Question to Devs: Can you check this out?

[SwingKid]

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.

 

The Falcon 4 community has some convincing personalities. :wink:

 

http://forums.frugalsworld.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=79321&highlight=ejecting

 

"When I first heard it I thought for sure it was a Patriot battery in Saudia Arabia painting him. I went into TacRef and listened to the radar and it sounds the same except the Patriot is a long uninterrupted signal where as this one is segmented into short beeps."

 

"The segmented beeps means the Patriot radar is sweeping, and each time it "hits" you, the RWR goes off ("nails", or "spots"). If the radar locks on to you, you'll get an uninterrupted tone ("spiked" if from an aircraft, or "mud" if from ground based)."

 

??

 

-SK

[GGTharos]

Right, so one went to tacref to listen to it, another pretty much said what we'd all expect for a 'regular' SAM.

 

At the same time the guy's reported an SA-8 in the area.

 

This still doesn't answer the question and if you do in fact go by falcon, the SA-10 produces no lock or launch warning in F4.

 

Haven't tried to get a patriot to shoot at me yet there ;)

[SwingKid]

Right, so one went to tacref to listen to it, another pretty much said what we'd all expect for a 'regular' SAM.

 

No offense, I do like you and appreciate this discussion and all, and I'd like to be open-minded - but yeah, right now, even THAT amount of research, going into a video game and listening to some sounds, is more convincing to me than any theories I've read here, which would appear to depend on:

 

(a) three media reporters making up the word "lock on" themselves,

(b) F-16CJ pilots that either can't tell friendly Patriot radar from OPFOR equipment, or shoot HARMs at Patriots upon hearing so much as a search blip,

© the F4 devs having the ability to acquire a highly accurate F-16 RWR recording of something other than a Patriot, but lacking the ability to correctly label it, and

(d) RWRs being unable to pick up Patriot radio command signals, when we know they are able to pick up SA-2 radio command signals,

 

Yes, all of that put together is simultaneously possible... and I don't know the answer... I just don't find the basis of this theory more convincing than two guys with a video game. Nothing personal.

 

To be fair, if anyone could get "mirv" on the F4 forum to agree with any of this, you'd see me turn around pretty quickly... :)

 

-SK

[GGTharos]

Right...no offense taken - and you are pointing out exactly why I'd like someone who knows for sure to answer this one if they can :D

[SwingKid]

"If you want something done right..."

 

ED is a little overdue these days getting 1.1 out the door. If you would like to help with this issue, would you be willing to ask "mirv" about it on the F4 boards? He's the only person I can think of to go to. As an EWO he would be in a better position to know than (IMHO) even a pilot, what we can talk about and what not. Also seems like a nice guy.

 

I'd do so myself except (a) already have other assignments and (b) this is your baby, you should be communicating in person, and providing your research to us. Asking flight sim developers to research user questions is like, taking water from desert people... :D

 

Cheers,

 

-SK

[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:

 

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

 

-SK

 

Thanks. I found the link about 3 weeks ago.

[crazyleggs]

I didn't make myself clear in my last post. You obviously won't care if your friendly Patriot is searching around you when you're flying. That is unless you do not have a functionning or miscoded mode IV IFF. That mode IV is a go-nogo item. It is coded and checked on the ground prior to each mission by ground personnel and again in flight when checking in with your ground controller or AWACS. There should be no aircraft operating in theatre without proper IFF. (Spec Ops might not have IFF turned on but will be on the Air Tasking Order)

 

a) three media reporters making up the word "lock on" themselves.

One person utters "lock on" and the media pounces on it. The media is not known for their military events reporting accuracy.

 

b) F-16CJ pilots that either can't tell friendly Patriot radar from OPFOR equipment, or shoot HARMs at Patriots upon hearing so much as a search blip

I'm really curious what happened here. A Patriot is a Patriot, a no brainer for the RWR and HTS. It was either done intentionally or he had a finger problem. Might be something totally different too.

 

© the F4 devs having the ability to acquire a highly accurate F-16 RWR recording of something other than a Patriot, but lacking the ability to correctly label it

It's interesting how the devs get these RWR indications when they are classified secret. The indications are not always correct in sims and do not reflect real world RWRs as their software/databases are always updated.

 

(d) RWRs being unable to pick up Patriot radio command signals, when we know they are able to pick up SA-2 radio command signals

Missile guidance signals of the SA-2 and Patriot are sent totally differently.

 

Like I said earlier, we can come up with our own theories but we will never know the actual facts till the report is released.

 

This is a great discussion though!

 

BTW, my points are made with utmost respect, no flaming intended. This is a very knowledgeable community with great ideas and insight.

 

Thanks.

[GGTharos]

Well, i jsut don't know whom to ask is all. But thanks for the name, I'll go and ask right now :D

[GGTharos]

http://forums.frugalsworld.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=81800

 

Looks like we're both right, and it depends on the RWR - the 67 I think is newer than what we have in LOMAC and since the SPO-15 AFAIK isn't really any better, there should be no launch warning and no lock tone. This frankly wouldmake some missions far more manageable too since these systems like to lock on WAY beyond thier launch range.

 

Devs, how would you handle this?

[D-Scythe]

Looks like we're both right, and it depends on the RWR - the 67 I think is newer than what we have in LOMAC and since the SPO-15 AFAIK isn't really any better, there should be no launch warning and no lock tone. This frankly wouldmake some missions far more manageable too since these systems like to lock on WAY beyond thier launch range.

 

 

Firstly, the RWR in the F-16 is the ALR-69, not the -67 (which is found in U.S. Navy fighters).

 

Secondly, I think we (or at least we should) have the ALR-56C in the Eagle, if the F-15 modelled is indeed the MSIP config. Otherwise, earlier, not-upgraded F-15s have the ALR-56A. The ALR-56C IIRC is newer than the ALR-69 found in early F-16s, as it was designed for use in both the F-15C MSIP and F-15E, both of which are mid-late 80's platforms. Later F-16Cs, such as the Block 40/42 or newer, had their ALR-69s replaced by the updated version of the F-15's RWR, the -56M.

 

So in conclusion, no, the ALR-69 may not be newer than the -56C in Lock On's MSIP F-15, although it should be newer than the ALR-56A in the A-10. Thus, we once again tread over the issue of exactly what type of F-15 is modelled in Lock On, as the RWR between the F-15/A-10 is exactly the same yet the F-15C is supposed to be MSIP with its MPCD, AMRAAM and APG-70 capabilities.

[GGTharos]

Well, as the man in the know said ... the RP5 implementation is a good one. I hope the devs go with removing lock/launch warnings from those systems :) Only search warning.

[SwingKid]

Thanks for checking this out!

 

For comparison, here is the text I was thinking of, regarding the SA-2 for comparison:

 

"Before describing the moves to counter the new threat, we need to look at the SA-2's "kill chain". Each link had to be intact if a missile battery was to engage successfully. The process began when a surveillance radar detected the aircraft and determined its range, bearing, approximate altitude and approximate flight path. Usually a Spoon Rest radar performed that task. The information was passed to the Fan Song narrow-beam missile control radar, to point it in the right part of the sky to find the aircraft. Once the Fan Song had picked up the aircraft, its operators tracked the machine to determine its precise position and flight path. During the tracking process the missile control computer calculated the impact point ahead of the plane, where the missile needed to go to achieve a kill. Provided the desired impact point lay within range, a pair of Guideline missiles would then be launched.

The Guideline missile had no means of homing on an aircraft. It was command guided, in much the same way as a radio-controlled model airplane is steered in flight. Each missile carried a radar beacon so it could be tracked in flight. Knowing the position of the aircraft and each missile, the control computer generated commands to steer the latter on to the predicted impact point. If the target aircraft turned to evade, the computer recalculated the impact point and transmitted revised guidance signals to correct the missiles' flight paths.

...On learning details of the signals transmitted on the SA-2 command guidance channel, Applied Technology designed a further warning receiver to pick up those signals. If the guidance channel was active, that meant that enemy missiles were probably on their way and crews would get vital additional seconds in which to initiate countermeasures... The new receiver carried the Applied Technology designation WR-300... Earlier in the year Applied Technology's WR-300 receiver, which picked up the missile guidance signals and was fitted in Wild Weasel planes, had been ordered into production as the APR-26. Both it and the APR-25 radar warning receiver were now coming off the production line in useful numbers, and when batches were ready they were flown to the F-105 bases in Thailand."

 

--Dr. Alfred Price, "War in the Fourth Dimension," © The Association of Old Crows, 2001

 

So even in the case of the SA-2, there were RWRs that could detect the missile launch, and other RWRs that couldn't, based on whether or not the RWR had the ability to detect the command guidance signals.

 

I have some other thoughts on this, but for the moment I'm more interested in the issue of playability that you raised. The S-300 is a widely fielded Russian system. mirv once wrote "if there are S-300s, we don't fly. Period." or words to that effect. Not flying doesn't sound like much of a game. Nor is it fun to be hit by AI-fired missiles with no warning whatsoever. Such game would consist of pretty much taking off, hearing a few long-range search buzzes from just about anywhere you go on the map, dangerous or not, and then exploding mid-air.

 

If the SAMs are currently giving lock tones too far away, I can see how that could also be irritating though. Do you think it would be a sufficient compromise to give the player just a "launch" tone, never a "lock" tone? i.e. the launch tone indicating that signals are being received from the command guidance transmissions, as described above?

 

I'm also curious why the F-15 would be getting a lock tone from a Patriot anyway. If it's the S-300 we're really talking about - that system even actually has physically separate "search" and "track" radar vehicles that operate on different wavelengths. I have no idea why NATO RWRs would choose to identify the S-300 tracking radar as a search platform, but that seems to be what mirv is saying...

 

???

 

-SK

[GGTharos]

I never said the F-15 should pick up the patriot lock ... as far as playability goes: People should be able to study their map and know where they're going. I don't think this is too terrible since we don't litter maps with S-300's and Patriots anyway. If they wonder too close, they should've looked at the map, right?

 

Now, I can agree to your compromise IF everyone in the general direction of the launch also gets the launch warning. If it's jsut the uplink, then people shouldn't know who's being fired on.

 

I'll also point out that the S-300 and Patriot uplinks are likely far different and much more directional than those of ancestor systems, more frequency agile and thus far less likely to be intercepted - as I already mentioned, may already be working outside of usual RWR detection frequencies to begin with or have hard to peg freq changing patterns etcetc. Or the RWRs of the time (until more upgraded models) may simply not be able to physically pick up the link due to it looking too much like a WIFI or something ;D

[SwingKid]

I never said the F-15 should pick up the patriot lock ... as far as playability goes: People should be able to study their map and know where they're going. I don't think this is too terrible since we don't litter maps with S-300's and Patriots anyway. If they wonder too close, they should've looked at the map, right?

 

If it's realism you're after, Russian or Ukrainian territory should be festooned with S-300. They have more of those than almost every other SAM system put together, excluding MANPADS - you can see them in real life just driving around in a taxi! But knowing where they are on a map before you take off is not realistic - one of their tactics is to relocate by the time you get in the air, staying hidden and radio silent to ambush you when detected by EWR.

 

Neverthless I agree - the only way my missions work is to set up a clearly-bounded "area of operations" that I imagine has been "sanitized" of S-300 by friendly SEAD assets immediately prior to the mission, so as to be safe enough for fighters and CAS aircraft. Otherwise every mission becomes a SEAD mission, for which we don't have any flyable SEAD jets. But for this to work I would really like to have some warning in-flight that I have accidentally "crossed the border" into the danger zone - search signals are not enough because they are so long-ranged as to cover the entire "safe area", possibly even my own airbase, even if they are not under threat.

 

Now, I can agree to your compromise IF everyone in the general direction of the launch also gets the launch warning. If it's jsut the uplink, then people shouldn't know who's being fired on.

 

I like this idea too, despite that mirv appears to prefer no warning. What do others think?

 

Also - if Falcon 4 is not giving S-300 lock or launch warnings how does Falcon 4 approach this playability problem? Just by making S-300 very "rare" on the battlefield? I don't have much experience with it.

 

-SK

[GGTharos]

SK, my other suggestion is ... the RWR gives you an indication of how close you are to this system. With no lock or launch warning you should still eb able to tell when you're too close if you jsut pay attention to where the radar symbol is on your RWR (or the power line for it in the SPO)

 

I use this to take HoJ shots at enemies as is and it works.

[SwingKid]

SK, my other suggestion is ... the RWR gives you an indication of how close you are to this system. With no lock or launch warning you should still eb able to tell when you're too close if you jsut pay attention to where the radar symbol is on your RWR (or the power line for it in the SPO)

 

I may have to do more research on this too, but we were told that this is not a realistic feature of western RWRs and should be "fixed" in v1.1. That is - Western RWRs should unambiguously only display the threat in either the outer ring (for "search mode") or the inner ring (for "lock mode"), with no relative signal strength indication.

 

-SK

[GGTharos]

I heard that a 'system in its lethal range' is displayed in the inner ring, AFAIK.

Meaning that a system will be displayed outside the ring and you'll be safe from it, however if it's inside the ring you may well be in trouble ...

 

BTW, fly a Sue against a patriot from 200km away - jsut fly tawards it and look at the map to see when you get lock tone ... annoying!

 

OTOH I've also heard that RWR's have a sensitivity which coudld prevent them from picking up an enemy radar at long ranges (over 20-30nm) for example.

[D-Scythe]

Well, it's a simulation and not a game, right? :D I doubt that many people would litter the map with more than three S300s anyway, and once we get used to expecting a missile, they are not that hard to dodge ;)

[crazyleggs]

Without getting into specifics, some Western RWRs show the threat on the inner ring and others on the outer. The advantages of displaying a threat on the outer is that it gives you better angle of arrival definition.

 

Also, it is difficult for RWRs to display range as most radars have different power settings. That's why most fighter RWRs show Search, Threat & Launch on rings vice relative range. Now on the dedicated ELINT gatherers that's a different story.

 

As for the S-300+ series, when you get an acq and/or tracking radar associated with it you make sure you avoid that area. Plain and simple. It's way too dangerous to confront.

 

For gameplay, although not realistic I agree that a missile launch tone would make things easier. Just as long as the map isn't littered by S-300s!

[SwingKid]

Without getting into specifics, some Western RWRs show the threat on the inner ring and others on the outer. The advantages of displaying a threat on the outer is that it gives you better angle of arrival definition.

 

This is very interesting information... May I inquire as to the source? In fact I was just researching this myself when you answered a question before I had a chance to ask.. :shock:

 

Also, it is difficult for RWRs to display range as most radars have different power settings. That's why most fighter RWRs show Search, Threat & Launch on rings vice relative range.

 

You mean, there are three discrete radial positions where a threat can be displayed, instead of creeping in or out as the fighter approaches in range? I had thought there were only two, and that missile launch would be indicated by a flashing symbol.

 

For comparison:

 

 

What confuses me is that the symbols appear to be arranged radially according to signal strength, but the difference between search, track and launch is not determined by signal strength - rather, by pulse repetition or the frequency of a command guidance channel becoming active.

 

Perhaps HARM-shooters like F/A-18 and F-16C have RWR similar to ELINT aircraft?

 

Thanks for your comments,

 

-SK

[crazyleggs]

First thing to keep in mind is that there are many different Western RWRs that work in different ways. Some display lethality by comparing signal strength (just like that AN/APR-36 in your last post) and some by the mode the radar is in (like the ALR-67).

 

When the APR-36 was in use it was generally correct to assume that the higher the signal strength, the more danger you were in. That is just not the case anymore.

 

In the ALR-67's case, it compares radar modes with it's library and then places the radar/threat on the appropriate ring. For example, when you come up on an SA-8 and if he's dumb enough to be radiating constantly in search, you will see an 8 pop up in the inner non lethal ring in the approximate azimuth. As he steps through his kill chain, you will see his symbol make its way outwards to the critical ring.

 

You are right, most RWRs will show a flashing symbol when a shot is taken and only use two rings. But that is not always the case.

 

The difference between fighters and ELINT aircraft is the the later has time to accurately triangulate emitter's positions. Fighters usually don't. That said, newer fighter RWRs most likely have the capability (computing power and sensitivity) to accurately measure azimuth and range.

 

As I said, there are many Western RWRs all with their own way of working. Although LOMAC may not be totally accurate, I think it does a great job with the Western RWRs anyways.

 

Thanks.

[britgliderpilot]

The difference between fighters and ELINT aircraft is the the later has time to accurately triangulate emitter's positions. Fighters usually don't. That said, newer fighter RWRs most likely have the capability (computing power and sensitivity) to accurately measure azimuth and range.

 

I did quite a bit of research on this for a presentation at Uni - with modern tech it's entirely possible to do that in real time. I understand the Eurofighter and the Merlin both have the capability to do it.

 

 

The problem is that while you can calculate all of this, you have to find a convenient way of displaying it to the pilot. You can calculate as much information on the threat as you like in real-time, but only some of it can be taken in by the pilot - so it's generally better to only present limited data directly.

 

 

The other funky thing I discovered during the research is that the newer integrated systems (Merlin as of now, Eurofighter as of . . . erm . . soon) will have the ability to take countermeasure action on their own, with no pilot action. Very cool.

[BIOLOG]

IIRC this was installed on one of Su-35 prototypes... Automatic anti-missile manevours and conermeasure deployment

[crazyleggs]

Countries that can afford to purchase "ECM Suites" for their aircraft have systems that tie in the RWR with the SPJ and countermeasure dispensers (chaff and/or flares and/or decoys). This suite will counter the threat by selecting the appropriate mode for the SPJ and the correct amount of countermeasures to deploy. It's fully automatic and fully expensive too.

 

As far as the SU-35 proto, that's pretty cool but I'm sure the pilot will turn that feature off as soon as a false alarm triggers it and his head get's bashed in the canopy. RWRs aren't perfect!

 

As far as displaying info goes, it can be overwhelming in a saturated EW environment. That's why display filters are used in RWRs (LOMAC does that in a simple way, Shift-R). The future displays will integrate RWR info with own radar hits to give an overall picture. I'm pretty sure that's what the almighty F/A-22 Raptor does.

 

Thanks.