reported Can easily detect and lock missiles with radar (also shoot them down)

[GGTharos]

Range and doppler gates would prevent the target switch.

[oldcrusty]

1 hour ago, GGTharos said:

Range and doppler gates would prevent the target switch.

 

I know one thing... an engineering team that would program the radar (in RW), especially TWS to display A/A missiles like any other airborne contact and include them into 'pinky toggle' sequence, would have to answer to someone...  Especially your own missiles.

[GGTharos]

How would the radar distinguish between an aircraft and a missile?  

[oldcrusty]

2 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

How would the radar distinguish between an aircraft and a missile?  

 

That's above my pay grade, I think it's a good start with what you said.

[GGTharos]

25 minutes ago, Gripes323 said:

That's above my pay grade, I think it's a good start with what you said.

 

Ok, I'll put this another way: A missile is an aircraft.  It's only distinguishing characteristic is that its RCS is smaller than the average fighter/bomber, and it goes faster.   There's literally nothing else that the radar can differentiate, and it's a poor choice of parameters to use to exclude something from the target cycle.

[Harker]

GGTharos is right, without Doppler and range gates, it's impossible for a radar to distinguish between a cold missile that's 5 NM away from you or a hot bandit that's 20 NM from you.

If the gates were implemented, if the radar was tracking a target with Vc=900 NM/s at 20 NM away, in STT, it wouldn't switch to an outgoing target with Vc=-900 NM/s at 5 NM away, because the Doppler shift is completely different and the range is completely different. So that's a non-issue IRL.

As for stepping through targets with Undesignate, some of the criteria the MC uses to rank threats are ROE, closing velocity and hot aspect, so it'd rank incoming verified bandits higher than your own missile. If that's not the case, then something is wrong with the ranking in DCS.

There's also the possibility that the radar could correlate the outgoing missile trackfile with its separate tracking of the missile for the radar-missile datalink and exclude it from being selected or even presented in the first place, but I have no info about that.

[oldcrusty]

I think it's also worth mentioning that the radar is not working alone tackling all these problems.  RWR, ECM, MC and DL (big one for friendly missiles)

Same as with power distribution between radar emitter and SP jammer... I would think the real system is probably more 'user friendly'.

[GGTharos]

21 minutes ago, Gripes323 said:

I think it's also worth mentioning that the radar is not working alone tackling all these problems.  RWR, ECM, MC and DL (big one for friendly missiles)

Same as with power distribution between radar emitter and SP jammer... I would think the real system is probably more 'user friendly'.

 

No, it's working alone.

[oldcrusty]

3 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

 

No, it's working alone.

 

Well, in that case... I'm revising my tactical manuals immediately, lol.

edit:  I mean my own manuals

Edited June 22, 2021 by Gripes323

[GGTharos]

There are some things that you will get on radar like the nails from the RWR in the F-18, but AFAIK they're not correlated to a target beyond the NCTR determination.  IFF will be correlated etc, but most of that won't be a factor for shooting at things, or for putting them in the target queue (obviously user's choice here).   The radar's purpose is to surveil and attack, anything that gets in the way of doing this ... is in the way.

[Harker]

The radar doesn't work in a vacuum though. The target ranking and undesignate-to-designate logic are controlled by the MC, based on trackfile properties and the radar does not build the trackfiles itself, the MC does, through the MSI system. If you don't make use of ranks and do everything manually with the TDC, you can somewhat bypass the system, but if you want to use ranks and target stepping, you work with tracks and other things enter the equation.

 

This does not negate what was said though, the radar system and the MC will employ range and Doppler gates to isolate the intended track. That becomes even more important for STT and also true for ACM modes, where MSI processing stops.

[Mongoose83]

Confirmed on my end.

Un-designate started a track on an outbound missile; happened more than once.

Not posting track file since it's a known issue; please provide ETA on solution.

[Swson]

Every of you forget one more parameter important to the radar: the sensitivity of its receiver and the required S/N ratio to detect ..... is not infinite, better to look at radar equation, at MIT books about theory or skolnik or barton books and swerling curves...also active missile approach warning based on Doppler principle does exist but not at the same frequency of the AI radar which is generally X band. RCS also is linked to frequency and small AA missiles are not detected by Air Intercept radars. Cruise missiles are subsonic and much bigger than AA and can eventually been shot.

SAMs have not the same power nor frequency and can detect AGM88 or SLAM that are quite big. Additionnaly a mach 3 or more vehicle stuff will be outside the Doppler bank filters. It is a also inside internal real time operational program of the radar. Otherwise, you can imagine the mess on the display for pilots  in a BVR combat with 4 against 4 ships  shooting each 3 or 4 missiles in TWS !!!!Plus the opponents' missiles ??? and with no IFF ??? unbelievable period.

[oldcrusty]

34 minutes ago, Swson said:

Every of you forget one more parameter important to the radar: the sensitivity of its receiver and the required S/N ratio to detect ..... is not infinite, better to look at radar equation, at MIT books about theory or skolnik or barton books and swerling curves...also active missile approach warning based on Doppler principle does exist but not at the same frequency of the AI radar which is generally X band. RCS also is linked to frequency and small AA missiles are not detected by Air Intercept radars. Cruise missiles are subsonic and much bigger than AA and can eventually been shot.

SAMs have not the same power nor frequency and can detect AGM88 or SLAM that are quite big. Additionnaly a mach 3 or more vehicle stuff will be outside the Doppler bank filters. It is a also inside internal real time operational program of the radar. Otherwise, you can imagine the mess on the display for pilots  in a BVR combat with 4 against 4 ships  shooting each 3 or 4 missiles in TWS !!!!Plus the opponents' missiles ??? and with no IFF ??? unbelievable period.

 

I like the sound of that.  We can go somewhere with this approach.

 

btw,  I went through 4v6 ordeal yesterday in SP...  I had a strong urge just to turn around and run, lol.

[GGTharos]

3 hours ago, Swson said:

Every of you forget

 

No.  The radar equation encapsulates SNR.

 

3 hours ago, Swson said:

RCS also is linked to frequency and small AA missiles are not detected by Air Intercept radars.

 

I have bad news for you ... yes they are.  They are very, very detectable.

 

3 hours ago, Swson said:

Cruise missiles are subsonic and much bigger than AA and can eventually been shot.

 

The RCS on cruise missiles is similar to the small AA missiles for a number of reasons.

 

3 hours ago, Swson said:

Additionnaly a mach 3 or more vehicle stuff will be outside the Doppler bank filters.

 

Sure, that I can buy to some extent but with a *.   There aircraft are designed to attack other aircraft which will be coming in at mach 3, so a missile really has to get moving to drop outside of the filter banks.   That's exclusively the purview of high altitude fast shots, and only at times where the missile may maintain a high speed - meaning a few seconds after lunch and from there on, it's slowing down.

 

3 hours ago, Swson said:

It is a also inside internal real time operational program of the radar.

 

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

 

3 hours ago, Swson said:

Otherwise, you can imagine the mess on the display for pilots  in a BVR combat with 4 against 4 ships  shooting each 3 or 4 missiles in TWS !!!!Plus the opponents' missiles ??? and with no IFF ??? unbelievable period.

 

I don't see the problem, ECM and chaff are there to cause problems as is.  What's a couple more contacts?

[oldcrusty]

1 hour ago, GGTharos said:

 

I don't see the problem, ECM and chaff are there to cause problems as is.  What's a couple more contacts?

 

It could be more then couple. The current radar will make you step through your own missiles first... of course. 

In my last fight I had L&S and DT2 designated. Before I was able to fire, just before R_ne, those 2 bandits split in vertical. By the time I revised the 'plan'...  I only had time for step and fire, rinse and repeat. Yes, I was able to recognize the lock on my own missile, then the bandit's missile, then... weeds and run!

 

The SMEs know better...

[GGTharos]

There's a difference between the radar being able to do something physically and the step function prioritizing correctly. 

[wilbur81]

Hey, Team.

 

Any progress on the missiles-easily-track-on-the-APG73 bug? I'll say that this problem is really quite bad and pronounced and it is, I think, leading to the reporting of other radar bugs that many of us do not realize are just symptomatic of this one bug here in the thread. It REALLY affects the use of TWS and how it prioritizes tracks: i.e., you're trying to precisely intercept a group of 3 or more aircraft, but once they (and I) start putting the missiles in the air, my radar picture absolutely goes bonkers as it tries to say, "oh, hey... here's a priority target right in front of you now...or a new jet just flew out from under your L&S jet at mach 3... I'll start tracking that one instead."

[SNAFU]

I made three BVR fights in an F14 Vs F16 AI Ace. At 20kft and Show the first AIM54 at 35nm and the second at 20nm and did a short skate. 2 of the 3 engagements the Vipers AIM120C the AI shot at around 30nm intercepted my first AIM54 and went straight on for me. I was also able to lock the Vipers AIM120C at 20nm and shoot it down with a AIM54.

 

I cannot imagine this is intended, so I looked for a bug report here. This was all I found, so I report it here.

[Rissala]

On 6/29/2021 at 11:43 PM, GGTharos said:

 

No.  The radar equation encapsulates SNR.

 

 

I have bad news for you ... yes they are.  They are very, very detectable.

 

 

The RCS on cruise missiles is similar to the small AA missiles for a number of reasons.

 

 

Sure, that I can buy to some extent but with a *.   There aircraft are designed to attack other aircraft which will be coming in at mach 3, so a missile really has to get moving to drop outside of the filter banks.   That's exclusively the purview of high altitude fast shots, and only at times where the missile may maintain a high speed - meaning a few seconds after lunch and from there on, it's slowing down.

 

 

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

 

 

I don't see the problem, ECM and chaff are there to cause problems as is.  What's a couple more contacts?

You cannot just counter his arument by saying: "I have bad news for you ... yes they are.  They are very, very detectable." You look stupid saying that.

He is right here. RCS is very much linked to the frequency of the emitting radar and countering that with "I'm right, you're wrong" mentality makes you seem like a fool.
X-band radars are not accurate enough to create a track from the miniscule area painted by a missile coming at them. The wavelength of an X-band radar used on all fighters is about 1/3rd of the diameter of an AMRAAM, while the very same wavelength is about 1/300th of an F-16... A 100 times more than the missile. You need radars in the 100 GHz range to reliably detect missiles, which do not exist on aircraft.

In other words, the missile is just way too small physically for an X-band radar, not only in respect to the RCS value which is also very small. The reflections come from a point source unlike from a stealth aircraft where they come from the full length of the aircraft which makes this argument kinda dumb. It is the same thing as trying to spot and track a fighter with a C-band weather radar. Good luck trying.

This linked with all of the great points from other users such as noise reduction logically proves that this is an impossibility irl and should be so in the sim.

This is also called a bug.

Do you have any evidence that states otherwise? (irl reports, capabilities stated etc?)
 

[GGTharos]

https://www.scielo.br/j/jatm/a/tPfhf4dMWzC6Bj7rzGsJvMy/?format=pdf&lang=en

[nighthawk2174]

So something i've been wondering about, especially in TWS, is it possible that while the missile is still fast that the correlation circuits used to build and update tracks would not be able to correlate the missiles as the same target?  As the second observation of the same target would be far enough away from the first to just be classified as a possible new target?  I've not heard of A/A missiles being detected as being something that is a common issue for radars.  It makes more sense for an AESA due to its absurd scan rate and much better detection capabilities but for an older mech scan i'm not so sure.

Edited August 7, 2021 by nighthawk2174

[GGTharos]

It might also have accelerated to a speed where it's falling out of the radar's doppler gates completely.  And yep, it could be rejected as a spurious contact.

[Harker]

I also thought about that. You might get a brick here and there, but more likely than not, a trackfile will not be generated and maintained. That's from conversations I've had with IRL fighter pilots who operate mech radars regularly.

There is also the problem with the Hornet in DCS generating a trackfile from a single hit, whereas it should normally need at least two.

[GGTharos]

This is a generic DCS radar problem though.