Notching SAM radars\missiles in DCS World?

[bies]

On 3/7/2021 at 9:32 PM, Northstar98 said:

But to be honest DCS AI RADARs are incredibly simplified - DCS doesn't even account for the rough frequency band. It simulates no limitations aside from LOS and maybe RCS AFAIK (and even then, different RADAR bands will have different RCS values).

 

With dedication and resources, like i.e. new Integrated Air Defense module DCS can reasonably realistically recreate systems like MIM Hawk, S-25, S-125, Nike Hercules, S-200. Maybe somewhat reasonably approximate very first 1980s phased array PATRIOT or S-300 with their limited memory and processing power - but this at the very stretch with some guestimation.

 

2000s systems after computer revolution, with their super sophisticated algorithms, systems more strictly classified than modern aircrafts it will be always extremely simplified and completely fictional.

 

I hope new IDS allow to simulate at least Cold War systems reasonably realistically.

 

@Noctrachand @Northstar98thx for the YT link and .lua files description.

[Lurker]

2 minutes ago, bies said:

 

With dedication and resources, like i.e. new Integrated Air Defense module DCS can reasonably realistically recreate systems like MIM Hawk, S-25, S-125, Nike Hercules, S-200. Maybe somewhat reasonably approximate very first 1980s phased array PATRIOT or S-300 with their limited memory and processing power - but this at the very stretch with some guestimation.

 

2000s systems after computer revolution, with their super sophisticated algorithms, systems more strictly classified than modern aircrafts it will be always extremely simplified and completely fictional.

 

I hope new IDS allow to simulate at least Cold War systems reasonably realistically.

 

@Noctrachand @Northstar98thx for the YT link and .lua files description.

 

What is this new IDS module that you are talking about? I've heard some rumors of this, I think there was a thread gauging interest in this, but is this now confirmed to be in development?

[Aarnoman]

5 minutes ago, Lurker said:

 

What is this new IDS module that you are talking about? I've heard some rumors of this, I think there was a thread gauging interest in this, but is this now confirmed to be in development?

Appears to be the case, with this thread as reference:

 

[Lurker]

Yes that's the thread I've already seen, hopefully it actually becomes a thing within DCS World. 

[Northstar98]

5 hours ago, bies said:

 

With dedication and resources, like i.e. new Integrated Air Defense module DCS can reasonably realistically recreate systems like MIM Hawk, S-25, S-125, Nike Hercules, S-200. Maybe somewhat reasonably approximate very first 1980s phased array PATRIOT or S-300 with their limited memory and processing power - but this at the very stretch with some guestimation.

 

I sure hope so. I mean, the fact that DCS just assumes the AN/MPQ-50 and AN/MPQ-55 are the exact same RADAR despite the 2 using different RADAR techniques.

 

The AN/MPQ-50 PAR (Pulse Acquisition RADAR, is a simple pulse RADAR with pulse ranging, there's nothing doppler in it and so no doppler filtering; only thing it does have is MTI (like GMT in the Hornet, but for aircraft).

 

The AN/MPQ-55 ICWAR (Improved Continuous-Wave Acquisition RADAR, is a pure CW RADAR, and I'm not sure if it has FM ranging, it might only be able to tell azimuth. Being a pure CW RADAR it must have a doppler filter, which should be active at all times - it's the only way it can detect a target AFAIK.

 

We're missing the AN/MPQ-51 ROR (Range Only RADAR), which is a pure ranging RADAR - presumably to work in conjunction with the I-CWAR or uses as a back-up ranging RADAR when the AN/MPQ-50 is jammed either by either barrage/noise OECM or by a multiple-target repeater DECM set (though, we don't have those in DCS). 

 

The PAR has a slightly longer range than the ICWAR against targets of similar RCS. Either way seeing them behind the scenes as being just duplicates of each other with different 3D models is quite disappointing IMO. The SNR-75 (SA-2 TTR/FCR)  and SNR-125 (SA-3 TTR/FCR) are the same deal; the SNR-75 in DCS is a copy of SNR-125 with a different external model - they have identical definitions for their sensors (both 'snr s-125 tr' in the .lua).

 

There are some other examples which IMO are worse - mainly when it comes to ships (the SPY-1 RADAR on board the Ticonderoga and Arleigh-Burke as treated as being an MPQ-53 - the Patriot STR/FCR).

 

Quote

I hope new IDS allow to simulate at least Cold War systems reasonably realistically.

 

Very much agreed.

 

Edited March 11, 2021 by Northstar98

[bies]

ED obviously has knowledge about older, partially declassified Cold War systems and ability to code them, but they are limited in resources - they can't do everything at once.

 

Now, ED having hands full with many priority tasks and modules, it's up to 3rd party to develop particular aspects of the simulation.

And up to multi-core to support this new aspects without degrading performance.

[Northstar98]

Agreed.

 

Though when it comes to RADARs you don't necessarily have to go massively into it, simulating every little thing as it is IRL. You can use approximations.

 

Overall, ideally we'd have:

• Whether the RADAR is 2D or 3D capable.
• Taking clutter into account - HB did this perfectly on their Tomcat, who I think used a raycasting technique. The only thing that RADAR is missing is ECM effects (and we should be able to see gate-pull offs in the DDD as it is raw RADAR video).
• The RADAR band taken into account - don't need to know the exact frequency range, an IEEA/NATO band would do. Useful for differentiating RCS values, and also for jammers (an X band jammer shouldn't be able to jam an S band RADAR for instance).
• Target tracking method used (range gate, doppler-velocity gate, conical scanning or monopulse) - again, useful for ECM.
• RADAR PRF, useful for working out things like ambiguous range for unmodulated pulse RADARs. Also useful for RWR receivers (some use raw audio for appropriate RADARs).
• An approximate radiation pattern, even if guesstimated and crude based on the antenna. If we still don't know we could assume that the older a RADAR is the the more likely it is to have larger sidelobes and back lobes. Newer RADARs should have smaller sidelobes and backlobes, and obviously phased array RADARs have negligible sidelobes and back lobes. This is important for ECM, particularly multiple target repeaters, which exploits sidelobes. In any case something is better than nothing at all IMO.

 

Communications jamming should be pretty simple, and we have radios in DCS that should be unsecure (so anybody who tunes on the same frequency would be able to listen in - provided they can receive their transmissions (range/SNR, LOS)). A communications jammer should be able to scan the spectrum, and when it hears radio-chatter on whatever frequency, it blares out noise on that frequency for a set period of time (the ones in the 1962 video above were capable of target discrimination, to stop it from jamming non-military targets). Once again, power and frequency band can be guesstimated.

 

Multiple target repeaters are a bit more involved, as this will require a higher fidelity simulation of the RADARs themselves, particularly a radiation pattern (which multiple target repeaters exploit to not only provide ambiguous range, but azimuth too). Same with track breaking - it would require simulating the actual tracking method employed (especially for RADARs where we can see the raw RADAR video) I'm not sure what the Hornet's AN/ALQ-165 currently does in DCS.

 

When it comes to determining how effective certain ECM sets are against certain RADARs, I'd be happy if it was just done by era. For instance a 1960s jammer should be effective against RADARs of the same era or older, and should become less effective to wholly infective against newer RADARs. If we don't know what techniques are employed, we can assume that ASPJs (track-breakers, like the ALQ-165 in the Hornet), are capable of all track-breaking deception techniques (range-gate pull-off, velocity-gate pull-off, scan inversion, and cross-polarisation) against X-Band RADARs at least, given that 60s equivalents were according to this video.

 

We can assume that dedicated EW aircraft (particularly larger ones( have all DECM techniques facilitated (multiple target repetition against S-Band RADARs, V/UHF communications jamming and S and X-Band (or more) track breaking).

 

In all cases I think we can guestimate transmission power and number of RADARs jammed (the 1962 analogues, the AN/ALQ-41 and AN/ALQ-51 could do up to 20). 

 

Edited March 18, 2021 by Northstar98