Russian TWS

[Geier]

F-15's AN/APG-63 in comparison with Russian fighters' N-001/ N019, which radar is better and more versatile ?

 

Can we increase expected altitude up or down to +/-15km to detect any flying objects with AN/APG-63 as we can do with MiG-29's Phazotron N019 ?

 

ps: hope someone analyze advantages & disadvantages between US and Russian radars :D

 

Interesting question, Majesco!

may be this could help you a bit

 

[GGTharos]

Nice, Geier.

 

This appears to be slightly old; the F-15C is a 9g rated aircraft, but the 7.3g restriction may have remained until they were fitted with the over-g warning system, AFAIK. Not too sure on that.

 

And I think it nicely shows why the F-15C is an energy fighter ...

[Geier]

Nice, Geier.

 

This appears to be slightly old; the F-15C is a 9g rated aircraft, but the 7.3g restriction may have remained until they were fitted with the over-g warning system, AFAIK. Not too sure on that.

 

And I think it nicely shows why the F-15C is an energy fighter ...

 

Thanks GG. Same here. As for me this data belongs to late 80th. Look at the Ru planes figures. There's no definite info even about the Su and Mig gun ^^

 

Edited: really the date of issue is 1984. So it shows the level of NATO knowledge of our planes in middle 80th. AFAIR I have got the same picture from 80-90, but it's the point our air force. Interesting to make a comparison. Try to find it.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

R-33 is an example of SARH missile guided all the way (in TWS?) to the target. And this was some three decades ago.

 

Tomcat radar was not sophisticated enough, thus ARH, AIM-54.

 

The AIM-54 is an example of SARH-to-ARH for terminal: It had no datalink, rather inertial + SARH guidance to ARH range (every time the F-14 radar swept over the target in TWS mode, the missile would see the flash in SARH mode and correct course if necessary ... but this was not adequate for terminal guidance, therefore ARH was used)

[GGTharos]

Incorrect. The R-33 is guided very much like a SARH missile would be. The PESA radar provides an STT-like track and guidance for up to 4 targets. This is the advantage of ESA's, and it is incorrect to compare them to MSA's using the same terminology because it is too confusing; at this point, ESA 'TWS' is not comparable to MSA TWS due to the ability of the ESA to revisit the tracked target literally thousants of times by the time an MSA would revisit it. No comparison.

 

As for the Tomcat, the NAVY decided that the MSA APG-9 was more cost effective and lighter, and less prone to failure than an ESA similar to the MiG-31's; I can't even imagine what sort of 'early adopter' issues that must have gone through.

 

R-33 is an example of SARH missile guided all the way (in TWS?) to the target. And this was some three decades ago.

 

Tomcat radar was not sophisticated enough, thus ARH, AIM-54.

[Geier]

R-33 is an example of SARH missile guided all the way (in TWS?) to the target. And this was some three decades ago.

 

As I know the Mig31 radar doesn't change the mode after lock with R33 so the enemy has no chance to identify the launch moment. I really don't know the exact name of this mode. Sure it isn't TWS or SNP but what then?

[GGTharos]

^^^^

 

The same is probably true of F-15C with Sparrow/AMRAAM and also Su-27/MiG-29 with R-27. It is still an STT mode; ESA's are capable of doing MTT without the disadvantages inherent to MTT with MSA's.

[Geier]

^^^^

 

The same is probably true of F-15C with Sparrow/AMRAAM and also Su-27/MiG-29 with R-27. It is still an STT mode; ESA's are capable of doing MTT without the disadvantages inherent to MTT with MSA's.

Clear now. Interesting, though I suppose there will be the disadvantage because the wide range of Mig's radar.

 

Ohhh what I have just found O_O

 

Look at this

 

http://www.f15sim.com/reference/tews1.jpg

 

and check this site

 

http://www.f15sim.com/

[Vekkinho]

Nice find Geier!

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Of course it is comparable. One system was using mechanical beam control the other electronic, to do the same job (TWS). Soviet technology was better at the time. There is nothing wrong with that.

 

PESA, STT, ESA, MSA, TWS, СНП … :)

Incorrect. The R-33 is guided very much like a SARH missile would be. The PESA radar provides an STT-like track and guidance for up to 4 targets. This is the advantage of ESA's, and it is incorrect to compare them to MSA's using the same terminology because it is too confusing; at this point, ESA 'TWS' is not comparable to MSA TWS due to the ability of the ESA to revisit the tracked target literally thousants of times by the time an MSA would revisit it. No comparison.

[Majesco]

Oops, "Vertical scan mode" [3] and "Bore mode" [4] are activate AN/APG-63 radar on F-15C automatically while the same functions on Russian fighters do not make radar active, they make Rus aircrafts more stealthy :D

Edited June 28, 2008 by Majesco

[GGTharos]

Comparable in what? In that they are both radars?

There's no comparison between their track while scan modes. They're not anywhere close to the same thing which is why one can guide a SARH missile, and the other cannot; but it's okay if you don't get it, it really is ;)

 

Of course it is comparable. One system was using mechanical beam control the other electronic, to do the same job (TWS). Soviet technology was better at the time. There is nothing wrong with that.

 

PESA, STT, ESA, MSA, TWS, СНП … :)

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

… but it's okay if you don't get it, it really is ;)

 

I was not talking about you “getting” it or not. Weather you understand TWS or not, is not the subject of this thread either. You are turning this discussion into personal attack instead of talking about Russian TWS.

 

Let us talk about Russian TWS, that’s all this thread is about.

[GGTharos]

I'm not sure how that matters. Assuming they are used in a turning fight like they're supposed to, rather than a sneak attack (which can also be executed by an F-15), then the point is quite moot anyway.

 

Oops, "Vertical scan mode" [3] and "Bore mode" [4] are activate AN/APG-63 radar on F-15C automatically while the same functions on Russian fighters do not make radar active, they make Rus aircrafts more stealthy :D

[GGTharos]

The relevant question was answered before you tried to turn this into a MiG-31 thread. ;)

 

I was not talking about you “getting” it or not. Weather you understand TWS or not, is not the subject of this thread either. You are turning this discussion into personal attack instead of talking about Russian TWS.

 

Let us talk about Russian TWS, that’s all this thread is about.

[S77th-konkussion]

Oops, "Vertical scan mode" [3] and "Bore mode" [4] are activate AN/APG-63 radar on F-15C automatically while the same functions on Russian fighters do not make radar active, they make Rus aircrafts more stealthy :D

 

I suppose that's true on paper- but even in LOMAC there's not much advantage unless the EOS platform gets behind the target.

 

No small feat in LOMAC- and downright unlikely in the real skies.

[Geier]

As it was promised I post the results of similar research but made by our specialists.

 

First table shows the comparison of flight characteristics

 

The ability of horisontal maneuvers Su27 vs F15

 

 

The field of maneuvre fight between F15A and Mig 29A

 

[59th_LeFty]

No, this is incorrect. The Russian SNP is a real TWS mode. The F-15 just has fire control offloading and datalink attached to that radar mode; the fact of the matter IS that a SARH missile cannot be terminally guided to a target in a TWS mode, as it requires a relatively constant illumination of the target.

 

True, I get it. One thing I don't understand so far: The expression of TWS only means that echos are analysed, and some sort of info displayed?

 

About LockOn: I know, that fire control is not possible with SARH. But what is the mechanisation of the 120s guidance procedure (TWS)? I mean programming. Does it goes after the selected target, like it was locked on in STT? Or there's a data link between the radar and the missile, and whenever target info is available, it sends to the misile? (I would be surprised)

 

SNP gives less info and doesn't permit you to see a whole lot of info on multiple targets, which is a DISPLAY/usability issue. The radar is still providing all that info anyway.

 

I'm lost :) I don't get it. You mean that the radar "knows" the specified target information, it only doesn't display it?

 

The AIM-54 is an example of SARH-to-ARH for terminal: It had no datalink, rather inertial + SARH guidance to ARH range (every time the F-14 radar swept over the target in TWS mode, the missile would see the flash in SARH mode and correct course if necessary ... but this was not adequate for terminal guidance, therefore ARH was used)

 

Clear.

[Vekkinho]

Geier can U please explain latest diagram (MiG-29 vs F-15A)!

 

I don't understand it too much!

[GGTharos]

Specifically, for me - it means echos are analyzed for vector as opposed to a raw radar hit (RWS), and closure. What you do with the info (automatic processing, display, anything else) is beyond the scope of TWS; as in, TWS provides this info, it's up to you to do something with it, be it automatically selecting the highest priority target, or displaying info :)

 

True, I get it. One thing I don't understand so far: The expression of TWS only means that echos are analysed, and some sort of info displayed?

 

In lock on, TWS is really more like an ESA's SWT (Scan While Track) in that Lock On lacks the 'defficiency' of updating a designated target only once per sweep - though it's not that big a deal because there are other things missing from the radar which make that relatively useless.

 

The way LO implements the datalink-to-terminalis a bit odd, and I'll explain it a little more in depth later 'cause I have to run right now :)

 

About LockOn: I know, that fire control is not possible with SARH. But what is the mechanisation of the 120s guidance procedure (TWS)? I mean programming. Does it goes after the selected target, like it was locked on in STT? Or there's a data link between the radar and the missile, and whenever target info is available, it sends to the misile? (I would be surprised)

 

 

Yes. My bad, I wasn't clean enough on this. :) TWS is an internal radar function that actually computes all this information and provides it to the user to do whatever he likes with it. So, the info is there, computed by the N-001, but the manufacturer chose to use it to have the computer selectt he highest threat instead of displaying info to you - the (real) F-15C does both; you can auto-designate a target in some manner, but you also see all the info.

 

I'd also like to point out that I believe a lot of this info should be displayed on the FDL for the flanker, which we don't have in LO.

 

I'm lost :) I don't get it. You mean that the radar "knows" the specified target information, it only doesn't display it?

[Geier]

Geier can U please explain latest diagram (MiG-29 vs F-15A)!

 

I don't understand it too much!

 

Ok - Look

 

Vertical figures - H - height - km

Horizontal - V - speed - km/h

 

Fields of possible fight

 

I, II, IV - equal possibilities of fight between 15A and 29A by g-forces and small superiority of F15 by constant turn and by rate of climb.

 

III, V - equal possibilities by all maneuvre characteristics and small Mig's superiority by rate of climb

[Geier]

 

 

I'd also like to point out that I believe a lot of this info should be displayed on the FDL for the flanker, which we don't have in LO.

^^^^

Like this?

 

 

 

Edited June 28, 2008 by Geier
Added by request ^^

[59th_LeFty]

Thanks, GGTharos!

 

One DCS question, I don't want this thread move way out the topic.... If ever a radar-equipped plane is implemented in DCS, do we get a truly modelled radar for it? (of course within the limits of LO and programming)

[GGTharos]

Good work Geier, this is it :)

 

First, disclaimer: I am just a Beta Tester, so my information on the future of DCS might not be terribly accurate; do not take my word as official word :)

 

LeFty, DCS aims to model each aircraft with the same or better fidelity as the Ka-50. So, the radar implementation will hopefuly be one of the best out there; in terms of getting all the modes and displayes - the ones that are known about - of course you will get them, because of what I said above :)

 

Will we get a radar equipped plane in the future? You bet! You may have noticed that already the MiG-29A, Su-27P/S, F-15C and F-16C are on DCS' 'hit list' :)

 

DCS will go beyond the limits of LO. LO is old code; a lot of people are mad that ED has stopped developing LO, but it was a good decision. I will illustrate why and answer your question on datalinks at the same time:

 

A real missile launch looks something like this, and works the same for TWS or STT launch:

 

1. Radar Detection

2. Designation

3. Target data download to missile and firing of missile (both when trigger is pulled)

4. Datalink signal generation for the missile

5. Missile flight to intercept point using INS.

6. Target data updated via datalink (Mid Course Updates)

7. Correction of flight to intercept using INS (repeat throughout flight)

8. Missile goes terminal when it reaches the intercept point, turning its own seeker on

and (this is a guess by me ... it probably is not the same for all missiles - esp. AMRAAM) inhibits further datalink data - the missile now guides on its own.

 

NOTE: Up to here, SARH and ARH are the same. The difference is that at this point an Aircraft launching an ARH missile can disengage.

 

This is also the same whether the missile was launched in TWS or STT. However, some fire control radars will not generate a launch command or datalink without tracking in STT (eg. Flanker or MiG radar).

 

 

Now ... going back to LO:

 

If you launch an AMRAAM in LO (or any radar missile) at long range, you'll see it will enter a lofted flight profile. This is the same for TWS and STT. If now the datalink is disrupted (break lock on targeT), the missile will conditnue to fly STRAIGHT AHEAD. There is no INS based flight to the intercept point. So, the LO missiles are missing something. You will also note that TWS flight is like STT flight, but without the warning :)

 

Going back to the decision to go with DCS and finish with LO; the missile code in LO, as I understand it, is old and kantakerous. It is better to simply create a new, better, more flexible radar, missile, and everything model in this case :)

[Geier]

Good work Geier, this is it :)

:)

 

 

Now ... going back to LO:

 

If you launch an AMRAAM in LO (or any radar missile) at long range, you'll see it will enter a lofted flight profile. This is the same for TWS and STT. If now the datalink is disrupted (break lock on targeT), the missile will conditnue to fly STRAIGHT AHEAD. There is no INS based flight to the intercept point. So, the LO missiles are missing something. You will also note that TWS flight is like STT flight, but without the warning :)

That's it! I can add IRL after the breaking lock the missile won't hit the target anycase it makes no maneuvers. Even the IR missilles misses if the bandit gets away from the IR seaker wich has far narrow field of view than in LO.

 

Going back to the decision to go with DCS and finish with LO; the missile code in LO, as I understand it, is old and kantakerous. It is better to simply create a new, better, more flexible radar, missile, and everything model in this case :)

Agree , and there should be a distinct system of AWACS (or ground radar offcer) transactions. This required a ver good modelling in the way we want a real-like battle sutiations. Otherwise we get the same picture we have in Lo now but with more accurate data though )