Question to Devs: Can you check this out?

[GGTharos]

I got wind that the S300 and Patriot systems do -not- produce a lock OR launch warning, only search warning alone.

 

This is due to the TWS-like behavior of their radars and the Track-Via-Missile guidance in the missiles themselves which send sensor information back to the Command Post for processing instead of processing it themselves, and thus guidance commands are then generated via datalink to the missile. The warhead is detonated by fuze, impact or command.

 

It is because of this method of guidance that the Patriods missed the SCUDs in GF1. The CP had a half-second or so timing desync witht he missile - naturally, with the missile going 2km/s and the SCUD itself doing not much worse, a half second's guidance error meant a miss by over .5km on the detonation. Due to TVM guidance actual impact is less likely but with good timing sync the missile will pass within fuzing distance of the target.

 

Unfortunately I can no longer locate my sources for this, and I am wondering if ED can confirm this behaviour through their contacts and model these missile systems appropriately.

[SwingKid]

Doubtful. This would imply the TWS SA-2 also gives no lock or launch warning.

 

How did the F-16 know to shoot a HARM at the friendly-fire Patriot, from only a search tone?

 

-SK

[GGTharos]

AFAIK SA-2 is not TWS for guidance, just good old SARH ... one target at a time, unless I'm missing something?

At the same time back then they had to change radar characteristics for guidance if I recall correctly which gave the launch warning.

 

Currently, the SARH missiles used in LOMAC should not be producing launch warnings AFAIK as the radar properties to guide those remain the same as when you lock onto a target (so lock warning only)

 

As for the F-16 driver, I don't know. Was a missile launched? Was it visual? Perhaps there's some indication of tracking (faster pulses for example) but AFAIK no indication of launch at least. Anyway, it's what I heard, so I'm hoping someone could definitely confirm or deny it.

[SwingKid]

AFAIK SA-2 is not TWS for guidance, just good old SARH ... one target at a time, unless I'm missing something?

 

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/vietnam/469th/p12.htm

 

"The requirement for a single radar to track and lock on to as many as four targets simultaneously necessitates that the radar continually look at several points in space. This requirement implies that the FAN SONG searches, or scans, at the same time that it locks on to, or tracks, several targets. This was in fact the case. The FAN SONG technique of locking on while searching is called Track-While-Scan (TWS)."

 

At the same time back then they had to change radar characteristics for guidance if I recall correctly which gave the launch warning.

 

I think it was the missile tracking and datalink signals that were being picked up as indicators, but similar signals are present with Patriot and S-300. The Patriot radar vehicle has multiple phased array antennas for this. The NVN eventually learned to produce these signals without wasting missiles to make strikers jettison their payloads.

 

Currently, the SARH missiles used in LOMAC should not be producing launch warnings AFAIK as the radar properties to guide those remain the same as when you lock onto a target (so lock warning only)

 

This depends on the missile and the sophistication of the RWR. The AIM-7F used a CW illuminator after launch, the AIM-7M needs the parent radar to switch into Hi PRF, and the AIM-7M and R-27R receive datalink signals via modulations of the radar beam carrier. All of these are detectable "launch" signals.

 

As for the F-16 driver, I don't know. Was a missile launched? Was it visual? Perhaps there's some indication of tracking (faster pulses for example) but AFAIK no indication of launch at least. Anyway, it's what I heard, so I'm hoping someone could definitely confirm or deny it.

 

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_news_article787.html

 

I didn't read anything yet about a Patriot missile actually being launched in this incident.

 

Note that the all-new S-400 SAM was specifically developed to have the ability you ascribe to S-300, i.e. attacking targets with only a search signal until terminal homing:

 

http://www.missilethreat.com/systems/s-400.html

 

"The S-400 has a range of 400km, and its early warning radar is said to relay data to the interceptors in electromagnetic silence, which is useful to avoid itself being targeted."

 

whatever that means.

 

Note that there are different variants of the S-300 missile, the cheaper variant of which uses just a glorified SA-2-style command guidance. I'm not sure about the other one but I don't think it uses TVM. Nevertheless, why wouldn't TVM provide a launch tone? I would have thought TVM was just a funny variant of ARH.

 

-SK

[GGTharos]

Thanks for the link. As far as the SA-2 goes, there are apparently several versions, though last i heard it was actually required to commit several missiles to a single target, not track and attack multiples - but, I don't know. It may be using multiple radars, it may be 'locking on' its attack radar just for homing at the end-game. No idea. To me it was a leways a good old SARH weapon which necessitated STT tracking and radar property switching.

AFAIK, the radar switching to high PRF doesn't mean anything (STT is typically high PRF IIRC?)

And also, AFAIK, datalinks are not effectively detectable by RWR for reasons ranging from highly-directional low-power systems to systems being completely out of the detectable bandwidth and the possible intermittence of the signal which can make it even more difficult to detect. Furthermore it does not reveal which aircraft is being tracked. Anyway, moving on ...

 

First of all, here is my understanding of how S-300 and Patriots operate - correct me if i'm wrong ... the search radar scans the skies, and enters detected targets into a typical TWS queue. Once a target is designated for attack, the radar merely sweeps it more frequently (especially on the Patriot side) rather than maintaining an STT on it ... thus increasing accuracy. it is possible that this in and of itself generates an 'uhoh' signal for the RWR.

 

This doesn't change when the missile is launched - rather what happens is a typical MCU for the missile until terminal guidance where AFAIK radar behavior -still- doesn't change, the missile merely detects the target in SARH fashion but DOES NOT process the target return itself, instead it beams the info back to the CP which beams back steering info to get the weapon in fuze range. At the same time, the radar is also tracking the missile(s) (multiples can be comitted to a single target, up to 3 last I checked, but I'm not sure) which then makes its scanning against the target even more frequent (which COULD generate a 'missile's about to smack you, aka launch tone) so that the target updates on the seeker happen faster but it's still not the same as an STT track (therefore not a 'lock' per se). The missile goes into end-game maneuvering in the few final seconds which brings it to fuze distance.

 

Keep in mind that it is entirely possible that the HARM equipment onboard the F-16's is what warned the pilot more than anything, because there are certianly examples of allied aircraft getting a telephone pole in the face in GF1 without reaction AFAIK.

 

In addition, the official quoted says nothing about 'lock on' or anything like that - he just says they don't know what happened. Maybe the guy was being illuminated by something else and for some reason the SP mode kicked in and picked the Patriot - maybe the guy was just playing with his switches and puller the trigger accidentally. We've seen a lot of FF incidents in prettu much all the deployments,a nd it could have been nothing more than pilot disorientation.

 

There are no quotes from the pilot in that article, either, so I'll take the 'locked on' statement with a grain of salt - I really wish someone could settle the issue. :D

[GGTharos]

Have a look here. Looks like TWS until terminal ...

 

http://www.missilethreat.com/systems/patriot_pac-2_usa.html

 

Works moreor less like I described, and it would -seem- to me that there'll be no warning at least until terminal.

 

In addition, relative to the ranges quoted there it seems thatthe S-300 in the game is a bit short-ranged? It appears to have a good 100nm reach ... nope, never mind ... that's for S-200 and S-400. My bad.

 

It would be neat to see S-300P and V versions and S-200 in the game, as well as HUMRAAM and Chapparal and Patriot and PAC2. Some other versions of the S-300 as well ...

 

The Patriot seems to have a range of 35-40nm listed, so it's definitely lagging behind in terms of range ;) It -would- be nice if these SAMs actually remained effective throughout most of their listed range in the game, though I know this sort of thing depends on many variables such as target altitude etc.

[GGTharos]

Yet another link, explaining TVM a little better ...

 

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-104.html

 

... it looks like a good way to reduce cost per missile too.

 

Even more interesting ...

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/weapons/patriot.html

[D-Scythe]

the radar merely sweeps it more frequently (especially on the Patriot side) rather than maintaining an STT on it

 

I'm not familiar with the S300, but I do know that the MIM-104 certainly does NOT sweep the target more frequently. It has something to do with its phased array - the radar doesn't sweep the sky to flood it with RF energy per say, but sends out an array of smaller radar beams, to make it less obvious to ARMs. And once a target is detected, rather than 'sweeping' the target, the radar remembers the target's location and periodically sends one of these thin, needle-like beams of RF energy specifically to keep an accurate yet stealthy track on the target. This system is actually a special and different employment of TWS - I think it was dubbed TVM, track via missile or something.

 

There should be no launch warning, although the target's RWR should probably detect and display the Patriot's spike, just like the F-15's TWS. This would explain the HARM incident in Iraq.

 

The Patriot seems to have a range of 35-40nm listed,

 

The Patriot isn't lagging. The U.S. does not need a 300+nm range missile, and frankly, I agree. Even a Mach 5-6 beast like the S400 isn't going to cover the 300 nm to its target before it can either turn tail and flee, duck behind some mountains, or lose itself behind the curvature of the earth.

 

That's why the US Navy is investigating off-ship designation platforms for its long-range SM-2ER Block IV SAMs, because they are useless at long-range. Long-range targets (I think it was around 50nm) can actually hide beneath the horizon, at which point any SAM without an active radar seeker (none currently except ground-based AMRAAMs) would be useless.

[crazyleggs]

http://www.aeronautics.ru/img002/sa2-radar.jpg

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/v-75.htm

 

There are many variants of the Fan Song radar which provides FC to the Guideline missiles. In the first pic, this Fan Song provides tracking in elevation and azimuth with the two through antennas in a TWS mode. The two parabollic antennas on top provide illumination for the SA-2 and the parabolic antenna to the side provides missile guidance. Some variants do not have the illuminators and have different simultaneous tracking and engagement numbers.

 

As far as the Patriot is concerned, there should be no difference in search, track and launch in the signal. What truly happened between the F-16 CJ and that Patriot battery will only be known once the report becomes declassified. That might take a while...

[SwingKid]

It may be using multiple radars, it may be 'locking on' its attack radar just for homing at the end-game. No idea. To me it was a leways a good old SARH weapon which necessitated STT tracking and radar property switching.

 

Well it is probably not SARH since it doesn't seem to have a radome in the nose. The best data I have is that the system uses one radar to track the target and another to track the missile, with command guidance signals somehow transmitted on the latter. I'm fuzzy on the specifics but this is probably not SARH.

 

http://ocs60c.com/zookraven.htm

 

"The SA-2 was controlled by a Track-While-Scan radar with the NATO name “Fan Song.”"

 

AFAIK, the radar switching to high PRF doesn't mean anything (STT is typically high PRF IIRC?)

 

Sometimes - it can also be Med PRF or gated. It may be that a Hi PRF lock just triggers a "launch" tone anyway, and only Med PRF locks actually trigger the "lock" tone.

 

And also, AFAIK, datalinks are not effectively detectable by RWR for reasons ranging from highly-directional low-power systems to systems being completely out of the detectable bandwidth and the possible intermittence of the signal which can make it even more difficult to detect.

 

No, missile datalinks are carried on a main radar beam or its sidelobes - same power level, same beam direction, same frequency. The only distinction for the RWR is to tell the difference between "music" and "monotone".

 

Have a look here. Looks like TWS until terminal ...

 

This might be a silly question, but - why would an electronically steered phased array antenna want to emulate mechanically-steered TWS, when it can do everything at once? That is, insofar as this article doesn't specifically say "TWS until terminal" - what would be the purpose of waiting that long before illuminating on a Scud?

 

-SK

[SwingKid]

There should be no launch warning, although the target's RWR should probably detect and display the Patriot's spike, just like the F-15's TWS. This would explain the HARM incident in Iraq.

 

Sorry I missed that. If the F-16 only gets a search spike, how does this explain the decision to shoot the HARM?

 

Even a Mach 5-6 beast like the S400 isn't going to cover the 300 nm to its target before it can either turn tail and flee, duck behind some mountains, or lose itself behind the curvature of the earth.

 

If there really is no launch warning, how does the target know to do any of these things?

 

Interesting discussion..

 

-SK

[Trident]

It would be neat to see S-300P and V versions and S-200 in the game, as well as HUMRAAM and Chapparal and Patriot and PAC2. Some other versions of the S-300 as well ...

 

We already have the S-300PM/PMU. The S-200 is outdated, while its maximum range is impressive so is its minimum range: several dozen kilometres IIRC. It is (was? It may be phased out already) only really good against its intended target: large bombers.

 

EDIT: Seems I'm as confused over the SA-5 as NATO was, the original (failed) SA-5 appears to be the missile with the outrageous minimum range. Only FAS and Globalsecurity (both pathetic sources when it comes to Russian systems) give 60km as the minimum range for the S-200, Astronautix which is generally more accurate says 7km (still a lot, but substantially less). At the same time the cancelled Dal is credited with 150km minimum! I'm not sure what to believe.

 

I do second the request for bringing back the S-300V from Flanker2, if only because the missile looks way awesome ;) It would however be even cooler if the raison-d'être for the S-300V, SRBMs like ATACMS and SS-21B, could be included too.

 

 

 

The Patriot isn't lagging. The U.S. does not need a 300+nm range missile, and frankly, I agree. Even a Mach 5-6 beast like the S400 isn't going to cover the 300 nm to its target before it can either turn tail and flee, duck behind some mountains, or lose itself behind the curvature of the earth.

 

That's why the US Navy is investigating off-ship designation platforms for its long-range SM-2ER Block IV SAMs, because they are useless at long-range. Long-range targets (I think it was around 50nm) can actually hide beneath the horizon, at which point any SAM without an active radar seeker (none currently except ground-based AMRAAMs) would be useless.

 

No ballistic missile is going to turn tail or hide behind a mountain anytime soon :) I don't think the extended range is aimed primarily at cruise missiles and aircraft, more likely it is indended to extend the area that can be defended from ballistic missiles.

 

Additionally, when launched well within its maximum range the S-400 will be that much deadlier due to having more energy compared to shorter range missiles which would be close to the edge of their effective range. Think of it as an expanded no-escape zone, noone forces the site to launch immediately.

[crazyleggs]

Detection of Patriot or S-x00 FC radars on RWR means time to action. There's no indication of launch and you do not keep droning in.

 

I can't see how the HTS on the CJ would target a Patriot that had a "lock on" (impossible) and launch a HARM. Most likely human error but who knows.

[SwingKid]

Detection of Patriot or S-x00 FC radars on RWR means time to action. There's no indication of launch and you do not keep droning in.

 

It's not like a friendly Patriot can avoid painting you - even if it wanted to, it would have to paint you to know where not to paint. If the Patriot is defending your airbase, what will you do, never RTB? There are F-16 cockpit recordings on the web where you can hear the Patriot scan signals chittering away on the RWR - and the pilots completely ignoring them. Something more than a search signal must have got that pilot's attention for him to fire a HARM. "Pilot error" sounds fishy, considering this was just a short time after the Tornado shoot-down. I think that pilot was able to know very well what was coming next. None of the articles seemed to put any blame on the pilot.

 

-SK

[GGTharos]

Like I said, the equipment that comes with the HARM may have had something to do with it. Quite frankly I think he may have also heard comms about them painting an 'unindentified fighter' and fired on them when they wouldn't get it through their sculls that airspace was tightly controlled.

 

Frankly I'd be a little nervous around such a thing as well if it had just FF'ed someone.

 

On the S-200: I know it's outdated, but Ukraine has been using it. I'm sure there have been updates to it that allow it to shorten the min-range.

As for the S300PMU, shouldn't that have frightening range capability? Perhaps I need to give it the other missile truck or?...

 

SK: SA-2 is definitely SARH. I'm darned sure it's combined SACLOS+SARH or osmething along those lines, posisbly combined with a TWS so that the target isn't illuminated till the last moment.

 

At the same time, I'm still pretty sure you get no lock/launch warning from the S300 or Patriot...just search.

I have been trying to say but maybe I wasn't clear: it is my impression that these systems only scan the target and the TVM only picks up those intermittent reflections, steering the missile close to target. Perhaps one of those 'beams' just sticks right on the target for the final few seconds for increased accuracy, but AFAIK this seems to imply that there's too little power to trigger an RWR warning or something of the sort. Honestly I don't know the details, but I am VERY crious which is why i started the topic, hoping to find out.

[D-Scythe]

Additionally, when launched well within its maximum range the S-400 will be that much deadlier due to having more energy compared to shorter range missiles which would be close to the edge of their effective range. Think of it as an expanded no-escape zone, noone forces the site to launch immediately

 

And now we get into another discussion altogether. The problem I see with this logic is that a missile isn't most agile (and thus lethal) at its maximum speed - i.e. when its motor is burning. I'd imagine that a >100 nm missile like the S300PMU and S400 to have at least a two staged rocket - one to accelerate it the missile to its top speed and another to sustain that (boost-sustain). Thus, for a large fraction of its envelope, it flies at its maximum speed, and certainly, if launched at a target well within max range as you propose, the missile will still largely be travelling at max speed. And this actually reduces the missile's PK, because the missile airframe can only pull so many G's at any point in the flight envelope - i.e. speed changes, but the missile's ability to pull g's is constant. So certainly, the target is well within the "no-escape" zone, but no-escape simply means that it is impossible to outrun the missile, not out-turn or out-fly it.

 

You can try it out yourself in Lock On, even though it's missile dynamics aren't quite spot on. The basic concept of speed vs. max G's is there. I find it much easier to dodge S300 and PAC-2s when they are still going 4000+ kmph than if they are, say, 1600 kmph. It also gives credit to the barrel-rolling to dodge missiles technique, although that's another discussion altogether.

[Olgerd]

... There are F-16 cockpit recordings on the web where you can hear the Patriot scan signals chittering away on the RWR - and the pilots completely ignoring them...

 

Is it possible to obtain links? :wink:

[GGTharos]

I think if you do the math you'll find that you won't be out-turning squad when it's coming at you at 2km/s. Just when do you think you're going to -start- turning? ;)

 

THen you've got to dela with a huge warhead with a large blast radius even if it misses ...

[D-Scythe]

I think if you do the math you'll find that you won't be out-turning squad when it's coming at you at 2km/s. Just when do you think you're going to -start- turning? ;)

 

THen you've got to dela with a huge warhead with a large blast radius even if it misses ...

 

Try it yourself. The motors in both the Patriot and S300 in Lock On burn for around half a minute, so you've got plenty of time to start turning ;) Just put the missile on your beam and execute a max-g pull up when you deem the missile is 3-4 seconds from impact (since this is a test, just use labels to help you). You'd find out, as I have many times before ;) that if the motor is still burning, the missile will not even pass close enough to detonate its warhead. On the other hand, if its going at a slower yet more manueverable speed (~1300-2500 kmph), the missile WILL pass close enough to detonate.

[GGTharos]

I'm not talking about LOMAC. ;)

I will hwoever concede that without thrust vectoring a big missile with its motor still burning will have problems. On the other hand a Patriot won't have particularely big ones (simply doe to the range its designed to cover)

Anything with a 300nm range isn't mean to attack aircraft, but more likely warheads before they re-enter.

 

This is the case with the 400km RUssian AAM as well - it's an Anti-AWACS weapon, not an anti-fighter weapon.

 

The Patriot on the other IS deigned to smack aircraft around,a nd it does it well. Liek I said - do the math. You won't be out-turning a real PAC-2 no matter the speed.

[D-Scythe]

I'm not talking about LOMAC. ;)

I will hwoever concede that without thrust vectoring a big missile with its motor still burning will have problems. On the other hand a Patriot won't have particularely big ones (simply doe to the range its designed to cover)

Anything with a 300nm range isn't mean to attack aircraft, but more likely warheads before they re-enter.

 

This is the case with the 400km RUssian AAM as well - it's an Anti-AWACS weapon, not an anti-fighter weapon.

 

The Patriot on the other IS deigned to smack aircraft around,a nd it does it well. Liek I said - do the math. You won't be out-turning a real PAC-2 no matter the speed.

 

Ah, I wasn't talking about the PAC-2. Clearly I was talking about the new 300 nm S300/400 family of missiles that seemed to be so feared by some people. Sure, they may represent the most cutting edge of SAM tech, but IMO, it's a move in the wrong direction. I mean, what are the chances that U.S., China or North Korea will attack Russian with ballistic missiles?

 

IIRC, the PAC-3 has a significantly less range than the PAC-2, less than half from what I recall, and this can only represent a shift to the shorter-ranged engagements that I was talking about. I'd rather have a missile system like the PAC-3/SA-17 that can shoot down everything within a 20 nm radius around me rather than a 70-90 nm range PAC-2/S-300 that can only attack targets at altitude from their designed engagement ranges and cannot engage targets that have sneaked close up at low altitude where missile efficiency is not at its best.

 

This logic, of course, assumes that these long-range missiles do not have a secondary, off-board designation radar somewhere that can guide them to targets hiding behind terrain, curvature of the earth, etc., which is exactly what the U.S. Navy is doing. IMO, one of the most lethal SAMs in the world is the SM-2 Standard series of missiles - it should be right up there with the Patriot and the S300. Unfortunately in Lock On, they are way undermodelled, which is a shame. As much as I love Lock On, naval combat is a rather big disappointment in the sim, especially when it's considered that we have a carrier-borne fighter - the Su-33.

 

Before anyone brings up the "The Black Sea is not an ideal place for a naval engagement" argument, I can only say that this is a sim, and not everything has to be accurate and realistic, especially not a hypothetical war. Saying that a major hypothetical naval engagement in the Black Sea is unrealistic is a poor excuse for a badly simulated aspect of Lock On, IMO. It's like saying, "I don't have to do it, so I'm going to do it badly."

 

Got off on a tangent there :D

[GGTharos]

Well, it can intercept more than re-entering warheads. It's useful to intercept bomebrs at great ranges for example, or fast short range attack missiles (of the nuclear tipped fame)

 

The PAC3 is designed to intercept things up close, PAC2 GEM+/ERINT is again meant to stop high-speed missiles in large part.

 

It's an arms race, nothing more. Pissing contest.

 

As for the S400...it probably has a booster with the endgame stage stuck on top it, capabile of jetissoning the stuff it doesn't need at any moemnt it has to, or at least that's how I'd do it, but then I'm no missile engineer ;)

[SwingKid]

... There are F-16 cockpit recordings on the web where you can hear the Patriot scan signals chittering away on the RWR - and the pilots completely ignoring them...

 

Is it possible to obtain links? :wink:

 

http://www.flight-level.com/dogfight/benji.html

 

-SK

[BIOLOG]

Ok, if anyone actually bothered to read that article posted on the first page you would see that besides BIG 400km missiles S-400 would also have smaller 120km missiles, which are designed to intercept low targets and are very maneurable. Also S-400 missile has 3 stages IIRC and final one has trust vectoring. Don't know whether missile is smart (I'e. will it jettison all stages before doing final manevors onto the target), if it is It will be one hell of a missile... And btw... In Real life missile motor on Patriot and S-300 burns less then 10 seconds... As you will see from 1.1 :D

[GGTharos]

In that recording you dont know /what/ the scan tones are. A bunch of them are other friendly aircraft, and you just don't know if some of'em are patriots or no.