЭБ может повлиять на работу радара, но ключевое слово МОЖЕТ, а не 100% повлияет. Но это в реальной жизни, а не в игре.